Rest of the League 2

Straight noggin
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #501 by NHL33 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:31 pm

Congratulations to the Blackhawks for another Stanley Cup win.

I went 0 for 2 this time after a spectacular playoff round. Shame.


Edit: Uhh...maybe this original message was a bit early.
User avatar
chewey
Registered Broad
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Near You!

Post #502 by chewey » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:35 pm

chewey wrote:Kings > Chicago. Too many weapons, too deep.
Habs and Rags, honestly I think King Henrik stands on his head.

Going with Kings - Rangers for finals.


I aint even watching and I am still calling it. Man you guys suck.
Kings win it.

Oh and AB, catch the Blue Jays game? What a resilient team to come back and split the series.



(That is right you testy wipper snapper, never talking hockey with you again. All baseball from now on bud. Baseball!)
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #503 by NHL33 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:35 pm

hek wrote:I just looked up Quick's stats in the playoffs and man are they shit. How does a team make it to the WCF with a goaltender with a save pct of .906? That's even worse considering the strong defensive structure Sutter implements.

My LAK Stanley Cup prediction is still alive.


I dunno about Quick. He is like MAF this post-season; I wanted Jones in during the Sharks series.

Eh, I guess it doesn't matter. They're stacked.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #504 by ABasin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:52 am

dempsey_k wrote:Yeah, Quick and Crawford were dueling for the Osgood trophy.


Yeah, neither guy was stellar. That said, both guys made awesome saves. Those two teams can really skate.

The two teams were terrific. That was an incredible series, and likely the two best teams in hockey.

The Kings have now played 21 out of a possible 21 playoff games. Isn't the record for playoff games in a season (for a team that still won the Cup) something like 25? 26, maybe? Wonder if the Kings will run out of gas at some point. That and Lundqvist are the only hopes the Rangers have, IMO.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #505 by ABasin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:02 am

chewey wrote:I aint even watching and I am still calling it. Man you guys suck.
Kings win it.

Oh and AB, catch the Blue Jays game? What a resilient team to come back and split the series.


You missin' some good hockey, son. A killer series, that one.

I don't watch baseball. Used to when I was a young pup like you, but I just find it so boring, so slow. Hell, I even went to a Rockies game earlier this year (with work clients) - had seats right behind 1st base, 2nd row. I left after 3 innings or so, just went to drink and talk to people in that new upper deck bar. Which was far more interesting. I don't even really watch baseball postseason. And BTW - 162 games?!? WTF? 82 in hockey's regular season is bad enough.

I will give baseball one plus though - it's certainly better than NBA basketball.

Once the hockey playoffs end, it's all outdoor sports for AB, until football season. Kings in 6.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #506 by ABasin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:07 am

dempsey_k wrote:Upside is that we can beat Chicago and LA if we improve the blue line because they'll be bound to these turkeys.


Yes, but the Avs would have had zero chance against either team, regardless of how Varlamov played. Each of those teams has 3 defensemen who would be 1st pairing on the Avs, and they each have 5 defensemen who would be at least 2nd pairing on the Avs.

Actually, LA may have 7 guys who'd be at least 2nd pairing on the Avs. Arguable, but certainly possible.
User avatar
chewey
Registered Broad
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Near You!

Post #507 by chewey » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:18 pm

ABasin wrote:You missin' some good hockey, son. A killer series, that one.


I did watch last night's episode and it was a good one. Glad CHI was eliminated. Hate that team.

I don't watch baseball. Used to when I was a young pup like you, but I just find it so boring, so slow. Hell, I even went to a Rockies game earlier this year (with work clients) - had seats right behind 1st base, 2nd row. I left after 3 innings or so, just went to drink and talk to people in that new upper deck bar. Which was far more interesting. I don't even really watch baseball postseason. And BTW - 162 games?!? WTF? 82 in hockey's regular season is bad enough.


Fair enough, it isn't everyone's cup of tea. :)

I will give baseball one plus though - it's certainly better than NBA basketball.

Once the hockey playoffs end, it's all outdoor sports for AB, until football season. Kings in 6.


Fair enough, I am looking forward to the Draft/UFA and more baseball but that is about it till Hockey season comes around again.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #508 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:34 pm

ABasin wrote:Yes, but the Avs would have had zero chance against either team, regardless of how Varlamov played.

Wrong.

dempsey_k wrote:Yeah. They would've obliterated us.

Wrong.

Wild are a decent team trending in the right direction with the right model. Wild would've beat the Avs in 5-6 games if they had Kuemper or Harding from the start and Granlund ready to go in games 1-2.

Wrong.

They'll be able to beat Chicago or LA next year or the year after.

Maybe.



All of you are full of horse shit. The Avs blue line sucks, but the Wild, Hawks, and Kings are not some magical foes. We would have lost to Chicago or LA, but we would've certainly have had a reasonable chance of winning...not as great as other teams, including the Ducks, but not a near lock to lose the series.

We almost beat the Wild as-is with our own injuries, including our #2 defenseman going down in the series, so Dempsey's typical trolling is completely irrelevant.


Oh, and I'm not so certain I share some of this forum's optimism for next season. Let's see how the free agency period goes down.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #509 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:39 pm

People were really swallowing Kuemper's cock following our atrocious games 3 and 4, and then we showed up again at home...and silence.

Games 1 and 2 were at home. So not really.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #510 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:50 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Wild won game 5

Except they didn't.

Uncalled penalty then uncalled offside led to goal.

So? Avs had blown calls in games 3 and 4 that could have led them to tying either game, and possibly winning one...but they didn't.


Next.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #511 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:53 pm

dempsey_k wrote:None as egregious.

Cooke play was pretty egregious.


Next.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #512 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:36 pm

dempsey_k wrote:And missing his energy was no small contributing factor to the Wild losing to the Hawks, because it led to a -suspension-

Barrie > Cooke


Keep trying.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #513 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:37 pm

P.S. It was a small contributing factor where the Blackhawks are concerned nonetheless.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #514 by ABasin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:18 pm

NHL33 wrote:Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.


I've become used to one word posts in this place, but usually the words change from time to time.

NHL33 wrote:All of you are full of horse shit. The Avs blue line sucks, but the Wild, Hawks, and Kings are not some magical foes. We would have lost to Chicago or LA, but we would've certainly have had a reasonable chance of winning...not as great as other teams, including the Ducks, but not a near lock to lose the series.


Nah. The Wild and the Avs are fairly close (hence a 7 game series that went to OT in the last game), but I felt the Avs should have won that series. And perhaps would have, if Duchene and Barrie were healthy for the thing.

But the Avs are not close to Chi or LA. When Varlamov is on, their goaltending is. And their first two lines are also. But defensively and on the 3rd/4th lines, the Avs are miles behind those two teams.

But even all of that isn't really the point. Given you (evidently) didn't watch any of the games in the Chi-LA series, you didn't get to see how those two teams played. They were fucking outstanding, and were both way, way, way better than I saw the Avs play at any time this season. They were both that good.

Avs would lose a series against either of them in 5 or 6 games, best case.

NHL33 wrote:Oh, and I'm not so certain I share some of this forum's optimism for next season. Let's see how the free agency period goes down.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure Stastny is gone, then the Avs are going to sign the rest of their own RFAs. After that? Maybe they'll grab a UFA defenseman out there, but I have a feeling they're going to go into next season having gone through a downward trend in personnel (mostly Stastny leaving). Can young guys improving overcome that? Not sure.

All of that said, the biggest risk to the Avs possibly regressing, is a regression in Varlamov's play.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #515 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:48 pm

Here's the thing, I never said the Avs would win either series because probability is definitely not in favor of that outcome. But when you have a goalie that is in fucking god mode, and a sport that can be carried by a single player to the Stanley Cup, that's well above 'nothing'. Stop giving other teams so much respect. It's nonsense hyperbole to say the Avalanche didn't have a chance.

Also, I don't need to see that shitty series to know how great either team is. I follow the Western Conference.

However the Hawks and Kings play each other frankly has no relevance. Both teams would beat us in a direct match-up, but it would definitely be in a different style of game. I can say that with 100% confidence. We could take either one to maybe game 6, but we definitely wouldn't get swept or any of that manure Dempsey was trolling with.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #516 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:05 pm

Also, just for the record: while I do believe the Kings will win the series in 6 or 7, they do play an exceedingly close style of game a lot of the time under Sutter. The Rangers have the best blue line of all the teams thus far that LA has faced. So I think the New York can take it despite seeming somewhat underwhelming.

NYR is not my pick, but if I gambled I'd be very wary of the Kings at whatever favorite odds Vegas has them at. This match-up in some regards screams 'trap'.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #517 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:10 am

NHL33 wrote:Here's the thing, I never said the Avs would win either series because probability is definitely not in favor of that outcome. But when you have a goalie that is in fucking god mode, and a sport that can be carried by a single player to the Stanley Cup, that's well above 'nothing'.

Also, I don't need to see that shitty series to know how great either team is.


Yeah, you kind of did have to. You can ignore it if you want, and claim you know what you know, but you since you didn't watch the series (according to you), you really don't know what Demp and I are talking about - the original statement was that the Avs wouldn't have a chance against either of those two teams we saw play in that series. Both teams' play was raised by more than just a little bit, when compared to not only the regular season, but also 1st round play. The speed and passing were at a different level. Chicago's defense-to-offense transition game in particular was awesome.

You evidently want me to believe that this year's Avs team could similarly raise the level of their play, and I don't believe they could do that. Namely, because their defensive transition is quite possibly the worst amongst all playoff teams (arguable, but let's just say that it's not good), and their 3rd/4th lines couldn't score worth shit when the playoff games got tight. Could Varlamov have stolen a game perhaps? Sure, that's possible. Two? Meh, maybe. Doubtful though. But you seem to forget that when the Avs needed Varlamov the most (games 6 and 7 in the non-hypothetical playoff series that actually took place), Varlamov wasn't very good at all. Against Minnesota, no less.

NHL33 wrote:I follow the Western Conference.


…by not watching the games?

NHL33 wrote:However the Hawks and Kings play each other frankly has no relevance.


Of course it does. What else would you possibly cite as relevant? The Kings and Hawks of November 1997?

NHL33 wrote:Both teams would beat us in a direct match-up, but it would definitely be in a different style of game. I can say that with 100% confidence. We could take either one to maybe game 6


Dude, that's exactly what I said. 6 games, best case.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #518 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:14 am

NHL33 wrote:Also, just for the record: while I do believe the Kings will win the series in 6 or 7, they do play an exceedingly close style of game a lot of the time under Sutter. The Rangers have the best blue line of all the teams thus far that LA has faced.


Did you mean to use the word 'goaltender' there?

You feel the Rangers have a better blue line than Chicago?

I will say this about the Rangers' defense in these playoffs: They've been great in the crease/slot. Pretty consistently, too.
User avatar
WarriorOfGandhi
Registered Broad
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post #519 by WarriorOfGandhi » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:14 pm

NHL33 wrote:The Avs blue line sucks, but the Wild, Hawks, and Kings are not some magical foes.


the wild certainly are not, but the Kings and Hawks this year are arguably two of the best Western Conference teams we've seen in a long time. The Hawks are essentially the same team as last year that straight-up facerolled its way to the Cup, the Kings are their Cup squad plus Gaborik playing the best hockey of his career. I'd wager that either of them could take on any other Western conference champ in the last ten years except maybe the 07 Ducks and come out on top.

right now, the Kings and Hawks look like they're going to be competing for the Cup for the next decade. Both squads have few weaknesses, good management, and a young core. Colorado may be lucky to be the third best team in the conference that never gets past the second round.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #520 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:12 pm

WarriorOfGandhi wrote:right now, the Kings and Hawks look like they're going to be competing for the Cup for the next decade. Both squads have few weaknesses, good management, and a young core.


All true, though in today's NHL, 'young cores' tend to get weakened by the salary cap over time. Chicago is doubly impressive, as they had to totally rip that team apart after their first Cup win, then partially rip it apart again after last year's win. And they're still one of the best teams. LA hasn't had to do that yet, but at some point, they will. Or, they'll have to do the Pittsburgh thing, re: putting totally substandard players alongside their star ones. These two teams are going to have to re-tool to a certain extent, due to salary.

For example, next year Chicago looks in great shape. But the year after that, they'll have to resign Toews, Kane, Saad, Kruger, Oduya (a very underrated player on that team, btw), and Leddy. Or replace them. Toews and Kane will be legitimate $8M/year players. If the Hawks pay them that, they're going to have to take a hit in the depth department, unless they keep rotating quality young talent.

LA is in better shape, but they'll also have to resign 5 defensemen by the end of next season. And Williams, Stoll, Garborik and a bunch of solid depth forwards. Will the replacements be as good, or will their depth falter a bit? We'll see.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #521 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:21 pm

ABasin wrote:All true, though in today's NHL, 'young cores' tend to get weakened by the salary cap over time. Chicago is doubly impressive, as they had to totally rip that team apart after their first Cup win, then partially rip it apart again after last year's win. And they're still one of the best teams. LA hasn't had to do that yet, but at some point, they will. Or, they'll have to do the Pittsburgh thing, re: putting totally substandard players alongside their star ones. These two teams are going to have to re-tool to a certain extent, due to salary.

For example, next year Chicago looks in great shape. But the year after that, they'll have to resign Toews, Kane, Saad, Kruger, Oduya (a very underrated player on that team, btw), and Leddy. Or replace them. Toews and Kane will be legitimate $8M/year players. If the Hawks pay them that, they're going to have to take a hit in the depth department, unless they keep rotating quality young talent.

LA is in better shape, but they'll also have to resign 5 defensemen by the end of next season. And Williams, Stoll, Garborik and a bunch of solid depth forwards. Will the replacements be as good, or will their depth falter a bit? We'll see.


By the way, one compliance buy-out candidate: Marian Hossa. Almost all of Chicago's team looked damn good, but Hossa wasn't up there with a number of other Chicago forwards (I thought Saad was awesome). At age 35, might be a good idea to eat some salary and get rid of him.

* - AB is not sure of the exact buyout rules, but in general, Chicago might be best off without his salary loading them down in future years.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #522 by NHL33 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:19 pm

dempsey_k wrote: :stare:

uh, ok

ABasin wrote:Did you mean to use the word 'goaltender' there?

You feel the Rangers have a better blue line than Chicago?

I will say this about the Rangers' defense in these playoffs: They've been great in the crease/slot. Pretty consistently, too.

Blue line means blue line. Better means better. Yes, Chicago's is great; I think the Rangers have a better one.

Why act so shocked? They have McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, and Klein in their top 4. More balanced overall than the Blackhawks.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #523 by NHL33 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:32 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Um, yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh

Right, and if everything you said was accurate then Minnesota would have been swept by Chicago. They weren't.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #524 by NHL33 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:39 pm

ABasin wrote:Yeah, you kind of did have to. You can ignore it if you want, and claim you know what you know, but you since you didn't watch the series (according to you), you really don't know what Demp and I are talking about

According to me? I never said I never watched either team, I am not watching them in depth but it doesn't mean I am not catching them at all this round, earlier rounds, or during the regular season. Or did you think that Dmitri and I trolling you two was completely indicative of your knowledge of my depth of playoff participation?

You evidently want me to believe that this year's Avs team could similarly raise the level of their play

No, I want more objectivity and less of the HFBoards-opposite-extreme vitriol. It's all hyperbolic fluff coming out recently.

None of us here believes the Avs would have won against the Hawks nor Kings - none. I have yet to find any indication what-so-ever to the contrary. But inferior teams can advance in playoff rounds. Who cares about raising the level of play? Did you even watch the regular season? This fucking team ended up 2nd overall in the conference. What. The. Fuck.

Dude, that's exactly what I said. 6 games, best case.

Best case is advancing past the series. So no.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #525 by NHL33 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:41 pm

WarriorOfGandhi wrote:the wild certainly are not, but the Kings and Hawks this year are arguably two of the best Western Conference teams we've seen in a long time.

I agree, they are the 2 best teams in the Western Conference. San Jose should have represented the Pacific but they choked pretty badly.

I'd wager that either of them could take on any other Western conference champ in the last ten years except maybe the 07 Ducks and come out on top.

LA's team during their Stanley Cup win was better imo. Chicago with Ladd and that crazy depth as well.

Colorado may be lucky to be the third best team in the conference that never gets past the second round.

Chicago, LA, St. Louis and San Jose all are looking incredibly good. Then you have Anaheim that could steam roll other teams if they improve defensively. It'll be interesting to see what Roy & Sakic do.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #526 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:40 pm

NHL33 wrote:Blue line means blue line. Better means better. Yes, Chicago's is great; I think the Rangers have a better one.

Why act so shocked? They have McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, and Klein in their top 4. More balanced overall than the Blackhawks.


Appreciate the info. Thx.

Would be interested in reading your support of that position.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #527 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:51 pm

NHL33 wrote:According to me? I never said I never watched either team, I am not watching them in depth but it doesn't mean I am not catching them at all this round, earlier rounds, or during the regular season.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Yo, Chieftan. I am doing nothing but rolling off information that you provided. Attend:

NHL33 wrote:I've barely watched the playoffs since the first round. Don't care. Too busy with work to bother.


What the fuck do you expect me to take from that?!? That you are 'catching them' in later rounds, or watching them 'not in depth'? Or some other playoff hockey focus that escapes me somehow?

Or (perhaps) that you've barely watched the playoffs since the first round? - Since that's fucking exactly what you fucking said?

Dude, come on. This is like talking to a pregnant woman, hormones and all.

NHL33 wrote:Or did you think that Dmitri and I trolling you two was completely indicative of your knowledge of my depth of playoff participation?


*blink*

Am I being secretly filmed here or something? WTF? I went off *exactly* what you posted. In case you need to see it again, I'll be happy to provide it:

NHL33 wrote:I've barely watched the playoffs since the first round. Don't care. Too busy with work to bother.


See?

And if you need to relive Dmitri's quote on the subject, I'll be happy to provide that also:

chewey wrote:I aint even watching and I am still calling it. Man you guys suck.


Talk about Boreds all you want dude. But fuck. You two either ain't watching shit, or your posts are full of shit.

Please own one or the other.

-------

NHL33 wrote:None of us here believes the Avs would have won against the Hawks nor Kings - none. I have yet to find any indication what-so-ever to the contrary. But inferior teams can advance in playoff rounds. Who cares about raising the level of play? Did you even watch the regular season?


Jesus Almighty, 33. What relevance does the regular season have, in comparison to what is happening in May-June in the playoffs? Particularly since the current topic of discussion is how the Avs would do against Chi/LA in the playoffs?

I was off weekday beer drinking, but am now going to imbibe. Which probably means we're having the best debate in here in awhile. :-)
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #528 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:21 pm

ABasin wrote:I was off weekday beer drinking, but am now going to imbibe. Which probably means we're having the best debate in here in awhile. :-)


Goose Island IPA, as it turns out. Good stuff.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #529 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:35 pm

dempsey_k wrote:TIL NHL33 is dumb.


Nah, 33's a good bro. There should be another explanation.

I suspect we have a temporary situation, where he's either A) buried by work/life (AB has been in this situation recently also), B) suffering from a bit of NYC homerism, or C) stung by the Avs first round loss in a VCX kind of way that we weren't aware of. Or maybe his pet fox died.

Or maybe he's posting drunk lately. I've done that periodically also.

But any which way, the May version of Chi/LA bitchslaps this year's Avs 20 times out of 20. And any which way, I like 33.



And while this is probably going to be embarrassing, I don't know what TIL means.
User avatar
VLoo
Posts: 9490
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:33 am
Has given rep: 89 times
Received rep: 121 times

Post #530 by VLoo » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:38 pm

ABasin wrote:By the way, one compliance buy-out candidate: Marian Hossa. Almost all of Chicago's team looked damn good, but Hossa wasn't up there with a number of other Chicago forwards (I thought Saad was awesome). At age 35, might be a good idea to eat some salary and get rid of him.

* - AB is not sure of the exact buyout rules, but in general, Chicago might be best off without his salary loading them down in future years.


I think it would be a short term step back to lose Hossa, but if they don't buy him out and he retires before that contract is up the recapture penalties on that deal are fucking massive. It'd be interesting to see because of how long term the view would have to be to justify buying him out. Bowman would be looking 5-10 years down the road for the benefits, he has every right to feel secure in his job, but Goddamn.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #531 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:52 pm

VLoo wrote:I think it would be a short term step back to lose Hossa, but if they don't buy him out and he retires before that contract is up the recapture penalties on that deal are fucking massive. It'd be interesting to see because of how long term the view would have to be to justify buying him out. Bowman would be looking 5-10 years down the road for the benefits, he has every right to feel secure in his job, but Goddamn.


I knew I didn't understand exactly how this works.

VLoo, why would the Hawks be fucked here?
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #532 by ABasin » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:53 pm

dempsey_k wrote:He's good people, but he's also dumb people.


Evidently, so am I, since I still don't know what TIL means.
User avatar
VLoo
Posts: 9490
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:33 am
Has given rep: 89 times
Received rep: 121 times

Post #533 by VLoo » Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:06 pm

ABasin wrote:I knew I didn't understand exactly how this works.

VLoo, why would the Hawks be fucked here?


Well as I understand it, on a contract exceeding 7 years, whenever the player's actual salary is higher than the player's cap hit, the difference accumulates and if a player retires before his contract finishes the "benefit" is then averaged out and applied to however many years remained on the contract before he retired

It won't matter if Hossa plays out his entire contract, but there's still something like 7 years left on the thing so he probably won't end up making it to the end. Let's say he plays 5 more years, he hits 40 and calls it quits, the recapture on his contract that counts against the cap will be around 4.25 million or so per year for 2 years because they paid him about 2.7 million dollars above his cap hit for the first 7 years of the contract before he makes 1 million annually over the last 4. Or if he decides to retire in 3 years instead of 5, it's still 4.25 a year but over a 4 year period.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #534 by NHL33 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:34 pm

dempsey_k wrote:TIL NHL33 is dumb.

You've been trolling your fucking mind off these playoffs. It's good for someone to call you out on your bullshit.

ABasin wrote:I suspect we have a temporary situation, where he's either A) buried by work/life (AB has been in this situation recently also), B) suffering from a bit of NYC homerism, or C) stung by the Avs first round loss in a VCX kind of way that we weren't aware of. [...] Or maybe he's posting drunk lately.

You suspect a lot of dumb things in a joking fashion against someone who doesn't believe the Avs would likely beat the Hawks or Kings, but that doesn't make you right in all of your statements either.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #535 by NHL33 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:40 pm

ABasin wrote:Would be interested in reading your support of that position.

I think the Rangers' defense is better, simply put. I don't expect that to be popular opinion and it's not like I think it's outrageous to think the opposite, but so what? People shouldn't be afraid to make their own assessments. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong; I don't make an earning off hockey.

ABasin wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa. Yo, Chieftan. I am doing nothing but rolling off information that you provided.

Yes, and sometimes I lie or exaggerate minor things to get a small reaction. The playoff boredom posts happen every year, and you defend it every time like clock work. Nothing new. I'll speak for myself just fine.

What relevance does the regular season have, in comparison to what is happening in May-June in the playoffs? Particularly since the current topic of discussion is how the Avs would do against Chi/LA in the playoffs?

Aaand I've said multiple times that I don't think the Avs would win, but they could. Yet I have to go through the same shitty iterations of posts just so people don't get too confident in their own vapid statements.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #536 by NHL33 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:44 pm

dempsey_k wrote:He's good people, but he's also dumb people.

You're a cunt. Get off your pedestal.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #537 by ABasin » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:04 pm

NHL33 wrote:You suspect a lot of dumb things in a joking fashion against someone who doesn't believe the Avs would likely beat the Hawks or Kings, but that doesn't make you right in all of your statements either.


Yeah, I know.

Not sure why you seem so agitated though.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #538 by NHL33 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:05 pm

ABasin wrote:What relevance does the regular season have, in comparison to what is happening in May-June in the playoffs?

I skipped this statement earlier in lieu of where the conversation was going, but I do want to revisit this obviously - albeit isolated from the personal discussion - and not implicitly accepted.

I've been tossing it around mentally as an exercise to see what would be theoretically required to assess this one way or another more definitively. I have some loose idea but it's very fuzzy.

You say the regular season is irrelevant to the playoffs. This is not substantiated what-so-ever. I cannot provide statistical observation to the contrary either, but it seems to me that you're making an assumption that because of the knock-out nature of the playoffs and thus increased playing tension, that it somehow invalidates a much larger sample size of behavioral tendencies.

I can understand separating some subset of games, factoring any health/injuries to specific players or non-trivial ones within the lineup, rookie experience growth, etc., but I don't see any logical reason to exclude them. The regular season provides a large sample size of information. It is not definitive, but when not micro-emphasized it's very much relevant to the playoffs.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #539 by ABasin » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:06 pm

NHL33 wrote:I think the Rangers' defense is better, simply put. I don't expect that to be popular opinion and it's not like I think it's outrageous to think the opposite, but so what? People shouldn't be afraid to make their own assessments. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong; I don't make an earning off hockey.

Yet I have to go through the same shitty iterations of posts just so people don't get too confident in their own vapid statements.


Well, with the two teams' blue lines topic, I was hoping for a discussion.

But instead got a tantrum. Ah well…..
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #540 by NHL33 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:08 pm

ABasin wrote:Yeah, I know.

Not sure why you seem so agitated though.

ABasin wrote:Well, with the two teams' blue lines topic, I was hoping for a discussion.

But instead got a tantrum. Ah well…..

'Agitation' and 'tantrum' are histrionics on your part. I have correct fallacious statements, that's all.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #541 by ABasin » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:13 pm

NHL33 wrote:I skipped this statement earlier in lieu of where the conversation was going, but I do want to revisit this obviously - albeit isolated from the personal discussion - and not implicitly accepted.

I've been tossing it around mentally as an exercise to see what would be theoretically required to assess this one way or another more definitively. I have some loose idea but it's very fuzzy.

You say the regular season is irrelevant to the playoffs. This is not substantiated what-so-ever. I cannot provide statistical observation to the contrary either, but it seems to me that you're making an assumption that because of the knock-out nature of the playoffs and thus increased playing tension, that it somehow invalidates a much larger sample size of behavioral tendencies.

I can understand separating some subset of games, factoring any health/injuries to specific players or non-trivial ones within the lineup, rookie experience growth, etc., but I don't see any logical reason to exclude them. The regular season provides a large sample size of information. It is not definitive, but when not micro-emphasized it's very much relevant to the playoffs.


I think you're misinterpreting my point there. I'm not saying that the way a team plays in the regular season isn't relevant to how they'll play in the playoffs. I'm saying that how a team actually plays late in the playoffs is a better indication of how they'll play late in the playoffs, compared how they played in the regular season.

The rest of that post is really good though.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #542 by ABasin » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:15 pm

NHL33 wrote:'Agitation' and 'tantrum' are histrionics on your part. I have correct fallacious statements, that's all.


Sure.
User avatar
WarriorOfGandhi
Registered Broad
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post #543 by WarriorOfGandhi » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:28 am

great game 1. Kings in six.
User avatar
WarriorOfGandhi
Registered Broad
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post #544 by WarriorOfGandhi » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:59 am

I think Bettman has been icing his nips the entire playoffs. The three biggest cities in the US make the conference finals, the two biggest make the Cup finals. Ratings duds like Dallas, CBJ, Tampa, Colorado, St Louis flame out to teams with much bigger audiences and/or audience potential. The Rangers and the Kings account for 90% of the faces on nationally-broadcast hockey commercials (the others being Crosby and that lame Oshie rent a car ad). Regardless of whomever wins, I think we might be talking about 2014 moving the sport a huge step forward like we do about 1994.
User avatar
ABasin
Posts: 3324
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:59 am

Post #545 by ABasin » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:38 am

WarriorOfGandhi wrote:great game 1.


Before I begin discussing this, did you really watch the game, or is that a lie/exaggeration looking for a response?

WarriorOfGandhi wrote:Kings in 6


Yeah, I think so as well. The Kings are relentless. This year, they're never out of a game, or a series.
User avatar
WarriorOfGandhi
Registered Broad
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post #546 by WarriorOfGandhi » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:23 am

ABasin wrote:Before I begin discussing this, did you really watch the game, or is that a lie/exaggeration looking for a response?


you didn't think it was entertaining? I did.
User avatar
NHL33
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:11 pm
Received rep: 2 times

Post #547 by NHL33 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:39 pm

Yes, too many people around here imagine that teams are undefeatable in an over-eager attempt to be objective. They're wrong, of course.

Return to “2001 Stanley Cup Champion Colorado Avalanche”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest