What I am saying is they got to play by different rules.. They were not like any other expansion team that came into the league, and have to pick the teams worst players. They were set up right from the start to be a successful team. And with Bettman's continued failure of the Arizona franchise, he needed a success under his watch. Tell me, you cannot see this?

Think about this, if any new ownership group wants to start an NHL franchise, don't you think they are going to demand the same "Deal"?
- powerenforcer

I don’t really think there’s any question that the league has made it easier over the years for new teams to be competitive more quickly. With each successive expansion the fees paid by the new owner have risen dramatically. If the league wants these new franchises to succeed long term, they need to have a fighting chance to be competitive relatively quickly. There’s no conspiracy there, the other owners all signed on for expansion and the millions it puts in their pockets.

Now if you’re saying they were guaranteed some level of success ie reaching the SCF, well, then I’d say you’re off your meds again.

What I am saying is they got to play by different rules.. They were not like any other expansion team that came into the league, and have to pick the teams worst players. They were set up right from the start to be a successful team. And with Bettman's continued failure of the Arizona franchise, he needed a success under his watch. Tell me, you cannot see this?

Think about this, if any new ownership group wants to start an NHL franchise, don't you think they are going to demand the same "Deal"?
- powerenforcer

There were different rules, but I have to slightly disagree with you, there are some factors you left out/might not have considered. 1)they were supposed to be bad, but still managed to get stars. How about that goaltender? After losing his job in pit, and waiving, I ruled him out. He played awesome. Neal, Marchessault aren't slouches, but aren't the sole reasons for success, either. 2)McPhee dI'd some pretty awesome dealing. He grabbed other gm's by the sack and said, "I'll leave your exposed guy alone if you make it worth my time, good prospects and/or good picks. 3)their bottom dwellers didn't play like bottom dwellers. Karlsson? Are you kidding me. It starts with him and carries through the team. 4)the way they bonded. The misfits that a lot of teams no one wanted to take a chance on or protect. They played with/for each other. Sounds familiar. 5)they probably played for contracts, a crap ton of those guys were on expiring contracts. A lesser point, still might be valid. 6)gallant was amazing as a coach. He came with fire in his belly and it was contagious. Great systems and strategies. He made sure the healthy scratches and recently acquired players through trade knew what to do and worked them just as hard as the "stars."

The last thing to consider is this. We can't judge the hawks too harshly: success, flaws, given up leads, or just plain ot luck because we're only 5 games in ... well why do it with Las Vegas? It's too early, and things can turn around. Last part is meant for a different poster's comment. It got lumped in with this one.

What I am saying is they got to play by different rules.. They were not like any other expansion team that came into the league, and have to pick the teams worst players. They were set up right from the start to be a successful team. And with Bettman's continued failure of the Arizona franchise, he needed a success under his watch. Tell me, you cannot see this?

Think about this, if any new ownership group wants to start an NHL franchise, don't you think they are going to demand the same "Deal"?
- powerenforcer

I think the way Vegas was set up was the correct way for any new franchise to be treated after paying the huge franchise fee. Don't you think the NHL improving is a good thing? No one had any idea the Knights would be as successful as they turned out to be. Every star in the universe had to align for what Vegas pulled off last season. I don't see any conspiracy.

Why do you think the NHL hell bent on continuing the Arizona franchise? I'll tell you why. Grassroots and an NHL NETWORK TV deal.

Austin Matthew, who's from Arizona is one of the best players in the NHL. Had there been no NHL franchise in Arizona there would have been no interest to build arenas, minor hockey teams etc. Do you think Matthews would be a hockey player today? I'd bet the farm he's be a top athlete in another more traditional sport.

Why does there need to be a franchise in Arizona for a Network TV deal? Without all American regions represented NBC would not provide a Network contract. I think the NHL was willing to take a hit to try to pursue that TV deal. And by building grassroots hockey in non traditional NHL cities the interest in hockey improves and makes a TV even more feasaible.

There are many reasons I can't stand Bettman and all of them are based on his perceived arrogance. But as much as I can't stand watching his head twitch when he talks I can't make one argument about the good he has done for the NHL.

As for your last statement I expect the way Arizone was built will be come the new norm for new NHL franchises, as it should be.

Brian Foran of The Rink offers his pov on Nylander. I don't know if you guys saw it already or not.

https://www.the-rink.com/...an-blackhawks-fairytales/

Brian Foran of The Rink offers his pov on Nylander. I don't know if you guys saw it already or not.

https://www.the-rink.com/...an-blackhawks-fairytales/
- I Am The Breadman

Really good write up! Thanks for the share!

I think Brian is spot on. There isnt a single player within our system that would be a one for one situation. Saad would be the cost controlled forward the leafs would be looking for but his production isnt anywhere close to that of Nylander's. On top of that, they would have to most likely need to include Boquist to get Dubas to pick up the phone.

What I am saying is they got to play by different rules.. They were not like any other expansion team that came into the league, and have to pick the teams worst players. They were set up right from the start to be a successful team. And with Bettman's continued failure of the Arizona franchise, he needed a success under his watch. Tell me, you cannot see this?

Think about this, if any new ownership group wants to start an NHL franchise, don't you think they are going to demand the same "Deal"?
- powerenforcer

And - at $650MM - the same rules will apply to the new Seattle franchise.

The brilliance of the NHL, a goal that accounts for 2 points doesn't even count in official stats. Who can even think this makes any sense?
- powerenforcer

The same "who" that counts some games as worth more than others (3 point games vs. 2 point games).

Hmmmm - don't know why I'm agreeing with you so much today - scary....

The same "who" that counts some games as worth more than others (3 point games vs. 2 point games).

Hmmmm - don't know why I'm agreeing with you so much today - scary....
- StLBravesFan

You are finally starting to see the entire picture. What should be scary is that you have not been agreeing with me sooner.

We will see how much Oesterle plays - or is demoted - all in theory though - assuming Chychrun returns. Connaughton is your muscle guy eiths big shot mix/match with many offensive better style dmen whom should be employed ahead of Oesterle
- jhawk59

Well, currently the great Hjarllmarson is the #5 Dman in AZ in ice time...just ahead of Oesterle.

And Chychrun is highly regarded there...may make Nik #6

Brian Foran of The Rink offers his pov on Nylander. I don't know if you guys saw it already or not.

https://www.the-rink.com/...an-blackhawks-fairytales/
- I Am The Breadman

Schmaltz, DeBrincat, Boqvist and Jokiharju for Nylander, 4th round pick in 2021.

Stan....

Hate to break the news, but the "success" of the franchise was part of the deal. Can't you see it now?
- powerenforcer

Always has to be a conspiracy with you. The Knights played their asses off for 60 minutes last year, and MAF played out of his mind when it counted. It's hard to maintain that intensity and pace and the goaltending has regressed to the norm.

Always has to be a conspiracy with you. The Knights played their asses off for 60 minutes last year, and MAF played out of his mind when it counted. It's hard to maintain that intensity and pace and the goaltending has regressed to the norm.
- TheTrob

How many rookies did Gallant play last year?

He must hate young players

*NEW* blog up: https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=95357

To comment on Justin's point on how the club feels "different" this yr IMO it's small things, not splashy signings, that has made the difference and Kruger is one of them.

Freeing Toews up and saving his legs from taking heavy Dzone faceoffs is huge.

Giving Toews a responsible skilled 2 way "pro" with IQ in Kahun to skate with can't be underestimated. Add Dcat to that line and Toews has stability on his line he hasn't gotten along with not having to do everything, taking D zone draws, has freed his legs and mind up. 9 in 5 speaks volumes but the eye test even more so. Toews looks fresh and hungry and proper slotting/linemates/allocation has helped in that regard.
- Mr Ricochet

He looks better because he is in better shape and really dedicated himself this off-season to skills training and strength/conditioning. He has said so himself. It is 5 games into the season too. Not like his legs would be worn out if he was taking more d-zone draws. And it wasn't like he was taking mostly d-zone draws last year.

Biggest difference is Joki eating huge minutes and Toews playing better than he maybe ever has looked. Sure having Kruger back helps a bit but that is not the reason Toews' play this year so far.

The same "who" that counts some games as worth more than others (3 point games vs. 2 point games).

Hmmmm - don't know why I'm agreeing with you so much today - scary....
- StLBravesFan

While fans look at the idiocy of having games worth a different amount of points, instead of say a 3-2-1 system. The League and the owners love it because it keeps more teams in the playoff picture for a longer period of time.

In reality, some have gone back and re-calculated the standings based on a 3-2-1 point system, and it really made almost no difference in the seedings at the end of the year.