c00kies

Yes, a good camp and he can be a top 10 player, a bad camp and he will only be top 50

Damn, but it was expec- oh, that's us

Sounds like Taylor Pyatt.

Maybe he'll score a hattrick in his first game and then fizzle out

That is true! I think Florida (have to show it wasn't a fluke), Carolina, and New York Rangers (overachieving, but should be elite soon) were the new up and coming elite teams, and they go with the Tampa Bay Lightning to fill out the Top 4 in the East. Then you have the regular contenders that you mentioned (Boston, Washington, and Pittsburgh), along with the Leafs. That's the current 8 in the East. There was a great deal of separation between these 8 teams and the non-playoff teams, so it would take a fall from one team and a solid rise (New Jersey is looking like a good bet) from another one to change it up. The West has a lot of variability, as Colorado is the lone Elite team, with potential for movement throughout. So whereas 1 or 2 teams in the East might swap playoff spots, the West could see 5 different teams next year, with Colorado the favourite to win again.

The other thing to consider is the strength of the Eastern Conference. I think Boston could compete in the West with only one elite team rather than a loaded East.

With the Bedard draft next year, I think that's the smart play to make.

They would have won if it was a best of 9. As for the 2011 Canucks, they went on their run a year too soon, as the 2012 playoffs were much easier, or a year too late (facing Philly without a goalie in the Finals in 2010). Sometimes the outright best team wins the Cup (these past 2 years with Tampa), but usually it's a good team with good luck.

I think the difference is that the 94 Canucks were competitive in the Finals, whereas Dallas and especially Montreal were easily handled. So yes those 2 teams made it to the Finals, but were revealed as frauds once there. Hell, even the 2012 Kings who were 8th seed got fortunate with all the upsets so that they had one of the weakest sets of teams on their way to a Cup. Luck plays a huge part, and sometimes it's better to be lucky (minimal injuries and favourable matchups) than good, but it's better to be lucky AND good.

He's correct, but he's still an ass lol

I think we're better off trading Miller for a whole different package, as the downgrade is not worth it (Scheifele is not a guy you win with IMO). I think Jets take this deal and run.

Could become Ville Leino after his one hot playoff, while he was also fairly young.

It depends on the schedule, but I think he should get every back-to-back off (only play 1 of the 2), There are approximately 12-13 games a month, so he should play 8 or 9 out of the 12/13 games a month. However, I think he will probably start out heavier (to get into form), and then get more rest nearing the end of the season so he can be fresher for the playoffs.

And Tanev signed when we were a competitive team, but I also can't recall if any other teams were in on him. It makes sense for someone to want to play on Edmonton and get inflated stats with McD.

I don't think NJ even considers this deal: Garland+15th for 2nd overall Boston 1st for Bahl I just don't see the value for New Jersey. I would be angry to give up 2nd overall talent for a player like Garland.

Hhe also tends to pick where he believes players should go rather than where he believes they will be drafted. He knew JV would go earlier 1st round, but he believed he should be a 2nd round talent.

I think McAvoy was later on for sure. At the end of the day, Benning drafted position over BPA and didn't get a d-man that stuck for that gamble.

The problem wasn't passing on drafting Tkachuk, but rather not drafting the best defenseman. If we had Sergachev, most people wouldn't care that we passed up on Tkachuk as the two players would be comparable value. I was okay grabbing the first d-man of the draft over Tkachuk at the time, but we missed on the pick, which means the gamble didn't pay off. Tkachuk was the safe player to draft though, so it sucks to see the easy play ignored.

Lots of luck! To have Fox only want to play for you, and have Panarin want to play too, those are opportunities that make the rebuilds incomparable.

I think the call should have stood. As for Marky, he is historically bad against Edmonton and I felt he was going to struggle against McDrais, especially after facing a much weaker stars group. I think Edmonton could beat St.Louis, as I'm not sold on the Blues goaltending, but Colorado should be able to dominate the play against Edmonton (I'm not sold on Kuemper either, but he's better then Smith).

I like analytics as a launching point in deciding to scout a player. I feel like the difference between young players is so much greater than the NHL, so analytics can get skewed easier. As an example, go see why that d-man has a low percentage of turnovers and high efficiency breakouts. Maybe he is making simple plays, plays with an offensive d-man (so passes to him for breakouts), or is just bigger and stronger than his current competition so they can't get the puck away from him. These reasons might put some caution into drafting him. Numbers always need context to be useful, but they do have a place.

Kane on a year deal is great, but if we was smart, he'd re-sign with Edmonton. I'd like Kane too, but only 1-2 year contract maximum, as I think he'd only be decent here. I want to see how he does against a team like Colorado first. I know people had high hopes for Calgary, but I don't think their forwards carry play against other great offenses and Marky has been historically bad against Edmonton (and has had a brutal series).

Yeah, I always love when unconventional players do really well in the shoot-out, like out comes Ovie and you're like "thank God it isn't Frans Nielsen or Kyle Wellwood."

I thought Marky might struggle this series going from broken Seguin to McD and Hasselhoff 2.0.

I have Jussi Jokinen up there too, especially the Dallas Stars Jokinen. I think he went like 9/10 or something to start a year.