cammy

Members
  • Content count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About cammy

  • Rank
    Aces Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Newcastle, UK (vancouverite in exile)
  1. you cannot make a player waive an ntc, and the offer has to be right for a trade, otherwise no point. Hammer wanting to come back here would have reduced his value, the benefit has to be worth it. Also if no team wants vbata then its not management fault fir not moving them. The real test us at the draft and fa. If you wanna blow up a team why not trade the sedins? Maybe because you need veterans not just picks, look at the oilers, and also the panthers how long it took them. This isn't nhl 16
  2. won't affect me, I live in the UK and catch the odd game at 4 or 5am in the morning, same as I always have for the last 20 years its been since I lived in Vancouver . tbh we need a rebuild and I hate that, I would prefer a Detroit model and always be competitive but we managed our players poorly and traded away/lost people when we shouldn't have. We also drove out coaches that brought us success. For all his faults AV is a good coach and he was driven out. Its time to tool up, stock the farm and get a good mix of veterans and youth. Give the vetrans the cash to make them come and use the farm to fill the gaps, those that are good enough we keep, the rest get traded and we then slowly bring through a new corp and phase out the vets. Standing still on deadline day is not a crisis. And those referencing the premier league the background behind it is that next year a new £3billion tv rights deal kicks in so fans were aggrieved with fenway sports group for raising the top tier of ticket prices to £77 from around £64. They felt it was price gouging when there has never been so much cash available before, so the situation is drastically different, also it was organised by spirit of shankley group, there isn't such a strong fan organisation with the canucks to make this happen any way.
  3. that would work, although probably wouldn't be popular with the teams
  4. for example, when golden goal was introduced in the euros and world cup team played to go the shootout rather then being eliminated. When they went to silver goal though its a good blend of the two. two halfs of OT and its not sudden death, but if one team is leading at the half way mark the game ends. It means that if you go forward and attack to try and win the game if you concede one you are not eliminated immediately, and then team will go all out to get the goal to keep them in it once they go behind. there are still teams though that even with this will play not to lose and will double down on defense and go for the shootout.
  5. I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Don't get me wrong I prefer teams to go and get the win, but most sports coaches are conservative and will play not to lose in these situations, its a trend that shows across multiple sports not just hockey.
  6. precisely if you lose in OT you get nothing, so why would you go out and attack and leave yourself open, instead of just clogging up the middle and denying the opposition. Think of it from a coach perspective , you get judged on results and its better to take 1 point in that situation than to risk going for 2 and getting none. Teams will play not to lose rather then to win in this situation. the best defense is not offence if they come down and score at the other end
  7. tbh i would prefer no OT or SO they are just gimmicks to arbitrarily appoint a 'winner' when there clearly wasn't one. Stealing a tie can feel like a win
  8. in that situation there is no incentive to go forward and attack, you have 1 point people will double down on defense and protect it rather then look for 1 more point and lose the one they had.
  9. ties suck when the point system is 2 for a win 1 for a tie makes people play for the tie, whereas 3 for a win 1 for a tie does incentive people to go out and look for a winner.
  10. games dont need equal worth, the incentive has to be to no take a point for losing. just to it like they do in the Premier league and have it as 3 points for a win 1 point for a draw. The incentive is to then win. All games don't need to be worth the same points, just the incentive has to be to win games rather than settling for OT. Dont bother with OT at all.
  11. Wouldnt trust him in theplayoffs- a few seasons ago the shutdown line of Hansen, Kesler and Burrows was what was keeping us in the playoffs stoppeing us getting blown out the water. He is a brilliant shutdown player and will develop along the same lines as his previous 2 line mates- i could see it then and its now even more evident. Hansen is not a player you want to trade. Great value, great work ethic, can slot in up and down the lines, and now his hands have caught up he can also contribute offensively. I would still say if we were in game 7 of a playoff 1 goal up i would throw out Hanson, Kesler and Burrows to see out the game. Not just that the line would also be able to contribute offensivly if needed. Also that hit was an elbow and the puck crossed the blue line, it was bad officiating and lu calling for the penalty that caused thatgoal