squishyx

We may have 7 buyouts, but they are mostly on small contracts. Out 7 total buyouts sum to only 13.75m

http://www.capgeek.com/devils/# is quick

I like Volchie, but we need the room on D. Thanks for the Yeoman's work.

About 150 players have contracts between 550k and 650k. A lot of two way contracts? sure, who cares. The hawks don't need top tier talent, they need warm bodies to make up their 4th line for 5 minutes a game.

I still see plenty of room. Teravainen? signed for 3 more years. Seabrook will be 31 when his deal ends, I can't seem him making much more then his 5.8 as it stands. Could they lose Saad? eh maybe, but I wouldn't lose Sharp, Kane, or Toews over him. 1.2m for 8 players isn't too bad when you consider half will get 2.5m and the other half 1/2m. They just need depth players in 2 years, not stars.

The Hawks look fine to me capwise keeping everyone. Toews and Kane are going to get around 4m each in raises and the will get that in the cap increases. They need a few fringe players to round out the roster but they seem fine to me.

I think location matters, over a million households in the Chicago area watched the game. I think that's a lot more relevant then the total number of people who watched. I did assume far fewer attended then watched, I said 1 in 3. might be less, might be more. But those are households, who, on average probably have at least a spouse and a kid that they would take with them. Then there are people who are outside the TV market who traveled to Chicago, there is probably another big chunk of people aren't really hockey fans but wanted to celebrate Chicago winning something and as DR33 said, a lot of people who used it as an excuse to take a day off school / work. Seems completely feasible to me.

Isn't the estimate in question (the 1.5m claim) about Chicago? Both game 6's ('10 and '13 final games) had had over 8m. I believe my ratings quote above was from an article refering to the 2013 win.

Wiki says game 6 drew over 8 million viewers for the blackhawks. Chicago drew 30.2 which I believe just means households watching the game, and their TV market is 3.5 million. So 1 million households in the Chicago area watched the final game, you don't think it's likely that of those, say 1 out of 3 people went to the parade and took their spouse / kids with them? I do.

Really though, what value does this bring to the game? The idea is to stop diving/embellishment not just catch and punish players; and if it can be done in an non-game altering fashion, shouldn't that be the primary method? I doubt ref's would even want this task anyway. "yea let me stop the game for 3 minutes and try to figure out if this guy was faking it or not".

I don't think your comparisons there are all that meaningful. A few college football stadiums regularly draw 100k people for just an average game, it's not that crazy to me to think a city (and it's surrounding areas) would churn out a group in the million range.

Nah, I don't like the idea of reviewing penalties, opens pandora's box. If you start throwing out suspensions, players will learn quick, and it gives the league a chance to punish only egregious offenders (which are the only problem anyway) and not accidentally punish players who legitimately tripped or had a reason to grab their face. Ice is slippery, sometimes a player looks like he is taking a dive when he really just lost his footing.

I posted something similar in the other thread, but basically i agree with this. I hate the idea of needing officials to make split second calls on what is and what is not a dive / embellishment. It should only be punished when it's clear on replay, and when it is, punishments should be swift and brutal in the form of fines and suspensions, not in game play. It's too subjective to be called live, if you take a stick to the face you are naturally going to grab your head, even if it's not a bad hit.

I don't think so. Quick was good but he wasn't tested nearly as much. But oh well. "the Queen is dead long! live the Kings"

Hrm. '95 I think he wins another 15, '04 came in one of his better stretches, I think another 40 is a safe bet, '13 was a forgettable year, but he probably adds another 15. He won about 60% of his games (factoring our ties), and he had 105 of those so figure another 60 there, and throw in 10 for next year. So somewhere around 830. There's probably an argument to be made that had he played another 150 games he lost in the lockout that he might have retired already though.

This should be moved.

Lou might have to relax on this rule eventually. Figure 26 will join 3,4,27 within the next 5 years and with the defacto ban on 1 and 13 for players, there are only 24 numbers under 30 to pick from. If 2 or 3 fall on the LTIR they won't have a choice. Sure he could do something dull like only allowing numbers under 35 or 40, but i think the flood gates would open at that point.

I don't think it will become more or less prevalent. If you are the "screen" guy your job is to get in front of the net as fast as possible, this was sort of a perfect storm of events, King trying to set up in front, Lundqvist moving left-to-right and the shot coming as McDonough ties up with King. It would hard to script that intentionally.

Yea but the crease is no longer "no mans land" and as long as you are not interfering with the goalie you are free to roam around, plant yourself wherever, set up for high tea with the queen. Obviously he did interfere, so the question circles back down to how much of a shove did McDonough give him, that's going to be a judgement call. but if it's down to that, then King's placement is irrelevant. Now as for what is McDonough supposed to do? Not interfere with a player who doesn't have the puck (there's a penalty for that) and instead establish defensive position on King. I think it's a pretty poor argument to say that McDonough had no choice but to shove King on to his goaltender.

What you are talking about are the rules set in place to deal with just 2 actors, the goalie and the attacking player. The only section in the goaltender-interference-goal-being-allowed-or-not that deals with the 3rd actor (ie McDonough) is section 3 (and it's 4 sub-scenarios), so I don't see how the clause that deals only with 2 players overrides the one that more accurately describes the situation. And if you (well not you, but someone else) can agree with that, then ultimately boils down to if you think King made a reasonable effort to avoid Lundqvist or not and I think he does; his skate does collides with Lundqvist skate (which probably does the most damage in terms of getting position) but from the clip above at around 38s I see King trying fall forward and away from Lundqvist, but it's hard to say for sure given how tied up he is with McDonough...

Not relevant. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557 Now I agree with your other response earlier where the ref said he made the call because the contact happened after the puck crossed, it clearly hadn't. But I think it's the overall right call, even it's by dumb luck. If McDonough is not in the picture, King doesn't touch Lundqvist at all, regardless of him grazing through the crease (which is not a penalty in and of itself). McDonough quite frankly doesn't give King anywhere to go. At 0:04, King is right behind the net. Keep your eyes solely on him, with no McDonough he will peacefully pass to the front of the crease, instead 3s later in that clip McDonough initiates the contact that ultimately ends up with king disrupting Lundqvist.

I disagree King is set to skate to the front of the crease, I imagine to set a screen infront of lundqvist, maybe his foot will slide through the crease a little on his way but he won't interfere with henrik on his original course. It's McDonough that changes King's course and steers him into lundqvist. This could have been waived off as incidental, or not. I think it's a coinflip, not as clear cut as every Rangers fan in mourning is making it out to seem. Edit: ha, embedded the gif

The kings have been better in every period of this series in terms of pressure, forecheck and quality scoring chances. The rangers have been opportunistic which has made things uneasy. If the bounces actually start balancing out or even tilt LA's way, they are going to rout NY in the next two games.

Yeah that's not true. The kings have controlled the series. The rangers to their credit made the most out of bad bounces or turnovers, so the score board makes it seem closer then it is.

This attitude annoys me. Some of us live in NY and have been cheering for the Devils our whole lives =/