NJDfan1711

I probably would've forgotten it too if you hadn't mentioned it, but now that you did, it sounds familiar....didn't he go to a rival, wasn't it Toronto? EDIT: I just looked and saw who it was... wouldn't have guessed them, but now I do remember. Kinda random destination.

To me this just seems logical though... why hire a guy for a position when you haven't hired his boss yet?

"Stephane Richter" lol. Pretty cool how they poured coffee out of it into Letterman's mug.

I most remember Geoff Sanderson for the Whalers...crazy.

Yeah...right now I agree with you, for the reason you just stated - but I was disagreeing with you earlier because I thought you were implying that since he went from 6th to 38th then he must not have been very good, and that he was only 6th because of the era/time he played in.

Ah yeah, I think I heard that too - makes sense.

Makes sense. Most organizations should/may do this. Also, not sure what thread it belongs in and didn't see it posted anywhere else, but Vegas and Vancouver have been decided as the two host cities. Kinda weird that Vegas was chosen for the Eastern Conference since it's very much a western city, but I'm sure they had their reasons.

True, but he retired, what, 40-50 years ago? His drop from 6th all time to 38th is more to do with time and the league doubling in age than anything else. Technically you could go through that time span and not have many players retire with a point per game average, but all things being equal, you're gonna have some. If he dropped 32 places in 50 years, that's less than 1 player per year retiring with that average, which I think speaks for itself.

While I agree it's not the most logical thing to compare players across eras because it's impossible to quantify since no one has a time machine and it'll never be proven or seen how the players would truly stack up against each other, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not interesting (to some people) or even mildly fun and entertaining (to some people). I can see why people are intrigued by the idea of comparing some of the league's all-time greats. Also, while I certainly agree that the 70s and 80s featured a game that was pretty different than today's, and some of those differences attributed to inflated stats here and there (unathletic goalies, poor/less equipment, less-strict rules, etc), I don't really think it's fair to squawk at anyone, regardless of era, being a point-per-game player for their career. I mean, that's still essentially the imaginary bar for a player's production and success. It has been and remains sort of the gold standard by which the "elite" players of all-time are measured (at least for players on offense, anyway). If you look at the list of all-time points-per-game players, Teemu Selanne rounds out the list at #50 with 1.004 points-per-game. Your point about eras where nearly every player achieved that mark isn't really valid because there really hasn't been an era or decade where that happened - it's still a rare feat. I can't find the exact number, but estimates are that there have been around 15,000 players to play at least one game in the NHL since it started, and if only 50 players can say they've averaged a point per game for their career, that's less than half of one percent. If there's one group of players that the differences in eras was likely to have an effect on, it's probably the lower-tier caliber players, guys who played 50-100 games in the NHL. If those guys played in today's game, rather than sticking around for a few dozen games and notching 200 or 300 points, maybe they only notch 40 or 50 in today's era, or perhaps they don't even make it at all. I think (most of) the players who were great (the point-per-game guys) were/are great, and would have been regardless of the era they played in. I can see where you might have a slightly different opinion of the point-per-game mark if you're looking at guys who achieved that average over just 300 career games, or maybe even 600, as compared to guys who were able to play for 1,000, or even 1,400+, because at that point it makes sense to wonder whether those guys would have been able to keep up those numbers for the same duration, but to discount it because of the era I don't think is entirely fair. EDIT: To your point about teams (in any sport) winning a lot of championships, either in a row or just many in a given time, I agree with the notion that it's less impressive when you take into account that they were way less teams back then. The fact that the Montreal teams (Canadiens/Maroons/Wanderers - whatever the hell else they were called) has 24 Cups isn't really all that magical, when many of them came when there were 4 or 6 teams in the league. At that point it's pretty much just probability. It's a lot harder to win consecutive championships, in any of the 4 major sports in the U.S., when the league's have so much parity today, and it's across 30-some teams instead of just a handful. That's why since I was a kid I always wanted the Devils to win back-to-back Cups, and why I was impressed that the Pens did it a few years ago - I really didn't think it would happen for a while.

Can't argue much with that list, all 3 teams deserve to have basically the 3 best lines for each of their teams in the conversation for the top 3 on that list of 12. As much as I liked and respected the A line, I feel like the Isles bunch was just a bit better. Those guys brought them 4 Cups. Our guys brought us basically 3 finals trips in 4 years, granted in a more competitive era. The Rangers line was effective as well, and the numbers don't lie. All in all, it's quite close for those 3 lines.

Oh gotcha - I was under the impression that there was just going to be one city, and that they were down to two potential choices - I guess I heard that wrong. Thanks for clarifying. I really wish they would have condensed or shortened these playoffs so that next season could have started as close to on-time as possible and not ruin or tarnish two separate seasons, but I guess with the way things are going around the country and even the world, it may not have been likely for the season to start in October anyway.

So "Training Camps" aren't beginning until July 10th...how long are they going to last? The normal playoffs tend to last about 2 months, and it sounds like we're going to need at least that amount of time because the series lengths from what I've heard will all be 7 games, plus we have this initial "play-in" round, so if the season/playoffs don't resume until mid-July then I don't see any way that the 2020-21 season starts on time in October. Maybe that's already been decided, but I haven't seen it yet. Also, I might be missing something obvious here, and I have admittedly not paid too much attention to the details, but.... can someone explain how exactly 24 teams are supposed to play in one city/stadium? I just don't see how it's possible with so many games to be played. If you figure half the teams play one day and the other half the next day, that's still 12 teams per day which is 6 games, and with a hockey game being about 3 hours long, that's 18 hours out of a 24 hour day... are they just going to play 'round the clock, from 6am til midnight?! I don't see how it's logistically possible, especially when you consider other gameday activities and responsibilities that go into leading up to actually playing (cleaning the ice, locker rooms, etc).

As a Mets fan, and obviously a Devils fan, I wouldn't mind this. Maybe that team will finally get straightened out.

One of my favorite sentences ever, and I get chills when I hear it, is... "Scott Stevens, you and I have done this before...come get the Stanley Cup!"