• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mcj882000 last won the day on December 19 2016

mcj882000 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

485 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Calgary... (dramatic pause) Alberta, Canada
  1. I mentioned it briefly in my post, but just because it's been asked about (and also I'm a sucker for minuscule trivia like this ) I'll post the terms for every expansion draft in the modern era: 1991 - North Stars effectively split in two and purge their entire roster, they claim 14 skaters and 2 goalies and then the Sharks also claim 14 & 2 afterwards, then they take turns picking until SJ had 30 players; then every other team protected 16 skaters and 2 goalies, and Minnesota & San Jose take turns picking 10 players each. (A very unique draft, to say the least) 1992 - Everyone but SJ protected 14 skaters and 2 goalies, but they had to unprotect at least one goalie that played at least one game in 1991-92. 1993 - All existing teams (SJ, TB and OTT included) protected 9 forwards, 5 defencemen and 1 goalie. 1998 - Teams protected 9 forwards, 5 defencemen and 1 goalie, same as in 1993, or 7 forwards, 3 defencemen and 2 goalies. 1999 - Same as 1998; teams that lost a goalie to Nashville didn't have to protect goalies from Atlanta. 2000 - Same as 1998. 2017 - Teams protected 7 forwards, 3 defencemen and 1 goalie or 8 skaters and 1 goalie.
  2. So I'll be the one to confess that part of my disdain for the Knights' immediate success is indeed because they're a sunbelt team, for the simple reason that if this expansion team did go to a non-sunbelt city like Quebec or Seattle they probably wouldn't have gotten such generous expansion terms in the first place. (The other teams could protect 7 forwards, 3 defencemen and one goalie (or just 8 skaters and 1 goalie) for the LV draft, compared to 9/5/1 or 7/3/2 in previous years; just for the record.) At the same time though, I would probably be pretty upset (jealous even, if you wanna call it that ) about any team that got such a good deal right off the bat, be they in Las Vegas, Seattle or Quebec; Hell, if this is the new normal then just disperse my Flames' roster and let them rebuild via generous "expansion" draft the same way - instant Cup contention, apparently! Like, I'll admit it's a smart plan - the league didn't want another Atlanta Thrashers, where they toiled in mediocrity or worse for a decade in a city that didn't care about them until they moved away. I just think it's a slap in the face to the other 30 teams, who all had to build themselves up from nothing with varying amounts of success, that Las Vegas gets handed the pieces to a Cup-contending team right off the bat, all because the NHL was worried the locals wouldn't support them in year one if they were losers, or beyond after the Raiders moved into town. In my opinion, if a city's not going to support a losing team, especially during the early honeymoon period when every team gets that "new hotness" attendance bump, then they probably shouldn't have a team at all. I'll repeat what MIGHTY said, too - if I was an owner of one of the other teams I'd be pretty upset about this. "I should've just bought in via expansion instead of buying an existing team, I would've gotten a better deal out of it!"
  3. IMO the only thing more BS than the Knights winning the Cup in year one is if they go 16-0 while doing it.
  4. Winter of Discontent: The 2017-18 NHL Season

    Going back to the Knights and trying to look at them objectively, this season is their best chance at winning a Cup IMO - once the offseason comes and George "The Capitals team I built still can't get past the 2nd round" McPhee has to start making personnel decisions that aren't just "taking players from the most generous expansion draft in history" they're pretty much toast, I think.
  5. Winter of Discontent: The 2017-18 NHL Season Basically, if the Flyers lose by 2 goals to the Rangers tomorrow, and Florida wins both of their last 2 games in the shootout, they would be tied for the final wildcard spot in points and all 3 tiebreakers, necessitating a tiebreaker game like in baseball, something as far as I can see has never happened in the NHL's history.
  6. Unpopular Opinions

    Yeah, most of the uniforms that came out in the 90s I either loathe or like ironically, meaning I like it because it's stupid but never wanna see it actually come back ever again, except maybe as an April Fools' Day stunt.
  7. Unpopular Opinions

    Tacky, busy, and just plain stupid: How are these popular, especially around here? I just don't get it. A lot of those crazy bad uniforms from the 90s look tame compared to these. (Actually, that might answer my question - stupid 90s stuff is in right now. )
  8. 2018 MLB Season

    So uh, far be it for me to speculate, but maybe Dodger Stadium's future isn't as secure as we all thought, if it's having similar problems as Oakland Coliseum...
  9. Welcome to the 90's

  10. Winter of Discontent: The 2017-18 NHL Season

    I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't mind seeing them do penalty shots on a still-empty net, if only for the hyper-rare comedy that would occur when a guy blows it like Stefan & Smith did. Anyways, we all know that local news outlets sometimes get the logo of a sports team wrong, but OTGDNHL would get the logo of one of their own teams wrong:
  11. Return of the Whale Imminent

    I just figured I'd throw this out there, but way back when NHL 06 came out, EA put an edited port of NHL 94 on the PS2 version. They had to change a few things, mostly every real player's name to something fake, but also the Hartford Whalers name & logo, since that was before the NHL got the rights to the identity back: \ My point being, if the Hurricanes just cosplaying as the Whalers is too much for some people (as a Whalers fan myself I don't have a problem with it, just FWIW) then maybe they could do something similar - make up a new Hurricanes logo using the old navy & green and stick it on one of the old Whalers uniform templates. Hell, I'd even be okay with them just changing their regular colours to navy & green - it's a hell of a lot more interesting IMO than just being another red & black team like 1/5 of the rest of the league is, and if they emphasise the green they'd still stand out from the other team that uses those colours.
  12. Winter of Discontent: The 2017-18 NHL Season

    Watching the Flames blow a 2-1 lead by giving up 2 stinkers and an empty-netter in the last 2 minutes to the Knights was legit infuriating. What an embarrassing way to lose.
  13. He's not saying anything about the Blackhawks. For all of your jokes about the Slippery Slope fallacy, the one actually committing it (repeatedly) is you.
  14. The kicker about the Eskimos' identity is that you could change their name to something else alliterative (Eagles, Express, etc.) and not have to change any logos except for a wordmark. The identity is so simple and inoffensive that a name change would be practically seamless. (Kind of the same thing some of us are starting to think about the Indians once Chief Wahoo is gone, actually...) (Sorry about the double post)
  15. To piggyback on this, in 1949 the Tri-Cities Blackhawks debuted in the NBA, and this was their logo: That lasted all of 2 seasons; when they moved to Milwaukee in 1951 they shortened their name to "Hawks" and changed their logo to a bird... ...And after moves to St. Louis in 1955 and Atlanta in 1968, that name & mascot lives on to this day: ...And nobody noticed or cared, except for pedantic nerds like myself. Point being, change the name and/or logo and after enough time, success and/or visibility, nobody'll really care anymore.