Stanley Cup Final Chicago (1) vs Boston (5)

[LittleHockeyFan]

2013 STANLEY CUP FINAL
                            TIME (ET)            TV:                           
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013   8 P.M. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC, RDS
SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 2013   8 P.M. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBCSN, CBC
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2013   8 P.M. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBCSN, CBC,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013   8 P.M. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBC, CBC, RDS
*SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2013   8 P.M. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC, RDS
*MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013   8 P.M. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBC, CBC, RDS
*WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013 8 P.M. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC


:-( I'm working during Game 3. I also hate all these late starts. :-(

 

[drummond]

Hopefully Chicago wins this

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

Boston in 6.

 

[Derk]

I'm going to root for Chicago.

Nice to see an original six matchup. First time since 78-79 when the Habs beat the Rangers.

Edit: There were 17 teams in the league at the time.

 

[KoHo]

As much as it pains me after round one I want to see Boston win the cup. I like their style of play and really want Jagr to win his first cup in 21 years.

 

[lamajama]

As much as it pains me after round one I want to see Boston win the cup. I like their style of play and really want Jagr to win his first cup in 21 years.

Well the Leafs have had a real hand in making Boston the team they are.

It's like a Toronto-South team....

 

[Spider]

Is it true this is the first time Boston and Chicago have met in the Finals, even though they were in the Original 6?

 

[bustaheims]

Is it true this is the first time Boston and Chicago have met in the Finals, even though they were in the Original 6?

Yup. Hard to believe, but, it's true. It will actually only be the 7th playoff series between the two teams - and only 2 of the previous 6 happened before the 1967 expansion.

 

[Zee]

Is it true this is the first time Boston and Chicago have met in the Finals, even though they were in the Original 6?

Yup. Hard to believe, but, it's true. It will actually only be the 7th playoff series between the two teams - and only 2 of the previous 6 happened before the 1967 expansion.

Wow, I can't believe that.  I thought all the original 6 teams would have met each other in the finals at some point before expansion.  Crazy stat.

 

[Peter D.]

I think Boston gets the job done and wins the Cup.

And besides the disappointment that the Leafs had them on the ropes, this wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

[ZBBM]

I hate Boston.  Unfortunately I don't like Chicago either. 

 

[bustaheims]

Wow, I can't believe that.  I thought all the original 6 teams would have met each other in the finals at some point before expansion.  Crazy stat.

They're not the only pairing that never met pre-1967. The Rangers didn't play the Habs in the Finals until 1979 and have never played the Hawks in the Final. Only the Leafs and the Wings faced all 5 of the other "Original 6" teams in the Cup before expansion in 67.

 

[hap_leaf]

I believe it would have taken minimum 15 years for all possible matchups of the original 6 to play each other in the Finals.

 

[hockeyfan1]

                            "Do I know you?"
                                                              vs

                              "Do I know you?"

 

[Redleaf]

Boston in 6 or 7.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

@FriedgeHNIC

In his media availability, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli said Raycroft trade was going to be for either Rask or Jiri Tlusty.

 

[hockeyfan1]

@FriedgeHNIC

In his media availability, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli said Raycroft trade was going to be for either Rask or Jiri Tlusty.

Don't remind us!! 

 

[Deebo]

@FriedgeHNIC

In his media availability, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli said Raycroft trade was going to be for either Rask or Jiri Tlusty.

Someone should tell Steve Simmons.

 

[Jalili]

I really want Chicago to win, but my suspicion is that Boston has the upper hand.

 

[KoHo]

@FriedgeHNIC

In his media availability, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli said Raycroft trade was going to be for either Rask or Jiri Tlusty.

Someone should tell Steve Simmons.

Ugh, that article on Sunday.

Simmons writes good stuff when he wants to but it constantly gets overshadowed by his ridiculous attempts to "stir the pot" so to say. He writes thoughtful articles I agree with and then turns around and churns out crap.