Jump to content

2021 NHL Regular Season


Recommended Posts

Columbus traded Pierre-Luc Dubois and a third round pick to Winnipeg for Patrick Laine and Jack Roslovic which sets up the question of how long before Laine demands out and is traded.  I see this as trading one problem for the same problem as I don't see Laine thriving under Torts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2021 at 2:22 PM, tp49 said:

Columbus traded Pierre-Luc Dubois and a third round pick to Winnipeg for Patrick Laine and Jack Roslovic which sets up the question of how long before Laine demands out and is traded.  I see this as trading one problem for the same problem as I don't see Laine thriving under Torts.

 

Lots of speculation that it was Torts-related. I don't think it was a Torts thing. I think it was a Jarmo Kekalainen thing. it's this simple - PLD had a good playoffs in 2019, and he was a monster against Toronto in the qualifying round in 20. He's got a point. He's a long, sturdy, young, talented and would be a #1 center on 2/3 of the teams in the NHL (funny enough Winnipeg has probably the best roster of centers in the NHL now). Those guys don't grow on trees. So he's an RFA and thinks he deserves Mitch Marner money, but the problem is that I don't even think Mitch Marner deserves Mitch Marner money and PLD definitely doesn't deserve Mitch Marner money. Jarmo was worried about PLD getting offer-sheeted so he freed up space by moving Ryan Murray and Markus Nutivaara and PLD lost his leverage. Jarmo Kekalainen tries to win every contract negotiation and so far his track record of stiffing guys and letting them get grouchy and moved elsewhere is pretty solid. He told Ryan Johansen to STFU, moved him to Nashville for Seth Jones, and now Nashville has a Johansen contract problem while the Jackets have Seth Jones. He told Bobrovsky he wasn't paying what he was asking, Bob signed with the Panthers and now the Panthers have a Bobrovsky contract problem. He told Josh Anderson to STFU, moved him to Montreal for Max Domi, and it looks like Montreal might have a Josh Anderson contract problem. The only time he shot for the stars was with Panarin who he offered max money and years to, but Panarin's heart was set on playing in New York City and he took something like 20 million less to do so. Nothing you can do about that. 

 

He could be a little more lenient in these negotiations, flex a little bit and pay a young star a good deal to keep him happy and keep the team's reputation around the players in the league in good standing, but he kind of just did that with Oliver Bjorkstrand who is lowkey the best offensive player on the team (not counting Laine). Maybe he botched the relationship and upset PLD's camp, maybe word gets out around the league that Columbus won't pay you? Valid points, but once a guy comes out and says he wants to be traded it really puts the team in a corner. That the Blue Jackets turned that situation into Patrik Laine and hometown kid Jack Roslovic is pretty impressive. It is both teams trading their problems to each other, but we don't know how Laine will take to the Blue Jackets. Maybe he likes it and Jarmo will pitch him the deal he pitched Panarin? Argument to be made that when Laine steps on the ice he'll be the best pure goal scorer the franchise has ever had. Wouldn't be surprised if the team offers him the entire bank. 

 

The thing to watch with the Blue Jackets is what they do after 2022 when half the team and basically all of the core will be UFA. It might get ugly if they don't sign some of these guys between now and then. And Laine is a factor in that now too. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely irresponsible. The Ducks are dreadful and should not be playing during a pandemic, nor do they deserve John Gibson. The league should force him to be traded to a contender, then send the rest of the team home until the entire world is vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

I'd be shocked if it happened. But if it did, I'll take it.

 

Honestly, I cant see him ever leaving. Malkin and Letang yes, but the Penguins have gone too far in with Crosby to move him.

 

Think he'd retire first, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://theathletic.com/2374438/2021/02/08/miscommunication-explained-how-chaos-led-to-botched-call-against-blue-jackets/

The Blue Jackets found a way to be on the victim's side of some OITGDNHL nonsense again. This team is the Detroit Lions of hockey, I swear.

 

Here's the series of events:

- The Hurricanes score a goal with a 1:15 left in the second period to take a 4-3 lead.

 

- Turns out Vincent Trochek is severely offsides. So offsides this is specifically the reason they gave coaches the ability to challenge offsides with video replay. 

 

- To everyone's astonishment the goal stands. Torts looks confused because he saw the same replay we all saw. 

 

- Blue Jackets lose the challenge so they go on the penalty kill and the rest of us go on thinking the NHL botched the call in the same way they always botch calls despite replay. The second period ends with the Hurricanes up 4-3 and 40 something seconds left on their power play.

 

- We come back for the third and find out they botched the call in a new, grander way than we realized.

 

- Jackets are told there was a miscommunication on the challenge, that the goal shouldn't have stood, but it can't be removed at that point (WHY THE :censored: NOT?), but to make it up to them they will end the Hurricanes powerplay and they'll start the third period five on five. LOL Remarkable.

 

- Max Domi ties the game 4-4 early in the third (PUCK DON'T LIE) but then Carolina scores twice more on some flukey horses*** (PUCK DOES LIE), Laine gets them to within one with about 40 seconds left, Jackets lose 6-5.

 

So what in the name of Colin Campbell happened? Here's what happened: An off-ice video coordinator in training, who isn't supposed to talk during reviews, whose job is to simply make sure the on-ice officials can talk to the warroom, looks at one angle of the replay and says "he's onside that's a good goal". Officials only see that angle because Toronto hadn't shown the other angle yet, mistake the video coordinator for someone in the Toronto war room telling them it's a good goal, take off their headsets, and go to make the call at center ice. Meanwhile the actual warroom guys and Colin Campbell are panicyelling at the off-ice official in the ice level box to get the on-ice officials' attention to make the correct call, but he doesn't hear them screaming at him because he's wiping down the headset with sanitizer due to Covid safety protocols! Why do the on-ice officials and the off-ice officials use the same headset? You tell me. INCREDIBLE. It's honestly….f****** hilarious.

 

And classic OITGDNHL that when presented with a situation with multiple solutions, choose the worst possible route. By my count there's 3 things they could've done - Option 1: you waive off the goal like you would've if the review had gone as it was supposed to, you reset the clock to when Trochek was offside like you would've if the review had gone as it was supposed to, and you replay the last minute whatever of the second period as if the Hurricanes ill-gotten powerplay had never happened. Then you stop the clock at the end of the second period and then play the last 20 minutes of the third period. It's messier, but it's the correct thing to do. Option 2: You tell the Blue Jackets "sorry we blew it, but we have to proceed as the rules are written." It's unfair to the Blue Jackets, but at least it doesn't break any precedents or set any new dumb precedents. Option 3 you leave the goal on the board because "can't break precedent", but then you also make up some bullcrap up in the middle of a game and end a team's powerplay because "whoops sorry" thereby breaking precedent anyway.

 

Option 1 would've been annoying for the Hurricanes and their fans, but the guy was offsides and would've been ruled correctly had a bunch of silliness not happened so what can they really say? Option 2 would've sucked for the Blue Jackets, but at least there's the rationale that they're sticking to the book. Option 3 offends everyone so they went with option 3. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sport said:

By my count there's 3 things they could've done - Option 1: you waive off the goal like you would've if the review had gone as it was supposed to, you reset the clock to when Trochek was offside like you would've if the review had gone as it was supposed to, and you replay the last minute whatever of the second period as if the Hurricanes ill-gotten powerplay had never happened. Then you stop the clock at the end of the second period and then play the last 20 minutes of the third period. It's messier, but it's the correct thing to do. Option 2: You tell the Blue Jackets "sorry we blew it, but we have to proceed as the rules are written." It's unfair to the Blue Jackets, but at least it doesn't break any precedents or setting any new dumb precedents. Option 3 you leave the goal on the board because "can't break precedent", but then you also make up some bullcrap up in the middle of a game and end a team's powerplay because "whoops sorry" thereby breaking precedent.

And just a short two days ago, we would have said there were only two options. It's kind of comforting that there's an unknowable Option 4 floating around somewhere in the ether; we just need to wait for OITGDNHL to rear its ugly/beautiful head again sometime in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

And just a short two days ago, we would have said there were only two options. It's kind of comforting that there's an unknowable Option 4 floating around somewhere in the ether; we just need to wait for OITGDNHL to rear its ugly/beautiful head again sometime in the future.

 

I don't think people are really making a big enough deal out of a sports league just making up a rule in the middle of a game. Imagine the NFL acknowledging in-game that a miscommunication led to the misjudgment of a review so they keep the touchdown, but give the team on the bad end a touchback at the 50 instead of the 25 to start the second half. That's what this was. Would never happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, charger77 said:

Ron Hextall named GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins

Ok, former Flyers goalie's now running things across the state, that's kinda funny and ironic; plus he's pretty decent at drafting so maybe this'll go pretty good in a few years- 
 

21 minutes ago, charger77 said:

Brian Burke name President of Hockey Operations

...oh; welp, so much for that lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sport said:

 

I don't think people are really making a big enough deal out of a sports league just making up a rule in the middle of a game. Imagine the NFL acknowledging in-game that a miscommunication led to the misjudgment of a review so they keep the touchdown, but give the team on the bad end a touchback at the 50 instead of the 25 to start the second half. That's what this was. Would never happen!

It really is OITGDNHL because it was the perfectly crazy way to screw this up. It would be one thing if they ended a random hooking penalty early, but they ended a penalty because they admitted that a goal shouldn't have counted without taking the goal off the board. The old standby was to say the call was bad, but them's the breaks. Nothing we can do. It was absolutely no comfort at all when your team was the one that got screwed, but it at least had a certain logic to it. What happens the next time they try to pull that? We 100% know it's not true now! They can just do whatever feels good! Can we dress our healthy scratches for the third period? Next two minute power play uses major penalty rules? Both make as much sense as ending a penalty 5/8 of the way in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cosmic said:

It really is OITGDNHL because it was the perfectly crazy way to screw this up. It would be one thing if they ended a random hooking penalty early, but they ended a penalty because they admitted that a goal shouldn't have counted without taking the goal off the board. The old standby was to say the call was bad, but them's the breaks. Nothing we can do. It was absolutely no comfort at all when your team was the one that got screwed, but it at least had a certain logic to it. What happens the next time they try to pull that? We 100% know it's not true now! They can just do whatever feels good! Can we dress our healthy scratches for the third period? Next two minute power play uses major penalty rules? Both make as much sense as ending a penalty 5/8 of the way in.

 

I wish they would've just played it by the book rather than the "I'm sorry about the wait here's a gift card for your next meal" response because now it opens up for everything the next time. Next time it'll be the Penguins on the bad end and I can't prove this, but I know if this had happened to the Penguins they would've taken the goal off the board. 

 

It's like when the Penguins scored a goal in the playoffs while Zach Werenski laid on the ice and bled a lake out of his eyeball and then throughout the rest of that playoffs any time a player went down the refs imediately blew the whistle. The Blue Jackets have this history of being on the bad end of the example scenario used to correct errors or loopholes in officiating judgements. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.