• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2015-2016 NHL Thread

The latest word is that Desert Knights might be what they go with: http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nhl-vegas/bill-foley-registers-new-domains-names-team-could-be-called-las-vegas-desert

I liked the Knights/Black Knights idea, but if they can't get one of those two I'm not sure another modifier would make sense.
 
Blake Wheeler is the new captain of the Jets, for those of you interested in that sort of thing.
 
He looked like he was in for a long productive career, that one season he played with Mogs.

 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
He looked like he was in for a long productive career, that one season he played with Mogs.
Click to expand...

I think it's a tale of two careers with Gomez.  He was a really big part of two cup teams and was fairly consistent producer up until his second season in New York.  The deal he signed with New York appears to have been too much for him to handle. Maybe there was some other factor.  Whatever it was, his career came off the rails hard at that point.  Like "18 wheeler over a cliff" hard.

They were talking about it on the radio last night.  Which career would you rather have?  Scott Gomez or Ken Daneyko.  They were mainly asking because Gomez made more money, but became somewhat of a punchline near the end of his career and tha ts what people are primarily going to remember him for whereas Daneyko had a pretty steady career.
 
I take the coin every day.  You can't live off steady forever!!!
Significantly Insignificant said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
He looked like he was in for a long productive career, that one season he played with Mogs.
Click to expand...

I think it's a tale of two careers with Gomez.  He was a really big part of two cup teams and was fairly consistent producer up until his second season in New York.  The deal he signed with New York appears to have been too much for him to handle. Maybe there was some other factor.  Whatever it was, his career came off the rails hard at that point.  Like "18 wheeler over a cliff" hard.

They were talking about it on the radio last night.  Which career would you rather have?  Scott Gomez or Ken Daneyko.  They were mainly asking because Gomez made more money, but became somewhat of a punchline near the end of his career and tha ts what people are primarily going to remember him for whereas Daneyko had a pretty steady career.
Click to expand...
 
Significantly Insignificant said:
I think it's a tale of two careers with Gomez.  He was a really big part of two cup teams and was fairly consistent producer up until his second season in New York.  The deal he signed with New York appears to have been too much for him to handle. Maybe there was some other factor.  Whatever it was, his career came off the rails hard at that point.  Like "18 wheeler over a cliff" hard.

They were talking about it on the radio last night.  Which career would you rather have?  Scott Gomez or Ken Daneyko.  They were mainly asking because Gomez made more money, but became somewhat of a punchline near the end of his career and tha ts what people are primarily going to remember him for whereas Daneyko had a pretty steady career.
Click to expand...

Gomez' first year in Montreal was pretty solid(59 points and then 14 points in 19 playoff games) but, yeah, then he dropped off. That said, I don't know if I agree that Gomez will primarily be remembered for the drop-off. It might seem that way now but that's probably a recency bias. 10-15 years from now if I remember Gomez I'll probably be more inclined to think of his New Jersey days.

And, I mean, without wanting to get too deep into it and maybe this is not the point of the question but one of the first things that comes to mind with Daneyko is his off-ice struggles. So I'd take Gomez' career.
 
Thanks, Nik. Good read indeed.

In doing the research for this piece, there were a lot of off-the-record interviews. There are always reasons for trades we don?t see, but one of the things I wanted to avoid were anonymous put-downs. The sources were good about that, while still providing clarity.

In Hall?s case, a couple of Oilers believe the organization wanted to make it easier for McDavid?s influence to grow in the room. ?Taylor?s a dominant personality,? one said. ?That?s not a criticism. That?s who he is.?

?There is no perfect player or person. But who are you going to take your chances with?? Shero replied. ?Younger, more aggressive and faster?that?s how we want to be.?
Click to expand...

Similar to what the Leafs did with Stanley Cup winner, Phil Kessel.
 
The article also really hits home how valuable cap space is. Edmonton couldn't get anything extra out of New Jersey because of the long-term $1.8mil cap difference between Hall and Larsson. And both Edmonton and Montreal were concerned about pairing Subban's $9mil cap hit with the potential $10mil-ish cap hits their franchise players (McDavid/Price) are due to receive in a couple of years. That's despite the fact that Subban at $9mil seems pretty fair.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
The article also really hits home how valuable cap space is. Edmonton couldn't get anything extra out of New Jersey because of the long-term $1.8mil cap difference between Hall and Larsson. 
Click to expand...

Maybe although I think it's more likely that plays into the idea that Edmonton were complete dopes on this deal(or, if we want to be charitable, that they had no better options).

If Shero had refused to add anything to the deal and Chiarelli had said "Well, we can't make the deal then. The reason Hall costs more than Larsson is Hall is better than Larsson so we're going to explore alternatives" would Shero have really let the chance to acquire Taylor Hall go?

Seems to me like Chiarelli just blinked first and made a lousy deal.
 
It wasn't reported as hard fact but Jeff Marek, on his podcast yesterday, said that the talk is that Stamkos and his people wanted 14 per to come to Toronto.
 
Nik the Trik said:
It wasn't reported as hard fact but Jeff Marek, on his podcast yesterday, said that the talk is that Stamkos and his people wanted 14 per to come to Toronto.
Click to expand...

8)
 
Nik the Trik said:
It wasn't reported as hard fact but Jeff Marek, on his podcast yesterday, said that the talk is that Stamkos and his people wanted 14 per to come to Toronto.
Click to expand...

If that number is anywhere near true, combined with what he did eventually sign for, it makes a pretty strong case for Stamkos never really wanting to leave Tampa Bay/not being all that excited about the possibility of signing in Toronto - and certainly not willing to take any discount to do so. It wouldn't shock me if we found out he asked for similar dollars from other teams.

It also means that those of us who were concerned about the cap implications of signing him may have been underestimating the pain it could have caused.
 
bustaheims said:
If that number is anywhere near true, combined with what he did eventually sign for, it makes a pretty strong case for Stamkos never really wanting to leave Tampa Bay/not being all that excited about the possibility of signing in Toronto - and certainly not willing to take any discount to do so. It wouldn't shock me if we found out he asked for similar dollars from other teams.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kind of take that to mean that Stamkos really didn't want to leave but would if the offer was so big that it was essentially impossible to turn down. When you start talking about a 30-35 million dollar difference...

Anyways, all's well that ends well.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
I wonder if he took the take-home pay after taxes a little more seriously than I thought he would.
Click to expand...

5a8a0c12a4479f95b5e26ab6bf6a03b0c842af356b5506ffc59138be4872361b.jpg
 
pmrules said:
To be fair though...if this is true, even some of the Pro-Stamkos crowd would have balked at that number.
Click to expand...

I don't think this number in and of itself proves pro or anti signing Stamkos people right or wrong, I just think it's interesting in as much as everyone underestimated what it would cost regardless of what side of the argument they were on.

I do think, like I said to busta, that it sort of proves wrong anyone who thought they knew what Stamkos was thinking or how interested he really was in leaving Tampa but that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top