Official 2018-2019 NHL Thread - v. Free agents - frenzy and feast

[KevShmev]

O'Reilly is also up for the Lady Byng.

I get that Trotz did an amazing job with the Islanders, but when you look at what Berube did with the Blues, taking them from worst in the league to nearly 100 points in just three months (ignoring the playoffs since it is a regular season award), he has just as strong an argument.  Of course, I am not exactly impartial here.

Binnington has no shot because that defensemen from the Canucks is a lock.

But like I said to a friend last night, even if we get no awards tonight, we still got the Cup.

[TAC]

O'Reilly is also up for the Lady Byng.

I get that Trotz did an amazing job with the Islanders, but when you look at what Berube did with the Blues, taking them from worst in the league to nearly 100 points in just three months (ignoring the playoffs since it is a regular season award), he has just as strong an argument.  Of course, I am not exactly impartial here.

Binnington has no shot because that defensemen from the Canucks is a lock.

But like I said to a friend last night, even if we get no awards tonight, we still got the Cup.

The Cup trumps all. For sure. O'Reilly is a lock for the Selke. I don't know who he's up against for the Lady Byng.

[jingle.boy]

Trotz is winning the Jack Adams.  Make bank on that.
O'Reilly should win the Selke.
Pettersson is winning the Calder (even though he's not a defensemen  ).  Make more bank on that.  Could've been Binnington, but no way a guy only playing 1/2 the season will win the award.  He'd have had to go 30-0 to do that.
Kuch gets the Hart.
Giordano (should) gets the Norris (but they'll probably give it to Burns)
Vasilevsky gets the Vezina
Monohan gets the Lady Byng (though I'd like to see O'Reilly get it).

@ Tim... Marner vs Matthews is apples and oranges.  They bring different talent.  Gun to my head... I take a full 82-game season with Matthews - that's the challenge... he's missed 20ish games each of the last two years.  Marner has always had Top talent to feed (JVR 2 years ago; Tavares last year).  Matthews played with Kapanen and Johnson this year, and played a part to make them both 20-goal scorers.  Matthews is more important as a centreman - offensively and defensively, and he's turning into a pretty good faceoff guy.  Also... I was being saracstic, because 'Dubas caved' was the FIRST thing I said after the contract was signed.

[KevShmev]

I got myself confused there. 

[TAC]

Petterson wins the Calder.

[jingle.boy]

I got myself confused there. 

It's all good. I couldn't resist though. 

[KevShmev]

Haha, yep. I couldn't even think of his name, hence me referring to him as "the Canuck."

[TAC]

I thought Sweeney would win the GM Award.

[KevShmev]

I thought Sweeney would win the GM Award.

I did enjoy the pained look on his face when he congratulated Armstrong and the Blues.

[TAC]

You're fucking ridiculous, bro.

[KevShmev]

What is ridiculous is how attractive (see: hot) nearly every player's wife or girlfriend is tonight.

[TAC]

There's NOTHING on TV like the NHL awards when it comes to that. NOTHING.

[King Postwhore]

Tim.  I feel like you watch 5 stations only.

[TAC]

Selke to O'Reilly. As expected. No issue there.

Tim.  I feel like you watch 5 stations only.

NESN
NBCSN Boston
NHL Network
MLB Network

NBCSN if hockey is on.
ESPN if baseball is on.

That's 6 motherfucker!

[gmillerdrake]

Berube got the shaft. Unfortunate the playoffs don’t count towards these awards.

[KevShmev]

Berube got the shaft. Unfortunate the playoffs don’t count towards these awards.

Looks like he finished a distant 3rd.

Jeremy Rutherford
@jprutherford
·
46s
Trotz wins the Jack Adams: he had 58 first-place votes (430 voting points), ahead of Tampa Bay’s Jon Cooper (350) and the Blues’ Craig Berube (116 points). #stlblues

[TAC]

Berube got the shaft.

 

Dude, YOU GOT THE CUP!!!!! WTF??


They're all worthy.

If I had one vote it would go to Trotz.

[gmillerdrake]

Berube got the shaft. Unfortunate the playoffs don’t count towards these awards.

Looks like he finished a distant 3rd.

Jeremy Rutherford
@jprutherford
·
46s
Trotz wins the Jack Adams: he had 58 first-place votes (430 voting points), ahead of Tampa Bay’s Jon Cooper (350) and the Blues’ Craig Berube (116 points). #stlblues

Probably did the Blues a favor. Stanley Cup and coach of the Year is a good bargaining chip in contract talks. 

[gmillerdrake]

Berube got the shaft.

 

Dude, YOU GOT THE CUP!!!!! WTF??


They're all worthy.

If I had one vote it would go to Trotz.

Hey now.....this is the last chance to bitch about something this season 


I don’t mind it going to Trotz....he’s a great coach. Never been a fan of Cooper so glad he didn’t win.

[KevShmev]

Probably did the Blues a favor. Stanley Cup and coach of the Year is a good bargaining chip in contract talks. 

Haha, exactly.  I am still stunned they didn't remove the interim tag before now.

[TAC]

The amazing thing about Trotz, and to me, this is what seals it for him, isn't so much about how the Islanders improved, but about how much the Caps regressed. 

[KevShmev]

I remember being shocked with he didn't stay with them last year.  Coaching really matters in sports, and I think hockey is possibly where it matters the most, although football is right there with it.  If you have a great coach, you stick with him as long as the team is doing well...and they had just won the Cup!!

[King Postwhore]

Selke to O'Reilly. As expected. No issue there.

Tim.  I feel like you watch 5 stations only.

NESN
NBCSN Boston
NHL Network
MLB Network

NBCSN if hockey is on.
ESPN if baseball is on.

That's 6 motherfucker!

Man.  I was soooooo off!

[Hyperplex]

Rules changes proposed and accepted pending acceptance by the GMs: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expected-to-detail-rule-changes-from-competition-committee/c-307915432

The Competition Committee recommended changes to the coach's challenge and expanded video review, including as it relates to a referee's ability to review some of his own calls on the ice.

In addition:

-- A player be reasonably required to leave the ice if his helmet comes off during play.

-- The defending team not be allowed to change lines when a goalie freezes the puck on a shot from outside the red line. The attacking team would have the choice of end-zone dot for the face-off.

-- The attacking team have the choice of end-zone dot on a face-off after an icing and starting a power play.

-- The defending team not be allowed to change lines and the attacking team have the choice of end-zone dot for the face-off, if an official determines a skater on the defending team knocks off the net unintentionally.

-- All face-offs be at one of the two dots in the attacking zone when the attacking team is responsible for the puck going out of play in the attacking zone.

[jingle.boy]

Depends on the definition of "reasonably required".

[Hyperplex]

I'm not sure how I feel about all the faceoff changes. Unintentional net dislodging prevents a line change? I get icing preventing a line change; it's a pointed act that delays the game, ergo comes at a price. but what if you're checked into the net and it comes off? Suddenly no change just because you fell into it?

I'm less annoyed by the no change after a frozen puck from across the red, but even that seems too much. They got the shot on net, shouldn't that count for something? What if the puck passes the end line and bounces back to the goalie, but there's a chance the attacking player could beat the defenseman to the puck so the goalie freezes it. Is that grounds for no line change? That seems a bit too nebulous and far-reaching to me.

[SchecterShredder]

I'm not sure how I feel about all the faceoff changes. Unintentional net dislodging prevents a line change? I get icing preventing a line change; it's a pointed act that delays the game, ergo comes at a price. but what if you're checked into the net and it comes off? Suddenly no change just because you fell into it?

I'm less annoyed by the no change after a frozen puck from across the red, but even that seems too much. They got the shot on net, shouldn't that count for something? What if the puck passes the end line and bounces back to the goalie, but there's a chance the attacking player could beat the defenseman to the puck so the goalie freezes it. Is that grounds for no line change? That seems a bit too nebulous and far-reaching to me.

Yeah, when I read that I assumed it was a typo and should read "intentionally". Then again, the NHL these days has trouble making sense of itself, so this wouldn't surprise me if it's correct.

[pg1067]

-- A player be reasonably required to leave the ice if his helmet comes off during play.

Meh...whatever.

-- The defending team not be allowed to change lines when a goalie freezes the puck on a shot from outside the red line. The attacking team would have the choice of end-zone dot for the face-off.

So...basically, this negating the part of the icing rule whereby it's not icing if there's a shot on goal or the puck goes through the crease (and if the goalie freezes the puck).  Seems like this won't come up very often, and I can't figure out why it's needed or what effect it might ultimately have.  If it's one of those things designed to increase scoring, I think it will have an incredibly minimal or non-existent impact.

-- The attacking team have the choice of end-zone dot on a face-off after an icing and starting a power play.

Icing AND starting a power play?  How often is this going to come up?

-- The defending team not be allowed to change lines and the attacking team have the choice of end-zone dot for the face-off, if an official determines a skater on the defending team knocks off the net unintentionally.

Ok, but what if the defending player intentionally knocks it off?  That's already a delay of game penalty, right?  Regardless, I don't really like the idea of "penalizing" a team for something that happens unintentionally.

-- All face-offs be at one of the two dots in the attacking zone when the attacking team is responsible for the puck going out of play in the attacking zone.

Meh...whatever.

[SchecterShredder]

Well, there's a easily a dozen icings in a game so that rule will come up quite often. It's actually a pretty big advantage, too, when you have a face-off guy really good from one side. Even with today's rules you see coaches send a specific guy out just for an offensive or defensive zone draw if it's on their strong side.

The helmet rule is basically just adopting the international rule.

[Snow Dog]

The helmet rule is understandable to a degree. The rest are just dumb and seem to be brought up just for the sake of being brought up. What’s wrong with the game how it is at this point? How much more needs to change?

[Hyperplex]

The league won't be happy until there are 22 goals per game and offensive records are shattered. They are still in reactionary mode from the days of the neutral zone trap and left wing lock.

[SchecterShredder]

I still want them to adopt the international rule for crease violations. That should have been low hanging fruit this off season.

[pg1067]

Well, there's a easily a dozen icings in a game so that rule will come up quite often. It's actually a pretty big advantage, too, when you have a face-off guy really good from one side. Even with today's rules you see coaches send a specific guy out just for an offensive or defensive zone draw if it's on their strong side.

Which rule.  The one about the goalie freezing the puck on a shot from the other side of the red line (which wouldn't be icing) or the rule about what happens when the defending team ices the puck AND the attacking team is starting a power play?  Yeah, there are tons of icings every game, and I get that choosing the side for the faceoff can be a big advantage, but these rules seem to apply only to very uncommon situations.

The helmet rule is fine, but everything else seems just to be tinkering for the sake of tinkering.

[SchecterShredder]

The new rule change says the attacking team picks the face-off side for all icings and the start of a power play. I  interpreted those as mutually exclusive events. I suppose if it ends up being only on icings that occur on the same play a penalty is called, then it'll be very rare. My vote is that it's all icings and all power plays.

[pg1067]

The new rule change says the attacking team picks the face-off side for all icings and the start of a power play. I  interpreted those as mutually exclusive events. I suppose if it ends up being only on icings that occur on the same play a penalty is called, then it'll be very rare. My vote is that it's all icings and all power plays.

Your interpretation makes more sense.  I interpreted it to mean there had to be an icing AND a power play starting at the same time.  If the intent is that the attacking team gets to pick the dot (1) after icing is called; OR (2) at the start of a power play, that makes sense.