JR Ewing

And it's about to get bigger in the next few years. The land the arena is being built upon was owned by, yup, Oilers owner Daryl Katz. The city will buy that from him, naturally. The construction company the city is paying to build the arena is owned by Daryl Katz. The firm hired by the city to design the arena? What? Daryl Katz owns that? Who gets the money from naming rights, concessions, parking and non-hockey events? Daryl Katz. The city will own the arena, and will have to pay for 100% of the maintenance on the building. All savings for Katz. The arena will be built, it will be damn near 100% taxpayer funded, and Katz will receive most, if not all, of the profits... This is what has happened in virtually every community where this sort of thing comes up. As an Oilers fan, the last thing I'm worried about is the team to moving to Seattle, that's for sure. The last thing the BoG would approve is moving a revenue rich team to an unsure market. This has all just been part of tightening the screws in Edmonton. JR

Another thing I'd like to propose: If we're going to go through the process of voting, I'd like to ensure that we don't just concentrate on the last two or three decades, and make an attempt to look at players from decades gone by. For those who know about these guys, it's a chance to fill other people in about them, to spread knowledge of the game. For those who don't know about some of those players, it can help create more appreciation for different eras of hockey, those players, and help provide context for how to view modern players as well. JR

"The Politics of Glory" was a fantastic book, even by James' standards. I got turned on to his stuff while messing around at the public library when I was about 9, so around 1982 or so, and I then had to read everything of his that I could get my hands. Changed the way I thought about baseball, and opened up my mind to how I thought about hockey and how I couldn't help but noticed other people talked about the game as well. At a young age, it was a good introduction into the world of logical and ordered thinking. I keep an updated version of "The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" next my bed, and thumb through it regularly. It's not stretching the point to say that I treasure it, beaten up as it's become. Notes in the margins, etc, etc, etc... I love it. Baseball men (and many writers) have hated his kind for years, but I feel his impact on the game will be understood in time. Billy Beane is credited as a genius, had a book written in no small part about him, a movie, etc. Mostly it's because he's a handsome insider, and James is a neck-beard outsider, and if people think Beane had baseball men chafing, just think of what they thought of a chubby night security guard from a pork and beans plant telling them how wrong they were. Nice to see another fan. JR

Yeah, not a lot of players can cut the mustard on that one. The Bobby Hull banana curve comes to mind. Some others players have had their doings inspire rules changes, but they're dubious honours: Sean Avery: the "wave your arms and hands around like a jackass" rule. Rob Ray: jersey tie-downs for fights, because the goof stripped himself down every time. Man, that was cheap. JR

On the one hand, it seems like not THE best use of our time to go through the process of auto-inducting players like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, etc. However, on the other hand, where do we draw the line on who to drop the voting process for? That's not a loaded question but, rather, an honest one. JR

I'm guessing you didn't get past the thread title. lol Anyway, I certainly don't mean to impose MY way of looking at these things on to everybody else. There's any number of ways we could go about. I proposed a Keltner List approach as its quick and allows things to move along. If others wish to put the players to vote, that's certainly an option too, though it would definitely increase the time (which isn't always bad) between players inductions. We could create a series of polls and have them run for a certain amount of time (a week, for example) and then create a minimum percentage of votes for players to require in order to be inducted. This would be a chance for people to make their case (well reasoned, idiotic and everything in between). My only fear is that discussion may be diminished due to that approach, but it could work very well, too. Also, the chance for jackass votes exists, as well. JR

I have a strong preference for TSN's broadcast over CBC, as I feel HNIC has really slipped over the years. That said, I would prefer if CBC were able to keep the games they cover, if for no other reason than that I wouldn't want to see NHL hockey become the sole domain of cable/sat subscribers and lock out those unable or unwilling to spend the money. JR

I'll kick things off with a gimme, but just to show how it works: Mark Messier. 1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? No way. Not with Gretzky and Lemieux around. 2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? He won two Harts, but I don't anybody saying he was the best centre around. 3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) Yes. Messier was among the league leaders in the major categories about 20 times. (1) 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) No. (1) 5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? Yes, Messier was a big part of 7 trips to the Finals. (2) 6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? Absolutely. Messier was the 2C on four Cup winners, and top dog on 2 more. (3) 7. Was he ever a team Captain? Yes, he was a captain for the Oilers, Rangers and Canucks. (4) 8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? Messier is the only player to captain two different teams to Stanley Cups (EDM and NYR) (5) 9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? Messier was decent in this area, but not in the range of the top defensive forwards of his time. No (5) 10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here) Messier had a serious dirty side to his game which intimidated friend and foe alike. Big yes. (6) 11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime? The man played forever. (7) 12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? Messier was 1st AS at LW (1982), 3 more times at C (1983, '90, '92), and a 2nd AS in 1984. (8) 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? Yes. Of the ten most similar player, 5 are in the HOF, and most of the rest will likely be in soon. (9) 14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections) Messier won two Harts and two Lindsays. (10) 15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources) Messier won the 1984 Conn Smythe. (11) 16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!) I don't see it. (11) 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? Extremely difficult area in which to get a point. Messier was well known in the hockey world as an Edmonton Oilers. When he led the Rangers to their Cup in 1994, he became famous everywhere. Yes. (12) 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? No, but this one is also very difficult. Final Score = 12 According to the quiz, Messier is an unquestioned HOFer.

I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is. Years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too. I think of it as a chance to build our own hockeyforums.net Hall of Fame. 1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? 2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? 3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) 5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? 6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? 7. Was he ever a team Captain? 8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? 9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? 10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here) 11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime? 12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? 14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections) 15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources) 16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!) 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? 13+ = Best of the best 11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer 9-10 = Great player 5-8 = Belongs in HOF 4 = Borderline 3 = Weak Argument 1-2 = Completely Unqualified Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes. NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment. So, I'm hoping to see other member be interested in this. If so, copy/paste the questions and enter a player. We can keep a running list and build the HF.net Hall of Fame. Resources The biggest resource of info for these questions is at hockey-reference. You can find all of their stats, league leader, awards, the most similar players, etc. http://www.hockey-reference.com/ For the questions regarding team captains, full listing is here. Just click on each team's listing, and you'll be re-directed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NHL_captains_and_alternate_captains The Conn Smythe Trohpy wasn't created until the 1965 season. The Society for International Hockey Research, with support from the Hockey Hall of Fame, has filled in the blanks from 1918 to 1964. We can use that list to help with players from those years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_Conn_Smythe JR

-Nurse: is absolutely not ready. -Klefbom: the best place he can go is almost assuredly the AHL, but MacTavish seems to feel he's ready to challenge for an NHL job. I really don't know about that. Physically, he's ready to play in the NHL, and from all reports, he was becoming a dominant defenseman in Sweden, up until his injury last year. And that, for me, is a big issue. He hasn't played hockey in quite awhile now. He's been playing against men since he was 16, and has surely learned a lot more than many kids his age, but I don't think it would hurt to let him get used to North American away from NHL shooters. If I were to rank the Oilers prospects on the blueline, it would look something like: Oscar Klefbom - an all-around, two-way defenseman. I *love* players with a well-rounded game and that's the word on him. Darnell Nurse - physical and mean, will have to get bigger. He played some of the toughest minutes in the CHL. (tougher than Seth Jones, for example). Martin Marincin - big lanky guy. Puck mover. Made big strides in his defensive game in the AHL last year. Scored just as much without Justin Schultz as with. Very good news. Martin Gernat - puck moving defenseman with size. Like lots his age, needs to work on his play without the puck. Needs work. Taylor Fedun - getting a little bit old to call a prospect, but breaking his femur really set him back, so I think it's fair to include him here. Plays in all situations in AHL, and was good. David Musil - his skating issues persist, but he can play defense at a very high level already. Quick NHL wingers would eat him alive if he can't skate better. Dillon Simpson - likely would have been drafted a lot earlier if he'd been a CHLer rather than skipping right from the AJHL to the University of North Dakota a year early. Could be better than most think. Brandon Davidson - played well after he came back from the cancer treatment, but stuff like that is tough to overcome at this point of a player's development. So, I don't know how things will work out other than to say that at a few of those guys will be busts. Just the way it is. Klefbom, Nurse and Marincin represent their best young defensemen, though, and are very nice pieces going forward. The problem is, as you said, that they lag behind the forwards. JR

No, not photochopped... http://www.urlesque.com/2010/05/24/41-hilarious-mugshots/ JR

-Cleary:. If he could be signed to a bargain deal, I think he has some time left in him. Had the second-toughest zone starts in DET last season, was a possession positive player even though he had some bad puck luck (PDO of only 968). A one-year deal signed at a low salary could be a bet which pays off long, since it seems tough to believe he'll go from delivering quality minutes to nothing overnight.. -Yakupov: I wouldn't deal him at this stage of his career for anything other than a gross overpay. I don't think anybody would want to pony up a prime age top pairing defenseman for somebody so young. I think they have to let him ride, and besides... In my honest opinion, he'll be a more dangerous player than Jordan Eberle. He put up a very nice rookie year, and only played his natural position for the last 20% of the season. It was night and day, the difference between his effectiveness on RW as compared to LW. http://stats.hockeya...2012-13&sit=5v5 Other than Sam Gagner and Ales Hemsky, with whom Yakupov played LW, every one of his teammates scored more with him on the ice. It's not every rookie who does that at that age. -Hall: yes, definitely untouchable. -Nugent-Hopkins: had big issues with his should last year (and since he played in Red Deer, actually), so that couldn't have helped his offense. One thing about him that didn't get a lot of notice last year: his play without the puck improved at a staggering rate. Looking forward to what he may be capable of if a little more healthy, but everything is still nicely in the same direction as before. I don't think he'll be the ES monster that Hall already is, but rHop is a PP savant. What is forgotten (I don't mean by you) sometimes is young Hopkins was for a #1 pick; he's almost two years younger than Taylor Hall (who has a late birthday, like most 1st round picks). He just turned 20 after the season ended; unreal. I think we can expect a bounce-back from him as far as goals is concerned. His shooting percentage was only 5.1% last year, and SH% regresses heavily to the mean on a yearly basis. One note: was already playing 1C for the last two years, and Eberle has been his RW during that time. JR

Just a mugshot of some poor sap somewhere. I change avatars every month or so, so it won't be around too too long. (accepting offers, btw... low low prices) JR

Well, I know that I'd sure as hell like to see some position-by-position improvements on the blueline. They still lack a quality top guy who belongs in that spot, rather than having the minutes handed to him because he's the best they have. I think that Smid and Petry re complimentary defensemen, and am not bullish on them still being the top dogs. Perhaps if Justin Schultz can take a big step, he can be that guy, but that's a really lousy bet to make. If I'm a GM, I'm going to be a pessimist, never assume I'll see huge improvement, and plan accordingly. Also: -Not big on the Oilers keeping Ryan Jones around. He's living proof that hustle can have a large impact on the impression you give as a player, but he's still terribly ineffective and cheats for offense. I think he's a bottom of the roster guy with some skill, but NOT a two-way player. Would much rather see a free agent like Dan Cleary getting those minutes. -I'm uncomfortable with the lack of depth up the middle, and would rather bring in a more proven veteran than Anton Lander. Lander will never be an offense player, and does have some defensive skills, but again: don't bank on those things all coming to fruition in the toughest league in the world. I'd rather make a low cost risk on a cheap veteran with a track record of being able to take tough zone starts. -Would dearly love to get rid of Mike Brown. -I also don't see this as a playoff team yet. JR

Sure, sure. The cat's out of the bag now. JR

Yeah, I'm not a guy to start piling on and flame. Not my style. There's few players, managers, etc I have anything against, and if I make a comment, it's never from a source of bias. Well... Maybe not Steve Tambellini. To hell with everything about that guy as a GM. Terrible. JR

Ok, let's work with that. The question then becomes "Is Devan Dubnyk the problem?" Year SV% Lg Avg 2013 .921 .909 2012 .914 .911 2011 .916 .910 We could compare this to how the Oilers have fared in CorsiFor% during the same period: 2013 - 29th 2012 - 28th 2011 - 27th So, we have a situation where the team has a goalie who was clearly above league average last year, and slightly above the two seasons before. I don't think that's nearly the problem compared to the fact that their CorsiFor% shows that they just don't carry enough of the play, and spend too much time in their own end. That's the big problem facing facing the Oilers. By all means, they could improve the goaltending; I don't disagree. I also don't really see a championship team building themselves around Devan Dubnyk. I don't think Craig MacTavish does either, or he wouldn't have tried so hard for Corey Schneider. But, do the Oilers have bigger fish to fry? Bigger problems than Devan Dubnyk? Yes, in my honest opinion. JR

Random thoughts in point-form: -Dubnyk is coming off two consecutive years as a league average goalie. He's neither the solution nor the problem so far. -Lennart Petrell is gone, thankfully. Brutal ES player. JR

The correlation coefficient between GF and Win% is 0.7, and the correlation between GA and Win% is -0.7... In other words, they have an equal relationship with winning. We can't turn around and say that Win% is largely dependent on goalie until they start popping a few goals while they're are at it. They can make all the saves in the world, but they don't win unless their teammates score, no matter how good they are stopping pucks. Regarding the number of shooters... Lundqvist sees more shooters per shootout because his team is less efficient than are the Pens, not because of how he's performed. After all, he and Fleury have the same SV%. Also: not hating on Fleury. I never even said that he's not the best goalie in shootouts. I think his SV%, which is tied for the top spot, shows that he's damned good at it; among the best in the NHL. My only issue was with the article. JR

I just don't see how the author of the article picks out one stat between two goalies and says "there, that's the one that decides everything." They have the same SV%, but Lundqvist has seen almost one more shooter per shootout (3.8 for HL versus 3.1 for MAF). Three shooters and then it's done for Pittsburgh? Sounds like they have better shooters than New York. Yup: PIT is 4th with a SH% of 36.9%, NYR are 22nd with a SH% of 31.2% You can't use Win% to differentiate between goalies. They don't step out of their crease and score goals in addition to preventing them. TLDR - article is junk stat work. JR

Absolutely! All I'm seeing in Booagaard's case is a lot of drug pushers with medical degrees. JR

From the age of 16, until the his death at 28, Boogaard was in 184 hockey fights (I don't know about any he may have had away from the rink). At 16, he had 34 fights alone, many against 20 year olds as he was trying to make a name for himself. In short, he was severely brain inured, and was looking at life in an senior's hospice being spoon fed at 40 years old. People with those sorts of brain injuries aren't famous for their ability to make sound life decisions. JR

Kinda like when Sean Avery got Ladislav Smid with a cheapshot: It was absolutely a cheap move by Avery, but Smid should have been ready for it. Lesson learned, I suppose. JR

Between suffering from serious brain injuries and being completely whacked out by drugs, Boogaard must not have know if he was coming or going. One thing is certain here: there are three groups who should be ashamed of the way they dealt with Boogaard: -The Wild -The Rangers -The NHL/NHLPA Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Program Nobody involved did enough to help him: from the Wild and Ranger, who happily fed him with a constant supply of highly addictive meds, nor the SABH program, which happily ignored 6 failed drug tests. Thanks for the links, hf. JR

Many of the same things could be said about Domi, and I wouldn't want somebody to crush him in the face with a cheapshot either. JR