Stanley Cup this year?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Stanley Cup this year?

    So let's say the NHL season is done, in 2006 following the last lockout, a court settlement gave the two trustees of the Stanley Cup the authority to award the Stanley Cup to a team not in the NHL, finding that the NHL's monopoly of the cup defied the original intentions of Lord Stanley of Preston when he donated the Cup to the Dominion of Canada. The trustees at the time said they would not wish to demean the Cup and should such a situation arise again they would ensure that any who would play for the trophy would be of the highest level available.

    So my question is, what would that look like? Who would play for it in a year without an NHL? My personal idea is that the Cup was originally an amateur trophy and that it could return to those roots. What if you took the best four amateur teams in NA, say the Memorial Cup Champs, Frozen Four winner, CIAU champs and Allan Cup champs and had them play for it? Be one heck of a tourny.

    Any other ideas? Do some of you feel it shouldn't be played for at all if there's no NHL?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    Stanley Cup goes to the team in the NHL who wins it that year. Nobody else. No hockey, no Stanley Cup champion. In fact, if they had a 48 game season and the B's won it, I don't think it would feel the same way. Good thing they already have one recently, because if they hadnt and won it during a 48 game schedule, I don't think it's the same...

    Giving the Cup to a team not in the NHL simply becasue there is no NHL that is year is a mockery of the Cup if you ask me...I mean, would they get their names on the Cup? I don't think so.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    Let the Kings keep it.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    Leave it blank.  I remember the talk about this last time.  People were trying to say they are separate entities.  They aren't.  The Stanley Cup's legacy was created by the NHL.  How much of a deebaaag would a Memorial Cup player feel like hoisting it?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

     

    Girls bantam champions of a league chosen at random from Canada & USA.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    I understand all of your points, but Lord Stanley never gave the Cup to the NHL. His point was to give it to the best hockey team in the Dominion, later changed to NA, in a given year. The Kings, Bruins et al do not exist this year. I don't have much of a personal opinion on this, as I understand both arguments. So why should the Cup not stand by Lord Preston's idea - give it to the best team?  To me personally, the Stanley Cup is bigger than the NHL. (and no, it should not be given to a women's team - we have the Clarkson Cup - which was also gifted to the country by a serving GG. It's a perfect parrallel, and I think we should let the Clarkson gain its own history). But  The Stanley Cup was around for a long time before the NHL. It is not, by law, beholden to that league. Outside of an emotional response, what is an argument against giving it to the best hockey team actually playing?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I understand all of your points, but Lord Stanley never gave the Cup to the NHL. His point was to give it to the best hockey team in the Dominion, later changed to NA, in a given year. The Kings, Bruins et al do not exist this year. I don't have much of a personal opinion on this, as I understand both arguments. So why should the Cup not stand by Lord Preston's idea - give it to the best team?  To me personally, the Stanley Cup is bigger than the NHL. (and no, it should not be given to a women's team - we have the Clarkson Cup - which was also gifted to the country by a serving GG. It's a perfect parrallel, and I think we should let the Clarkson gain its own history). But  The Stanley Cup was around for a long time before the NHL. It is not, by law, beholden to that league. Outside of an emotional response, what is an argument against giving it to the best hockey team actually playing?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, I can give you a few reasons:

     

    1.  No one cares what Lord Stanley of Preston originally thought.  I bet he didn't know that his name would be known worldwide 100 years later, either.  He's dead.  He doesn't care.

    2.  According to the HHOF, it was for hockey supremacy in Canada.  No Canadian team has won the Cup since 1993.  Lord Preston's "idea" has been out the window for a long time.

    3.  Original intent aside, the Cup has been adopted by the NHL.  For almost 90 years, it's been only NHL. 

    4.  The original bowl is in the HHOF.  The trophy that is passed around now is purely NHL.

    5.  It wasn't around a long time before the NHL.  It was gifted in 1893 and adopted in 1926. 

    Are those good enough reasons?

    And no, no chick team should ever win the Cup...even if all male players were dead.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    33 years isn't a long time?/

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    When everybody associated with the NHL(players and owners), are using every loophole possible to try and further line their pockets....it's probably not a bad time to let them know....the Stanley Cup "ain't theirs".  Wouldn't bother me a bit to see it get awarded somewhere else.  Let the damn NHL get their own trophy.

    The only thoughts I have on Red's above suggestion would be the problem of men playing against boys.  Don't see how you could have Junior teams playing against Senior teams for any meaningful championship.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Well, I can give you a few reasons:

     

    1.  No one cares what Lord Stanley of Preston originally thought.  I bet he didn't know that his name would be known worldwide 100 years later, either.  He's dead.  He doesn't care.

    2.  According to the HHOF, it was for hockey supremacy in Canada.  No Canadian team has won the Cup since 1993.  Lord Preston's "idea" has been out the window for a long time.

    3.  Original intent aside, the Cup has been adopted by the NHL.  For almost 90 years, it's been only NHL. 

    4.  The original bowl is in the HHOF.  The trophy that is passed around now is purely NHL.

    5.  It wasn't around a long time before the NHL.  It was gifted in 1893 and adopted in 1926. 

    Are those good enough reasons?

    And no, no chick team should ever win the Cup...even if all male players were dead.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    The fact that there was debate about it last lockout, and again this time should make it painfully obvious that "many" care what "Lord Stanley oiginally thought".

    And as Red pointed out, you should try and remember what you wrote in point 2, before contradicting yourself in point 5.  How are the 19 years since 1993 a "long time",.... yet the 33 between 1893 and 1926 are not.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The fact that there was debate about it last lockout, and again this time should make it painfully obvious that "many" care what "Lord Stanley oiginally thought".

    And as Red pointed out, you should try and remember what you wrote in point 2, before contradicting yourself in point 5.  How are the 19 years since 1993 a "long time",.... yet the 33 between 1893 and 1926 are not.

    [/QUOTE]

    19 years without a Cup victory in Canada is a long time.

    26 years compared to 86 is not.

    It's called "context" or "point of reference", Steve.  This isn't a hard concept.

    If you compare the distance between Boston and New York to Boston and LA, Boston to New York is not very far.  If you compare the distance from Boston to New York and Boston to Worcester, the distance to New York is very far.

    I hope that was helpful.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    Names on the cup are filled with NHL players who were champions of the best league in the world. Don't tarnish those names that are already there and their achievements by including lesser talent and lesser leagues. 


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    the best hockey team in the world is supposed to hoist the cup each year. to even entertain the idea that a lower level team should get a chance is silly. to do so would cheapen the cup's history. the fact that the word "dominion" is used is evidence of its outdatedness. red, you said it yourself, "the bruins and kings do not exist", and "the cup goes to the best team". no best team, no cup. the idea just reeks of vengeance and spite. "if you guys don't want to compete for the cup, we'll find someone who will" nanny nanny poopoo.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Names on the cup are filled with NHL players who were champions of the best league in the world. Don't tarnish those names that are already there and their achievements by including lesser talent and lesser leagues. 


    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    I think the debate matters because one of these idiotic lockouts might actually result in a rival league that sticks, or in the end of the NHL as a corporate entity.  If you had a version of the WHA that competed for the best players in the world and played at a level comparable to the NHL, wouldn't that league want to petition for the right to make the Cup a challenge between leagues?

    The "tarnishing the names" thing doesn't quite work for me.  Tim Hunter is on the cup.  Matt Cooke is on the cup.  You get my drift. 

    I think the trustees' statement is the key here.  It basically says the NHL is acknowledged to be the highest level possible, so existing leagues or systems that are acknowledged to be inferior to the NHL will not be allowed to play for the cup.  I think the only window they've left open is if the NHL players association were to put together a challenge series using NHL players with the winner to take home the cup.  That might be fun to watch - players opt in and are "drafted" until four or eight teams are populated.  Etc. Etc.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the debate matters because one of these idiotic lockouts might actually result in a rival league that sticks, or in the end of the NHL as a corporate entity.  If you had a version of the WHA that competed for the best players in the world and played at a level comparable to the NHL, wouldn't that league want to petition for the right to make the Cup a challenge between leagues?

    The "tarnishing the names" thing doesn't quite work for me.  Tim Hunter is on the cup.  Matt Cooke is on the cup.  You get my drift. 

    I think the trustees' statement is the key here.  It basically says the NHL is acknowledged to be the highest level possible, so existing leagues or systems that are acknowledged to be inferior to the NHL will not be allowed to play for the cup.  I think the only window they've left open is if the NHL players association were to put together a challenge series using NHL players with the winner to take home the cup.  That might be fun to watch - players opt in and are "drafted" until four or eight teams are populated.  Etc. Etc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Get your drift ? Can't say I do.

    These guys were still NHL players playing in NHL playoffs on a team who won a cup.

    Picking out certain players whose name is on the cup "because you dislike them" ? 

    That doesn't work for me.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    And Shawn Thornton...twice.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And Shawn Thornton...twice.

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually miss your bi-weekly Thornton hate threads compared to the crappy labour talks. 

    Nah......not really.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the debate matters because one of these idiotic lockouts might actually result in a rival league that sticks, or in the end of the NHL as a corporate entity.  If you had a version of the WHA that competed for the best players in the world and played at a level comparable to the NHL, wouldn't that league want to petition for the right to make the Cup a challenge between leagues?

    The "tarnishing the names" thing doesn't quite work for me.  Tim Hunter is on the cup.  Matt Cooke is on the cup.  You get my drift. 

    I think the trustees' statement is the key here.  It basically says the NHL is acknowledged to be the highest level possible, so existing leagues or systems that are acknowledged to be inferior to the NHL will not be allowed to play for the cup.  I think the only window they've left open is if the NHL players association were to put together a challenge series using NHL players with the winner to take home the cup.  That might be fun to watch - players opt in and are "drafted" until four or eight teams are populated.  Etc. Etc.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hunter and Cooke are NHL players whose actions have tarnished their own names. The fact that their names are on it, along with Claude Lemieux numerous times, does not tarnish the Cup one bit.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Stanley Cup this year?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The fact that there was debate about it last lockout, and again this time should make it painfully obvious that "many" care what "Lord Stanley oiginally thought".

    And as Red pointed out, you should try and remember what you wrote in point 2, before contradicting yourself in point 5.  How are the 19 years since 1993 a "long time",.... yet the 33 between 1893 and 1926 are not.

    [/QUOTE]

    19 years without a Cup victory in Canada is a long time.

    26 years compared to 86 is not.

    It's called "context" or "point of reference", Steve.  This isn't a hard concept.

    If you compare the distance between Boston and New York to Boston and LA, Boston to New York is not very far.  If you compare the distance from Boston to New York and Boston to Worcester, the distance to New York is very far.

    I hope that was helpful.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's piss poor "point of reference" logic NAS.  If that's the best you can come up with, you may want to take a break for the holiday's

     

Share