Confirmed starting Roster

[spook007]

4 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yep, those were 1st and 2nd All Star Team votes.

 

If you open it up to those instead of just Norris votes, some more good Canucks enter the picture.  Snepsts.  Lidster.  Lumme.

 

And a few Canucks while with other teams...Doug Halward, Tom Kurvers...

 

 

That's awesome.   Means someone felt they were a top four D league wide.    My understanding is they put two D's in for first all-star and two D's in for second all-star.   I might be wrong.   But only one  C for first, and one for second.   Same with wingers.   Why Naslund winning 3 first line all-star's in a row is very impressive.    We've only ever had a couple guys get there.   Bure had to deal with Jagr of course.   One of the best players in the league any position.   And several others.    Daniel -  Ovi, Hank Crosby (who missed games) ...  Luongo/Broduer ... Other then those guys don't think we've ever had anyone else make it to first or second team all star.   But getting any votes at all is pretty impressive. 

 

Edit: What's odd is first and second team all-stars don't always align with who won the Norris trophy and I think the Vezina too.   Another strange thing is Ovi won some first and second team as a RW.    Pretty sure not the only winger to do that too.    And after checking yes - two D's get first, two second.   It impressive some writers saw anyone who's got votes - as top four league wide....but i also noticed a lot of guys with one vote and have to wonder if homerism took over.  

 

Edit: Linden was 4th in 91-92...that's close!   Also 9th in Hart votes...  In 92-93 Bure was 7th in LW and 3rd in RW ... go figure lol.  93-94 Bure first of course.   Only time i think he was able to stay ahead of Jagr, Mogilny and Selanne ... of course Jagr was his stiffest competition which says a lot because Selanne and Mogilny were something. 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by IBatch

[Kevin Biestra]

Just now, IBatch said:

That's awesome.   Means someone felt they were a top four D league wide.    My understanding is they put two D's in for first all-star and two D's in for second all-star.   I might be wrong.   But only one  C for first, and one for second.   Same with wingers.   Why Naslund winning 3 first line all-star's in a row is very impressive.    We've only ever had a couple guys get there.   Bure had to deal with Jagr of course.   One of the best players in the league any position.   And several others.    Daniel -  Ovi, Hank Crosby (who missed games) ...  Luongo/Broduer ... Other then those guys don't think we've ever had anyone else make it to first or second team all star.   But getting any votes at all is pretty impressive. 

 

Edit: What's odd is first and second team all-stars don't always align with who won the Norris trophy and I think the Vezina too.   Another strange thing is Ovi won some first and second team as a RW.    Pretty sure not the only winger to do that too.    And after checking yes - two D's get first, two second.   It impressive some writers saw anyone who's got votes - as top four league wide....but i also noticed a lot of guys with one vote and have to wonder if homerism took over.  

 

Edit: Linden was 4th in 91-92...that's close!   Also 9th in Hart votes...  In 92-93 Bure was 7th in LW and 3rd in RW ... go figure lol.  93-94 Bure first of course.   Only time i think he was able to stay ahead of Jagr, Mogilny and Selanne ... of course Jagr was his stiffest competition which says a lot because Selanne and Mogilny were something.

 

King Richard was 6th one year and then 8th the next year.  Gary Smith came in 3rd for that one great season.  Steve Weeks got some votes as Kirk McLean's backup in 89, he was that good.

 

And yeah those 1st team All Stars for Naslund are a substantial reason why I don't think it's ludicrous to talk about him for the HOF.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

King Richard was 6th one year and then 8th the next year.  Gary Smith came in 3rd for that one great season.  Steve Weeks got some votes as Kirk McLean's backup in 89, he was that good.

 

And yeah those 1st team All Stars for Naslund are a substantial reason why I don't think it's ludicrous to talk about him for the HOF.

 

Yes.   Hank, Bure, Daniel, Naslund i think are the only guys ever voted first all-star ... THN has written about when the moniker super-star should be used.   It's pretty obvious going year to year - just looking at first and second team all-stars, plus the guys who were close ... some names are regularly on or at near the top.   But don't make it to the top.   Others like Steve Mason (anyone remember him?!!) make it once and disappear.   Maybe instead of Mason, let's say Theodore.   He won the Hart and the Vezina, and was a two time first or second team all-star.   But was he a super-star?  Of course not.  Same with Subban.    Then there are guys like Weber and Park.  No Norris trophies, but regular all-stars.   

 

THN says, at any given time, there can only be a few super-stars in the league. Because they are super.

 

  I agree with that statement.   And the first thing they look at aside from the actual eye-test, which of course matters too, is has this player, for a period of several years (sorry Mason, and sorry Theodore!) won a major trophy, and if not, being a regular first or second team all-star.    Super means super.   It doesn't mean ordinary.   The league has tons of ordinary stars at any given time.    Based on their definition, the only guys we've ever had (and will get to the eye test soon), is Bure,  Henrik Sedin, and Naslund.   No he didn't win the Art Ross ... he was awfully close though, Forsberg pulled it out of his butt at the last moment.   He did however, win the Pearson.   And that's a major trophy, in some ways equal to the Hart because that's his peers saying - yep your the best player in the entire league right now.   No small thing.  Daniel also won that, not Perry (and that was a weak Hart...THN also uses that as a case study showing that not all Hart's are created equal ... Daniel did it all year,  Perry went on a tear down the stretch and scored 40% of his goals in 22 or so games).... 

 

Back to Naslund.  He also played and did his best work in the dead puck era.   And people might not want to hear this, but often said he learned how to get to the next level, and become a leader, because of Messier.     Sometimes i read people saying idiotic stuff like the Sedins broke out, same with Kesler, Bieksa whomever, because Sundin played 2/3 of one season lol.   Goofy stuff.   Messier played with Naslund for 3 seasons, and captained that team for better or worse.

 

During the dead puck era.    As a 36-37-38 year old.   Broke his leg badly, and that year he was looking more and more like his old self.   First year total disaster.  

 

Naslund deserves to have his number in the rafters.   I was in total remorse back then, losing Bure was like getting one testicle removed and thanking the doctor.    Can't explain how that felt.   After the joy of adding Mogilny, the team just entering their primes etc.    Ugh.   

 

Now the eye test.   The eye test says that both Bure and Mogilny were at a completely different level then Naslund.  They did not win 3 first team all-star's, even though they got their fair share of second places.   Tough to do when Jagr and Selanne plus plus is your competition.   Naslund ... didn't really have the same level of competition.  As soon as Ovi came in, he took over.    And well Naslund had his fun 27, 28, 29 then petered out but was still very good.  

 

Guys like Bure, Selanne, Jagr those wingers that come in hot and keep it up until they are done aren't common.   But only Jagr, one of the best all-time players, managed what Naslund did for a 3 year time, and that did qualify him as a super-star however brief.    Was Selanne a super-star?  Not really.  But he was awfully close.  Neither was Mogilny,  but again, awfully close.   Jagr of course, was one.    

 

Bure yes he was. One of the best wingers in the league from his second season until he was done... unique and we haven't seen anything like him, before or since.  Was a way more complete player after he left ... and still did his thing offensively, better actually - it was the dead puck era after all, and what he did internationally was just put the team on my back (and it also had Federov etc) and do it. 

 

Daniel is debateable.   Hank barely won his Hart, Daniel i'm pretty sure was robbed of his.   They were also special and unique (like Bure just in a different way - twin super powers unite!) and really fun to watch in their peak.   And maybe one can say, for a couple years they were also superstars.   But Naslund doesn't always get his due - he did it, as well as anyone else in club history, just as well in his own way for 3 consecutive years.   

 

And finally ...  not all Hart, Norris, Selke's and even Art Ross's are the same.   Hank is the only guy to win with fewer then 1000 votes that i could find since the cap anyways.  And sometimes these things are within just a few points (less then 1%!) Ovi over Crosby his last Hart.   McDavid is the second lowest with 1000 votes exactly just two years ago.   Less then Perry got when he beat Daniel.     It's nothing at all like when Gretzky and Orr were winning theirs.   It was them, then way,  way way way down the list, second place.   In other words there are only a couple superstars per position at any given time at most.   And even those guys, aren't  so super compared to some of their peers from different eras.   

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

King Richard was 6th one year and then 8th the next year.  Gary Smith came in 3rd for that one great season.  Steve Weeks got some votes as Kirk McLean's backup in 89, he was that good.

 

And yeah those 1st team All Stars for Naslund are a substantial reason why I don't think it's ludicrous to talk about him for the HOF.

 

Another thing that's important, is what percentage of writers voted these guys as first.   Whether it's a trophy major award. or for the all-star teams. 

 

One thing that likely won't ever happen again is this:

 

Gretzky's Harts 

82 100% first place votes

83 84.4%

84 98.71%

85 96.19%

86 93.67%

87 94.43%

89 84.76%  Mario had arrived.  But not there yet. 
 

And of course there was 81, 80, 79 lol while he was getting his feet wet.  Luit actually gave him the best run for his money.   Just like not all super stars are created equal, neither are major awards. Only Orr comes close to rivalling this sort of dominance.   Crazy that only a couple writers voted for a couple other guys during that period, and when it happened it was only a couple guys really, like two or three lol, and aside from 83 and 89, just two or three votes towards someone else for first place.   McDavid or Crosby, or whomever, isn't doing that, not even Mario did that. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by IBatch

[Kevin Biestra]

12 hours ago, IBatch said:

Another thing that's important, is what percentage of writers voted these guys as first.   Whether it's a trophy major award. or for the all-star teams. 

 

One thing that likely won't ever happen again is this:

 

Gretzky's Harts 

82 100% first place votes

83 84.4%

84 98.71%

85 96.19%

86 93.67%

87 94.43%

89 84.76%  Mario had arrived.  But not there yet. 
 

And of course there was 81, 80, 79 lol while he was getting his feet wet.  Luit actually gave him the best run for his money.   Just like not all super stars are created equal, neither are major awards. Only Orr comes close to rivalling this sort of dominance.   Crazy that only a couple writers voted for a couple other guys during that period, and when it happened it was only a couple guys really, like two or three lol, and aside from 83 and 89, just two or three votes towards someone else for first place.   McDavid or Crosby, or whomever, isn't doing that, not even Mario did that. 

 

I could be wrong but 1989 was Mario's 199 point season.  I can't see Gretzky getting 84.76% of the Hart votes in Mario's career year.

 

As for Liut...yeah he beat out Wayne for the Pearson in 1981 or whenever it was.  Hell of a goalie.

 

As to your superstar discussion...yeah and charisma seems to play a part in it as well.  There is charismatic and exciting play or just personally.  Look at how big a star Ron Duguay was for a 70 point player.  Or how Harold won the city over as a Ken Daneyko type defenseman.

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I could be wrong but 1989 was Mario's 199 point season.  I can't see Gretzky getting 84.76% of the Hart votes in Mario's career year.

 

As for Liut...yeah he beat out Wayne for the Pearson in 1981 or whenever it was.  Hell of a goalie.

 

As to your superstar discussion...yeah and charisma seems to play a part in it as well.  There is charismatic and exciting play or just personally.  Look at how big a star Ron Duguay was for a 70 point player.  Or how Harold won the city over as a Ken Daneyko type defenseman.

I was surprised too... Gretzky got 40 first place votes, Mario 18 and Yzerman 5... 168 vs 199 points, 114 assists each, Mario had 31 more goals...think leaving LA and turning that team around... well i don't remember the play much ... just us against CAL lol... And didn't Gretzky beat his old team in the playoffs all by himself more or less lol...maybe some sympathy votes.   The country was still in mourning. 

[Kevin Biestra]

12 hours ago, IBatch said:

I was surprised too... Gretzky got 40 first place votes, Mario 18 and Yzerman 5... 168 vs 199 points, 114 assists each, Mario had 31 more goals...think leaving LA and turning that team around... well i don't remember the play much ... just us against CAL lol... And didn't Gretzky beat his old team in the playoffs all by himself more or less lol...maybe some sympathy votes.   The country was still in mourning. 

 

I think Gretzky got robbed with the Hart a few times...but Mario got robbed that year.

[IBatch]

40 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I think Gretzky got robbed with the Hart a few times...but Mario got robbed that year.

Crazy how lopsided it was in 89, but Gretzky was at the peak of his powers too.    Mario they didn't know what they had yet.   At the very least, you'd think it would have been close.   But it wasn't.  93 was his last great season (even though he won his final Art Ross the year later).   TO actually had a very good team.    Both those teams were better then MTL's.   Roy virtually stood on his head.    Just wouldn't let teams beat him   no matter what.    LA should have gone up 2-0, and that should have been LAs first cup.    Fluke penalty.   Then they tied it late in the game and of course won in OT.    At the very least there should have been a game six or so you'd think ... OT wins, 10 of then! 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I think Gretzky got robbed with the Hart a few times...but Mario got robbed that year.

Lidstrom robbed one of Weber, Chara or Visnovsky his last Norris.   Hadn't won one in a couple years ... only D ever whom as a minus player.   Never say other greats get special treatment for playing on bad/mediocre on teams, because they sure do .. Chara was  a monster,  Langway meet chelios .... twas plus 33, Lidstrom a -2.   Weber typical rough and tumble play like Chara, and led the offense with 18 goals and 50 assists, plus 17 to boot.   Weber dominated the second place votes  17 more then Chara, 16 more then Lidstrom .. Chara and Weber were at the peaks of their powers.   This is one of the reasons i lost some respect with the system and the player.      Felt like it was all a farce to get him to tie Harvey.   Glad the 2000's had one great  D... Pronger and Neidermayer weren't chopped liver either but pretty bad quality of competition after that with Phanuef, Raflalski, Gonchar.  Once old guys were done like Borque, Al Mac, Blake, Zubov etc.    Lidstrom got way too much love.   At least the next generations got to get a him of what Borque, Chelios, Zubov, Al Mac, Blake could do, even if they were on the back nine,    Lidstrom was solid yes, but no Borque.   

[Kevin Biestra]

10 hours ago, IBatch said:

Lidstrom robbed one of Weber, Chara or Visnovsky his last Norris.   Hadn't won one in a couple years ... only D ever whom as a minus player.   Never say other greats get special treatment for playing on bad/mediocre on teams, because they sure do .. Chara was  a monster,  Langway meet chelios .... twas plus 33, Lidstrom a -2.   Weber typical rough and tumble play like Chara, and led the offense with 18 goals and 50 assists, plus 17 to boot.   Weber dominated the second place votes  17 more then Chara, 16 more then Lidstrom .. Chara and Weber were at the peaks of their powers.   This is one of the reasons i lost some respect with the system and the player.      Felt like it was all a farce to get him to tie Harvey.   Glad the 2000's had one great  D... Pronger and Neidermayer weren't chopped liver either but pretty bad quality of competition after that with Phanuef, Raflalski, Gonchar.  Once old guys were done like Borque, Al Mac, Blake, Zubov etc.    Lidstrom got way too much love.   At least the next generations got to get a him of what Borque, Chelios, Zubov, Al Mac, Blake could do, even if they were on the back nine,    Lidstrom was solid yes, but no Borque.   

 

Yeah the Lady Byng and King Clancy and Masterton have all been used as farewell / parting gift trophies but the Norris is a bit too serious for shenanigans.  I still have Lidstrom pretty high on the list of all time blueliners but unquestionably below Bourque and Coffey etc.

[Westcoasting]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:43 AM, HorvatToBaertschi said:

I don't think they have the offence from the backend to complement our insane offensive depth. All we have is Hughes, and OEL to a lesser extent. And then it's a black hole. Our goal scoring record under boudreau last year was INCREDIBLY promising though.

Hopefully we see depth this year, no sign of anything yet.