Jump to content

How is Matt Read not a Finalist for the Calder


Guest Vanflyer

Recommended Posts

for one he's 25 years old

I wasn't aware of the age limitation on the Calder.

Probably because there isn't one. If they want it to be the best player under 20 award, make it the best player under 20 award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OccamsRazor

Ladeskog and Henrique both played third PK pairing (about 1:20 minutes a game). Read played double of that. Nugent-Hopkins did not play PK at all (but of ton of PP).

Landeskog should totally win it, but Read should have been a finalist.

Agree with that statement....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the age limitation on the Calder.

Probably because there isn't one. If they want it to be the best player under 20 award, make it the best player under 20 award.

OOPs that definately came out wrong. My thought was that thats the criteria the sports writers are using when they didnt consider him.If had a vote he would be at the top he plays pp, pk lead in goals and game winners all that production on a team loaded with rooks. The other reason he doesnt get the nod is the name of team he plays for. I agree with you a rookie is a rookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the age limitation on the Calder.

Probably because there isn't one. If they want it to be the best player under 20 award, make it the best player under 20 award.

Actually, there IS an age restriction on the Calder. You have to be under 26, which Read is. His age does act against him, and because of it, I don't think he should win (Landeskogs season as a teenager is much more impressive). Another thing against him is he's a Flyer. And then of the course the all important factor...he didn't play junior :P But he should certainly be a finalist after a great year for a rookie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the age limitation on the Calder.

Probably because there isn't one.

there is. age 26. read squeaks in.

so..he does qualify. but i can see how his age colors his accomplishments in the eyes of the voters. it is a little less impressive for a 25 yearold to do those things than an 18/19 year old.

besides, my vote would go to couturier, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he should certainly be a finalist after a great year for a rookie.

So of the three finalists, which should come off? I'd probably say Nugent-Hopkins because of all the injury time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the age limitation on the Calder.

Probably because there isn't one. If they want it to be the best player under 20 award, make it the best player under 20 award.

In 1990, Sergei Makarov of the Calgary Flames became the oldest player, at age 31, to win the Calder. After that season, the rules for awarding the Calder were amended so that players could only be eligible if they were 26 years old or younger by September 15 of their rookie season.

To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played any more than 25 games previously in any single season, nor have played in more than six games in two separate preceding seasons in any major professional league. The latter fact was perhaps most prominent when in 1979–80, first-year phenom Wayne Gretzky was not eligible to win the Calder Trophy despite scoring 137 points (the previous rookie record at the time being 95), because he had played a full season the previous year in the World Hockey Association. The trophy has been won the most times by rookies from the Toronto Maple Leafs, who have won it on nine occasions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 goals, most GWG for all rookies, fourth in +/- and played in all game situations (pp, sh, ev).

Mind boggling.

Another issue I have with awards is what about Courtier? Anyone that knows hockey and watched him play will agree this kid is a stud. But because he doesn't have 25 goals all the idiots won't even mention his name. Hockey is more than about stats..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ach, I should have Googled it before posting, but it was a wonderful piece of snark :-)

So, then, why 25 if they're not going to nominate anyone over 22?

Another ridiculous NHL situation. "Ridiculous" as in "worthy of ridicule".

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...