Jump to content

Brunner and Fasth do not qualify


yave1964
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to the NHL bylaws, Damien Brunner and Viktor Fasth do not qualify for the Calder because they are over the maximum age for a rookie. Really.

In 1989 the Wall came down, the cold war ended and soviet hockey stars by the bushelfull hit the nhl, Sergei Makorov, a soviet winger and star broke in with the Calgary Flames, overwhelmingly the best rookie, and at 31 was awarded the Calder much to the chagrin of Don Cherry and the canadien media who felt that it Makorov was not a rookie, even though it was his first year in the nhl. The writers voted to place a ban upon anyone over the age of 26 at the start of a season qualifying for rookie of the year.

Never mind that the only thing that had kept a Makorov, a Larionov, a Fetisov out of the nhl until their thirties was a cold war and a death grip by soviet rule forcing them to play for russia, once freed they faced prejudice from the Canadien media and fans. It was sad and pathetic.

So this rchaic rule is still in effect, this rule which promoted racism and was designed to hinder european players, will keep Fasth, who is 8-0-0 with a 1.78 goals against from qualifying because he is 30. Brunner who is 26 (turns 27 in two weeks)and seventh in the league in goals scored also will not qualify.

I admit, I read the hockey news cover to cover, this week Adam Proteau of ask Adam defends the archaic rule and defends the reason it was put in place in the first place. Reading it, ny hands were clenched in fists of rage.

I went in to NHL.com and pulled up player statistics, Fasth and Brunner are listed with the veterans but not the rookies.

In the long run, it is just a damn award, five years from now most people wont remember who won what anyway, but cmon, fair is fair, right is right. Fasth and Brunner are pulling away from all but a scant few for the Calder trophy, and the fact that they do not qualify is sad and pathetic. This rule needs taken off the books. Now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yave1964 Well, there is a big difference in the Makorov situation and the present day Europeans. Back then, Makorov had to play for the Russian team, basically forced into Army service. The rules are much more lax now, think they only have to serve 1 or 2 years of mandatory army service (anyone know up to date info on that?). Present day Russians can come to the USA or Canada basically whenever they want. So, if they choose to play in the KHL or a European League, they are knowingly eliminating themselves from the Calder race. I don't think Makorov had the same choice.

I agree with the cut off age. It's a trophy for young up and comers, or at least that's what I think the spirit of the award is. Guys in their late twenties or 30's should not be able to win it. They made a conscience decision to not come over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize Brunner was that old. So then the Wings signed him as a FA? Sorry I just don't remember.

Even though the Matt Read was age eligible last year, I do think his age was a factor. Read didn't play first line minutes as Landeskog or RNH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calder aka rookie of the year is designed to be given to the best rookie. Brunner is the most exciting first year player and is seventh in the league in scoring. If that does not qualify him for the rookie of the year I just dont understand. Not saying he is going to win it, Fasth either, but they deserve the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rule is right. Say a guy plays five years in the KHL or Europe honing his skill set, and getting loads of experience. When he chooses to play NHL hockey should his accomplishments be considered as impressive as a kid say.. Straight out if NCAA and four months in the AHL? Absolutely not. It may not have been NHL but he's had how many years pro experience where the kid barely has any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rule is right. Say a guy plays five years in the KHL or Europe honing his skill set, and getting loads of experience. When he chooses to play NHL hockey should his accomplishments be considered as impressive as a kid say.. Straight out if NCAA and four months in the AHL? Absolutely not. It may not have been NHL but he's had how many years pro experience where the kid barely has any.

I see the point, I just disagree, to me a rookie is a rookie is a rookie.

Occasionally you have a Brian Rafalski or Matt Read who is a late bloomer and either would not qualify under this arcane rule or barely does so. To me, your first season is your rookie season. Brendan Smith took four years at Grand Rapids to hone his skills, Brunner played in the Swiss pro league. Who really has the advantage?

That said, my Calder pick would be between Conacher Brunner and Schultz, leaning toward Schultz if he gets his plus/minus up. I just feel that everyone should qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yave1964 Yeah, some guys will slip through the cracks, and that is unfortunate. But guys playing in the KHL and other men's leauge's over in Europe, they have an unfair advantage over a first or even second year guy. Smith is the exception to the rule, 99% of players do not spend 4 years in the AHL before cracking the NHL line-up.....and if they do, they are not Calder candidates anyways, they are filler 6-7 d-men or 4th line wingers...like I said, Brenan Smith is the exception to this rule.

For the rookie of the year to have any true integrity, there has to be a cut off date. Otherwise, you could have a 35 year old KHL star come over here, pop in 30 goals and rob a true rookie of his chance to win it....and that would be wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jammer2 Hey! You can't agree with my post, I'm doubting your thread topic.....ha ha! Actually, it's the first time I remember disagreeing with you. I'm like that with a few posters, I agree with almost everything the doomster or fc post (among many others)....guess some people just think along the same lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yave1964

Gonna have to agree with @jammer2 on this as well. However, your statement of "a rookie is a rookie is a rookie" is essentially what I'm basing my argument on. Being a rookie is defined as your first season (or so) of playing professional ice hockey. If you choose to do that in Europe or the NHL, that's where you spend your rookie season. Someone who plays for ten years in Europe obviously has more experience than a kid just called up, so it presents an unfair advantage in the Calder race simply because its his first year in the NHL as opposed to elsewhere.

Remember to look at the "spirit" in which the award of presented, and not the "letter" by which the nominees are named.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Okay, Greater minds than mine have spoken, and while I may not be swayed entirely I get your argument, and gulp, even find myself agreeing with large portions of it. Good back and forth guys.

Seems like it was more back and less forth, yave. ;-P

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...