NJDfan1711

True. I don't really have a problem with the job Greene's done as captain. Aside from last year, the previous handful of years have been pretty bleak so to your point even if he was some type of vocal leader, it probably would've fallen on deaf ears given what he had to work with.

To be fair, it depends entirely and completely on the player and his personality. There are absolutely, unequivocally, still players in the league who do make those Hollywood-esque, Miracle-inspired speeches in order to get their teammates pumped up, and elevate them to another level. It's their job. Some guys are better at it than others. Some coaches don't put as much emphasis on or ask their captains to be vocal leaders as much as others. But there are most certainly guys who do that. The role of the captain, at least traditionally, is someone who is usually regarded as an alpha-male. They're the stand up, take charge, leader-type individuals who are capable or rallying a group of people in the quest for victory. It sounds so cliché, like you're making the captain of an NHL team out to be akin to Mel Gibson in Braveheart, but it's actually pretty similar. Greene may not exactly be the guy who stands on a chair in the lockerroom during the 2nd intermission to get his team's attention, or throws sh!t around the room in order to make a point (at least I don't get that impression from him), and the simple fact is that, indeed, we really don't know 100% what goes on behind closed doors, but I can tell you with near certainty that there's more than a good portion of those guys still out there who do behave and do exactly those things, for the very reason that they're wearing the C on their jersey.

If you're someone who does regard the C with important rather than it just being a letter on a jersey, then maybe you'll agree with this... I had mentioned earlier in the year that perhaps Hall's great production was due to the fact that he actually had someone else shouldering some of the burden on this team (i.e. the Captain, Greene). With just the A on his chest, he could focus more on his game and just contributing on the scoresheet without having to worry as much about motivating the rest of his teammates, making them accountable, and all the other stuff that a Captain is responsible for. Not saying he can't or won't thrive with a little extra pressure if he's eventually given the C, but I think it's a theory that is plausible.

I kind of forgot about that until you just mentioned it...so I guess they're not going to take the C away from him then? Now that I think about it, I'm really not that surprised. I feel like with all the talk that this got this past season that everyone seemed to think it was a foregone conclusion that Hall would get it at the start of this season. I'm not at all saying Hall doesn't deserve it, but I'm not all that surprised either that management didn't take it away from Greene. It's a hard thing to do, and leaving things the way they are might actually be the best option for now.

I was literally thinking of this as I was reading coffeecake's post. We just called them 'tails', and sadly, I'm ashamed to say I had one.

Yeah I was going to mention him too because he seemed like the obvious choice that was left out. I really think Butcher is going to be something special for us, and for a long time. I see a lot of parallels between him and Rafalski.

That makes sense. I was confusing juniors with the AHL.

Ah gotcha, thanks. Kinda seems like an odd rule. Why would the league want to suppress rookies to a handful of games? And does the rule only apply to their first year, or does it apply to all 3 seasons or the ELC? If it does, then I guess I never paid attention, but that must mean that, "normal rookies", i.e. guys that aren't of the Ramus Dahlin caliber, typically play fewer than 9 games each year in the NHL during their first 3 years? Is that right? I must be missing something else because I feel like that's way off. Didn't Severson alone play more than 10 games for us in his rookie season a few years back?

What is it with the 10 game threshold thing for rookies again? Once they hit that mark, they have to stay up with the big club? Or is it something money-related? In terms of the Santini signing though, I'm all for it. Not a huge term, and a very fair price. Guy is still young, and I haven't given up hope on him yet. In fact, I think in the past he took some unnecessary blame, but that's beside the point. There's still potential in him, and little to no risk for us, so I like this signing. If anything, he'll be on par with what Greene/Lovejoy likely bring to the team this year.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that we're getting one this year, just not sure exactly what it is. I guess there's been no release date or announcement date yet either?

My brother moved to Raleigh a couple months ago. I just bought tickets to the game against the Canes on Nov 18th. Gonna go up there and go to a game with him. Never been to that arena or even that city, excited to check it out.

Understatement of the century 🙂 (Hey, we have new emojis)

That's almost a guarantee. Old habits die hard, and so do old thoughts and reputations. People have a hard time viewing things as new or changed, and seeing it for themselves.

Damn. Pretty impressive. Nice job Zacha!

Yeah, completely agree. For the player, a longer/max term is their insurance policy for future earnings, especially for a guy at Hall's age which is basically right smack in the middle of his prime. And for the team, it's a way to fill a position with a star player for a long time. The team also gets an added benefit of keeping the player happy -- at least he should be since the team is doing right by him and giving him a long deal at a fair price.