mcj882000

After all the speculation that he just wanted to go home, Gaudreau decides to go play for a team that did 30 points worse than the team he just left, who's won a playoff series in their entire existence, for less money, and in the end he didn't even go home???



(Jackets away games next season are gonna be fun to watch, though; he's gonna have Flames, Devils, maybe Flyers and Islanders fans all booing him out of their rinks!)

1 hour ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not really. Our jerseys haven't changed drastically in decades and they never will either. They only modernized it a few times with subtle tweaks so that it doesn't look too dated. Same goes with every other O6 team. Not comparable to the Oilers at all, who've only known success for a few years in a specific decade and have changed their colours 3 times now only to go back to their "classic" and very dated uniform associated with a very specific superstar after a few years.

None of these things apply to the Canadiens

Edit: also, we definitely don't have a McJesus that we can build a new identity around lol

You will come Thursday, so why stay living in the past, right?

4 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Because the Bulls never changed their uniforms. 

They have, although not in a meaningful way since MJ's rookie year.


(I actually think they should switch back to the latter, but that's not for this particular thread.)

Personally I think the simplest solution - maybe not the best one, but certainly the easiest to implement - to the Avs' away uniform is to bring back the burgundy pants they wore with the RR and use them for it instead of the blue ones  

That jersey doesn't have enough blue in it to make the pants go with it, and so far their attempts to inject more blue into the sweater... uh, haven't worked, IMO at least

1 hour ago, TalktoChuck said:

 

Huh?

Are you referring to the burgundy shoulder/hem stripes? The equipment they use on the road is the same blue as at home.

Oh, right, my bad, I'm dumb. I meant matching the blue pants with the jersey that has basically no blue in it aside from the numbers. Weird fit, doesn't really work IMO.

13 hours ago, tBBP said:

(And yeah, the blue equipment is starting to look much better on ice than the black...)

I always thought the blue equipment looked fine, it's the burgundy equipment they use on the road that always looked bad to me. (I still don't think either looked better than the black pants & helmets they used to wear, though - for rushed-in placeholders they sure made the whole set click.)

18 hours ago, Unocal said:

 

But to THIS level? You think at some point a canadian team would just run into a Cup. Heck, thrice they've gotten to a game 7

Well, let's look at the numbers:
-From 1926-27, the first season in which American teams outnumbered Canadian teams - and coincidentally also the year the NHL took exclusive control of the Stanley Cup - until 1992-93, the Stanley Cup was awarded 67 times; 41 of those went to Canadian teams. 
-If we go from 1942-43, the start of the "Original Six" era where 2/6 teams were Canadian, through the expansion of the late-60s and 70s - when that fraction increased to 2/12, then eventually to 3/18 by 1974, 7/21 by 1980, then to 8/24 as Ottawa got in right under the bell - up to 92-93, the Cup was awarded 51 times; 35 of them went to Canadian teams. 

Now obviously we can talk about how it was like this and why it's not anymore, and I'm sure for some (if not here then certainly elsewhere) the most convincing argument is that the league is being directly rigged against the Canadian teams by the Evil Manhattan Lawyer Who Hates Canada Because Reasons in charge of things; but if we were to acknowledge that claim, then in the interest of fairness we'll have to also acknowledge that for most of the NHL's history before 1993, the NHL was being indirectly rigged in favor of the Canadian teams; both via the Norris family at one point owning or controlling all 4 American teams and only prioritizing 1 of them, and by the fact that before the NHL draft was standardized in 1969 teams automatically got the rights to sign to any prospect who lived and/or played close to them (or their sponsored junior teams), gifting a massive advantage to the two Canadian teams who played in a league where, until very recently, up to 90% of its player population was Canadian.

So with all that said, whether the league is rigged like a wrestling show or it's just the league's balance of power permanently shifting in a way that stokes nationalistic fires as it does so; after all that, is 0 for 30 29 since 1993 an over-correction or not? You tell me.

20 minutes ago, JerseyJimmy said:

speaking of the lightning getting every lucky break in the world and the canadian teams being in a cup drought, we should have a gentleman's agreement to acknowledge calgary as the 2004 champions.

 
I honestly wish everyone could learn what the Parallax effect is and just get over 2004 already. Granted I know that'd be easier if the Flames could actually do something of worth for once, but still...

A thing about the Great Canadian Cup Drought, and I don't know if it's covered by DGB in that article, I'm too broke/cheap/lazy to afford an Atlantic subscription, but: Think about how many Cups Canadian teams won before 1993, despite usually representing about the same % of the league's franchises as they do now: anywhere from 16-33% of the league. For starters, the overwhelming majority of the "Original Six" era was just the Leafs & Canadiens battling for the Cup, with an occasional Red Wings and a single Black Hawks upset here and there. (And just forget about the Bruins & Rangers, but that's what happens when the American 66% of the league is monopolized by one guy, eh?) Then even into the 70s Montreal just kept winning Cups, and then the back half of the 80s, 1984-1990, was entirely Canadian teams winning it.

If anything, I think you could look at The Drought as the scale of balance correcting itself after decades of being tilted the other way.

Man, what a  way to lose a playoff series.

The Flames' most important playoff series in around 18 years, against their provincial rivals, a series that the entire hockey world was looking forward to... And they show up for, what, a game and a half at most? I'm so sick of my team's constant choking and underachieving.

2 hours ago, TalktoChuck said:

 

Whoever owns the arena gets to make the rules. Why the hell would ASU let the Coyotes take priority?

That's the problem.

lol, good luck with that 

6 hours ago, IceCap said:

The Leafs' striping change was 100% a "MLSE is a money monster" move. There were rumours for years that the Leafs wanted to ditch the Ballard leaf for something close to the classic logo but held off because they didn't think the resulting sweater would be different enough to get fans out there buying the new stuff. 

That they wanted to finally scrub the last vestiges of the Ballard era from their identity is still ironic to me because the new jerseys are, basically, just the Ballard-era sweaters minus the arm stripes and shoulder patches, aka their most interesting elements:

The Hartford Wolf Pack in NHL 22; EA, just... what exactly did you do to screw these up?

For whatever it's worth I have a Ducks fan friend who hates the jade-and-eggplant jerseys; he considers it an ugly color scheme that was only used to cash in on the trends of the time. I don't think I'd go that far myself, but I've definitely come around on preferring them in black-and-orange.

Emphasis on black as the primary though, I think promoting the orange alt to primary would just make them look like the Flyers. But take the original Mighty Ducks logo & uniforms, recolor them with the new scheme and I think they'd have a winner.

EDIT: Also I thought the anniversary jersey just flat-out sucked. They should've learned the first time that black does not mix well with jade & eggplant, but they didn't.

16 hours ago, alecgoff said:

 

New sponsor patch for the Golden Knights next year, while also hinting at a potential switch to Gold as the primary home jersey.

Honestly I don't know what bugs me more, the ad itself or the fact that they, apparently, think people won't hate it as much if they call it something pretentious like a "jersey entitlement partnership." 

so the mets' beautifully-stupid inaugural season patch from 2009 was for nothing then, smh 


In all seriousness though, I went over this when the NHL rolled them out 2 years ago, but I can't express how much ads on uniforms genuinely ruin the experience for me; they just straight-up make me enjoy sports less.

Blahblahblah "they need to do this;" no they don't. Soccer needs them to make up for the lack of TV commercials, minor leagues need them to help pay the bills; the American Big Four want them because they need line to go up. Let me put it this way: even the Olympics still (claim to) believe in "the integrity of the game" enough to ban all on-field advertising, even sponsored stadium names! In this aspect even the IOC are less greedy and corrupt than the American Big Four!

The only solace I can take is that within a year or two they'll be background noise, so to speak, for most viewers, like all ads and commercials are; but that takes us to the Slippery Slope, doesn't it? They'll need to put them in even more obtrusive places to make up for the ones we ignore now.

Anyways if y'all can stomach it or are able to still watch undistracted, you're better men than I; but when it starts becoming more ad than sport, then I just can't help but check out more and more. See y'all in 20 years when we're cheering for the Motorola Padres, American Family Brewers and Guaranteed Rate White Sox, I guess.

how about Predators vs. Hurricanes at Bristol Motor Speedway?

Since he's been the talk of "baseball internet" this week/month, off the heels of Secret Base's superb 4-part documentary on his career wrapping up earlier this week, here's Blue Jays legend Dave Stieb during his 4-game stint with the White Sox in 1993.

15 hours ago, Nordiks_19 said:

That'd actually be awesome, but i feel that the Bruins will wear their 80's black jersey

There's no reason they couldn't do both, they could easily go with an 80s or even 70s-style jersey but brown instead of black.

18 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

As for the chances of Florida or Tampa Bay ever hosting outdoors, I'm not sure we will ever see that.  I listened to a podcast where the host spoke to the SVP and Chief Content Officer for the NHL.  It was said Tampa Bay has been considered, but the weather and dates of when ideal conditions occur are very limited and only falls during possible NFL playoff games (late January-early February was mentioned)

c'mon Panthers @ Lightning Stadium Series, the one-night only return to the ThunderDome; I don't even care that it wouldn't even be outdoors! 

I personally think it would be really funny if, in the WC match up between the two black-and-gold teams, neither actually wore black-and-gold: 

(Sorry for the double post, but I really felt this deserved its own)
As it happens though, I do know of a funny example of those censorship policies affecting the NASCAR games and their roster. Consider the case of Richard Childress Racing's 3rd team, which from 2001-2004 was the #30 AOL Chevy. In 2005 however, they took on sponsorship from Jack Daniel's, changing the team's number to #07 to match. 

A race car so deeply alcohol-branded that even its number and font matched Jack's branding is obviously problematic for the E-rated video games. At first, EA had an easy solution: leave the car out of the games entirely! And so the #07 Chevy was omitted from NASCAR 06 and 07 altogether. This wasn't a big deal at first, since Dave Blaney struggled in the ride in 2005 and thus wouldn't really be missed in that year's video game, but a problem arose in 2006 when a rookie named Clint Bowyer took over the ride, and in his sophomore season of 2007 rose to become a serious title contender, eventually finishing 3rd in the points standings. A driver of his stature wouldn't be so easily ignored, so for NASCAR 08 EA would pretty much have to include his car.

Luckily, in 2006 Bowyer's team took on secondary sponsorship from DirecTV, even running their livery a handful of times a year: 

So EA decided to promote that paint scheme to be Bowyer's primary only car in the video games, removing the remaining Jack Daniel's imagery from the car in the process - including, just to be totally safe, the distinctively-Jack's number, replacing it with a more generic looking "07":

This continued for NASCAR 09, EA's last (non-Wii arcade) NASCAR game and which incidentally covered the final season of the Jack's sponsorship deal.

On 4/7/2022 at 10:02 PM, JerseyJimmy said:

y'know, I'm willing to wager inaccurate NASCAR paint schemes count for this, so I might as well point out that in a lot of NASCAR games (at least the '00s EA Sports ones), some of the drivers' sponsors are censored for promoting products that wouldn't fly in an E-rated game (good examples being Dale Jr. and Rusty Wallace's Bud and Miller Lite schemes being reworked to just spell out their own names). the funniest one, though, is probably this one I discovered playing Thunder '04 a bit ago: they had to change Mark Martin's Viagra-sponsored car to Pfizer.

 

 

Actually that's not so unusual, during those years Martin would run a scheme with Pfizer instead of Viagra on it once a year, usually the 2nd race of the season. 

So I'm not gonna make a big post whining about how much I hate that they banned shifts, how I think that's bad for baseball, etc.. God knows I don't want to start that discourse again considering I'm already tired of it elsewhere; but I do want to ask a question regarding something that I think has been oddly absent from said discourse: how, exactly, are they enforcing said ban? What's the punishment for an illegal defense now?