WordsOfWisdom

The North division is certainly there for the taking, but a wake up call is coming in the "conference" final unless this team starts to play a more physical game, especially when they start playing a US team with fans in the building. If someone mows down one of your top players there has to be some pushback.

In recent games I've seen several instances where a Toronto player got nailed, and there was no response from anyone in a blue and white sweater. On one play, Tavares got checked hard into the net after a play stoppage and Matthews (who was right there when it happened) just skated past the opposing player and did nothing. Then the other night Thornton got speared/slashed along the boards from Ehlers and there was no response by Kerfoot (who was right there). This doesn't bode well for the Leafs in the playoffs. A team that won't stand up for each other is the kind of team that will get rolled over when it matters most.

I'd have to hear some clips of him to know for sure. Chris Cuthbert is good, much better than Jim Hughson, but he's very friendly and calls the game 50:50. I can't tell who the home team is when I flip the game on, not that anyone really is a home team any more anyway.

Since the Leafs are the most hated team in hockey, why not play up to it? Why do we keep hiring Jack-of-all-Teams people like Jim Hughson to do commentary? Why do we hire people who cheer as loud for the opposition as they do for the Leafs? Why do we hire guys who feel bad for opposing teams when the LEAFS are doing well? The Leafs need a "heel" commentator. Someone who opposing teams will despise. Someone who will put Leafs players on pedestals and bury the opposing players at every opportunity. It's time to just put on the Darth Vader outfit and start the Imperial March.

In all the years I've watched hockey, I can't think of a time when a Toronto commentator laughed at the opposition after a goal. In fact, I can't even remember a time when a Toronto commentator didn't cheer..... when the opposition scored. In Toronto, the commentators almost seem to APOLOGIZE when the Leafs score a bad goal. They sulk and feel sad for the opposing goaltender on a soft goal instead of the "bwahaha" reaction that you think you would get from a home team's commentator (like this). Just an observation. If I could have ONE THING on this Leafs team, it would be a total homer commentator who cheers for the Leafs and buries the opposition. I want the Jesse Ventura of Leafs commentators. Sick and tired of having "safe", "50/50" commentators. Joe Bowen is close, but they've got him on Leafs radio. Toronto desperately needs a "heel" commentator. Someone opposing teams will hate.

Oh that's another problem I solved too! The whole soft mesh thing is really for the benefit of fans and referees so that when a goal is scored, the puck will be sitting in the net where it's clearly visible. It'll never kick back out. That eliminates most of the controversy surrounding goals today. However, for those plays where the puck is trickling over the line and there's a dispute as to whether it crossed the line before a defensive player swatted it away, I can solve that using image recognition software and a fixed camera inside the net (not the moveable net cam). The live broadcast of the game would include a live feed from that camera. That feed would get run through a computer in real-time where the system will process images frame by frame. The moment a puck crosses all the way over the line, it'll send a signal to the goal lamp on the ice to illuminate. Bingo, you've got your goal. Effectively, it would be a computerized, infallible goal judge. A "goal judge" capable of seeing 60+ frames per second and never missing anything. You could use sensors and other gadgets but then a sensor has no "smarts" and wouldn't be able to differentiate between a puck crossing the line and a defenceman's stick, or a goalie's glove, etc. A computer on the other hand, could be easily programmed to recognize a puck and then to look for it within the frame of a still image.

True. Speaking of years..... I'm creating some new "time capsule" like threads for forum users to enjoy a century from now. (I'm assuming this forum will still exist 100 years from now, being run by HF101's offspring.)

| /\ (I finally found that emoji in the list!) Apparently. Vegas has been the best team in the NHL since its inception. They built their team faster than Toronto has with its rebuild.

That's why I used the "box of scraps" analogy. They got every other team's cast-offs. The players that were left unprotected. The players every other franchise felt they could afford to lose. And they nearly won a Stanley Cup in season one. Maybe this will be the new way to win a Stanley Cup! Step 1: Fold your existing franchise (if you have one). Step 2: Apply for an expansion franchise. Step 3: Collect an all-star team of young players out of the box. Step 4: Win a Stanley Cup. Then just repeat the cycle lol.

No but you can't run a profitable sports franchise if fans are only willing to pay if you're a playoff team. The expectation is that fans should be willing to pay to watch the team during good years and during lean years. If things really get bad, bring waffles lol. I think the league is setting Vegas up for a bigger fall in the future, and it's going to be an epic fall from grace when it happens. The first time Vegas ices a bad team after all of this winning and I think the fans will bail on it immediately. By that's my two cents... in a world with no cents.

Well what you just said doesn't apply to Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, or Ottawa (for the most part). Fans sell out the building at full ticket prices (no comps) to watch all of those franchises through good times and bad times.

See my car dealership analogy in the post above. ^

True, but I'm using the example to show what happens when you gift fans in a new city with a championship calibre team from day one. So although the Av's were a relocation of an existing team and not a true expansion team, the comparison to Vegas is valid in that sense. Vegas was a team in a new city, Colorado was a team in a new city. Vegas had instant success, Colorado had instant success. (My comparison begins and ends there on those two points alone.) It's like if I have a teenage son and I buy him a Ferrari for his 18th birthday. It doesn't matter whether I got the Ferrari through a trade-in, lease, or whether I bought the car in cash. What matters is that my teenage son got the Ferrari instead of a Camry and the comparison is not based on my acquisition of the product but on what the end result of that acquisition was. The comparison begins with the keys being handed to the teenage son, not with me at the dealership. (Hopefully that makes sense.) I'm comparing fans in Vegas to fans in Colorado. I'm not comparing ownership in Vegas to ownership in Colorado. I'm comparing the end result, not the means to obtain it.

I'll try to keep the rant short and to the point this time (I promise). Every game there is at least one goal that is scored which results in confusion because the puck pops out of the net as quickly as it went in. This results in a video replay needing to be done and wastes a few minutes of time. (It's even worse when the play continues for minutes afterwards and has to be undone.) The root cause of the problem is the design of the modern NHL net. The problem is that the mesh on an NHL net is way too firm, and it doesn't even look like they use rope any more. It looks like plastic. The puck hits it and it's like it just hit the end boards. It shoots out of the net as quickly as it went in. The mesh in a traditional hockey net is made out of rope (like a fishing net), and it sags and droops. When a puck hits it, the force of the puck is fully absorbed. The puck is swallowed up by the net. It doesn't rebound. Now, the league has changed the nets over the years (deviating from the original/genuine article) and would argue that the current net design is in place for the following reasons: Aesthetics (looks pretty) To keep pucks from resting on the back of the net (which causes a play stoppage) An unstated/implicit reason no doubt has to do with the use of the net cam and video review having a "mesh-free" view of the inside of the net. (Of course, neither of those used to exist.) So, there are a variety of solutions available (none of which the NHL will ever implement). They include: Adding a soft inner layer of mesh to catch and trap pucks while keeping the outer layer of mesh hard. (NHL won't do it because it'll affect the net cam and video reviews.) Making the outer portion of the net out of a hard see-through material like plexiglass which can be curved and shaped to match the exact proportions of the existing mesh in an NHL net, and then have a soft inner mesh to catch and trap the puck. This would allow fans, video review, etc. to look through only one layer of meshing instead of two, and would keep pucks from resting on the back of the net. (This would never be implemented because it'll look different from what fans and players are used to. Quite different. The nets would also be heavier as well and therefore potentially more dangerous if a player crashed into one, although players crash into the boards/glass all the time with no effect and it's really only the posts that are dangerous when you hit a net, nothing else.) Go back to having a soft mesh and live with the fact that pucks will rest on the back of the net if they happen to land there. (NHL won't do this because the NHL won't ever go back.) The only reason why I consider this to be an issue is because it happens so frequently. (Once per game on average as mentioned above.) We've reached the point where the referees can no longer tell whether a goal is scored or not. A video review is now required on almost every NHL goal. I think the NHL wants it this way, but all I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be this way. There is a better way.

I could see that plan backfiring however because....... (here's my theory).......... New franchises generally have a "honeymoon" period where fans are just happy that they have a franchise. That honeymoon usually lasts about 5-10 years before wearing off. At that point, the team either has to win to retain fans or things go bust. Now, if you put a Stanley Cup level team on the ice from day one (as we saw in Colorado and are now seeing in Vegas) then your honeymoon period creates a generation of "spoiled" fans. You already had their money anyway just by having a new franchise during the honeymoon, but now you've given them a taste of what a champion looks like and now they "grow up" on the taste of a winning sports team. That means when the honeymoon period is over, and the winning streak comes to an end, the franchise is going to be hit with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Fans will be put off by the losing and they'll be put off by the novelty of a new team wearing off at the same time. If you look at what happened in Colorado, the fans were gifted a Stanley Cup champion. Their honeymoon period was filled with two championships (1996, 2001). Once the novelty wore off, there was no winning to sustain the fanbase (because it also finally wore off). The Av's had their run of success, but it came at the wrong time IMHO and you could see how badly the franchise was hurting financially until very recently. (They have a good team again now, but a few years ago they appeared to be a lost cause.)

It sounds ridiculous to think about, but at the NHL's current rate of expansion, the league will have 60 teams shortly after the year 2100. So here's a question for future posters on the forum: Should the NHL expand the playoffs to 32 teams and add a 5th round? If the NHL does add a 5th round, should they introduce two new trophies for winning the 4th round (which players can also stand next to and not touch) or will they simply move the Campbell and Wales trophies to the winner for the 4th round and award nothing after 3 rounds?

I guess I'll be okay with this if the standard is upheld for ALL future expansion franchises and is not just a one-off for Vegas only.

So basically, if the NHL is sure that hockey will succeed in a market, then they'll be okay with the team sucking (a team in Ottawa or Hamilton let's say) but if the team is in a location where people don't generally care about hockey then the league will bend over backwards to make it an instant winner? Seems like tampering to me. Vegas could have started out like that, and I'd argue they should have, but the difference is between starting weak and staying weak. A team like the Coyotes has no excuse for being bad considering they were a relocation of a good Jets team. The Panthers started bad and generally stayed bad. The Lightning started bad and picked themselves up off the floor. The Senators did the same. It really comes down to proper management.

109 points in their inaugural season. Straight to the Stanley Cup final using a roster built in a cave with a box of scraps. (Iron Man reference.) But just to show it's no fluke, they've followed it up with a playoff appearance every season since then. Currently, they're in line to win the President's Trophy this season. This sort of goes beyond smoke and mirrors doesn't it? Season Lg Team GP W L T OL PTS PTS% SRS SOS Finish Playoffs Coaches Division Conference 2020-21 NHL Vegas Golden Knights 45 32 11 2 66 .733 0.96 -0.15 1st of 8 P. DeBoer (32-11-2) West 2019-20 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 71 39 24 8 86 .606 0.21 -0.02 1st of 8 Lost NHL Conference Finals G. Gallant (24-19-6), P. DeBoer (15-5-2) Pacific Western 2018-19 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 82 43 32 7 93 .567 0.19 -0.04 3rd of 8 Lost NHL First Round G. Gallant (43-32-7) Pacific Western 2017-18 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 82 51 24 7 109 .665 0.52 -0.01 1st of 8 Lost Stanley Cup Final G. Gallant (51-24-7) Pacific Western

I look at it like HITS in baseball. It doesn't matter if you have 3,000 hits in 3,000 at-bats or 3,000 hits in 25,000 at-bats, if you hit that milestone you get into the HOF. In hockey, longevity counts for something as well. He stuck around long enough to compile some impressive totals and the icing on the cake is setting the NHL record for games played. As soon as you set an NHL record for something, you're going into the HOF for sure. I think if there were any doubt before, him breaking the all-time record for games played now makes him a HOF'er for sure.

Just prior to the season-long lockout. Yes! I think we beat the Sens that year. Perfect.

You mean six months ago?

Owch! I think Duke Nukem said it best:

If it were up to me we'd be having a parade for every round of playoffs that we win.