qwksndmonster Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Not having Eichel in top 3 doesnt pass the smell test. Put out all the justifications you want... the is a bunch of BS. Again NhL is an amateur organization overseen by a bean headed little prick who doesnt no jack squat about PR and promoting things... Laughable I think it's fair, considering the rules. You can call the rules dumb and say that Panarin shouldn't be eligible and I wouldn't fight you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 I think it's fair, considering the rules. You can call the rules dumb and say that Panarin shouldn't be eligible and I wouldn't fight you. Pretty much, unfortunately. But if he finished any lower than 4, the league has some 'splainin' to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Not the right selections. McDavid only played 45 games. The award isn't for best player, it's for best season. Other players, notably Jack, accomplished more this season than McDavid did, and had a greater positive impact on their team(s). Health is a component of a successful season. Where do you draw the line? McDavid only played half. Eichel had the better season. What is this based on? Here's the official description: the player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition in the NHL. I would interpret that as not "who had the best season" but rather as "who is the best player out of all players in their first NHL season." And that is McD. Why do I get the impression Jack will be served by the snub? GO SABRES!!! I agree with this. I'm fine with the lack of Eichel getting a nomination. It's the NHL rookie of the year. Every first-year full time player is eligible. Age has nothing to do with it. Panarin had far and away the best season and Gostisbehere was the best defenceman and helped the Flyers (who were looking at a top-8 pick) into the playoffs. And from a coast-to-coast perspective, McDavid's numbers were off the charts and everyone would still pick him #1 overall if the draft occurred today. This isn't a snub. Eichel, Larkin, Domi, and Reinhart all had great seasons, but they weren't the first-year NHLers that stood out to everyone. And this. Good post. Keep 'em coming! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) I think it's fair, considering the rules. You can call the rules dumb and say that Panarin shouldn't be eligible and I wouldn't fight you. The criteria should be better defined, then. Is it for best rookie, or best rookie season? Eichel's season was better than McDavid's. What is this based on? Here's the official description: I would interpret that as not "who had the best season" but rather as "who is the best player out of all players in their first NHL season." And that is McD. I agree with this. And this. Good post. Keep 'em coming! When it says "proficient in his first year", I take the "year" portion of the statement to be significant. How proficient was McDavid for the 3 months he was out? Just looking at it logically, the award clearly isn't made to be awarded based on potential. It's about what the player accomplished in their first year. If the award is simply for who was the "most skilled player that existed in the league during the season", McDavid could win if he played only one game. Obviously there is a line. Where is it drawn? Being considered for an award that is based on an entire season of work when you missed half of that season is bogus, in my view. At the very least, if the definition refers to who was "best", surely what each player accomplished in their season would be a valid way to interpret what "best" means. Could easily argue the best season is the one in which most was accomplished. Eichel accomplished more and affected his team in a greater way than McDavid did, I would say. Anyways, it's tough to reach a consensus on what the award should mean, everyone interprets it in their own way. Edited May 3, 2016 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) IMO Eichel doesn't belong in this conversation at all. It's Panarin or Gostisbehere, and I'm on record saying that it should be Gost for a number of reasons. The fact that they picked one of McEichel to fill out a slate of three finalists means nothing to me. Edited May 3, 2016 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 IMO Eichel doesn't belong in this conversation at all. It's Panarin or Gostisbehere, and I'm on record saying that it should be Gost for a number of reasons. The fact that they picked one of McEichel to fill out a slate of three finalists means nothing to me. With the way the rules regarding what constitutes a rookie are currently written, Panarin should win. His season was the best of all rookies. Ghost had a great season too, but let's not forget he was on the ice with a lot of good players, too, just like Panarin. I also read that Ghost had a higher offensive zone start percentage than Eichel, as D-man, at that. I'm not arguing against Ghost, really, but with Panarin being hella old for a rookie, people forget that Ghost is what, 23? In that list posted of winners of the Calder, all were younger than Ghost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Gostisbehere and McDavid didn't play enough games IMO, staying healthy and on the ice is part of being a good player. Panarin is too old. Eichel and Larkin had the most impressive rookie campaign IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogre Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Seems like there's far too much opinion involved for ROY to be something any player should feel honored or snubbed about. If I were Eichel(or he were me) I would be far too concerned about my own personal goals for the summer to even have the energy to pay attention to all the nonsense. Is that a proper thing to say? I've never been a fan of any hockey award besides the Stanley and the Calder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 I care about the Hart, the Conn Smythe, and the Stanley Cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 I care about the Hart, the Conn Smythe, and the Stanley Cup.No Art Ross? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Seems like there's far too much opinion involved for ROY to be something any player should feel honored or snubbed about. If I were Eichel(or he were me) I would be far too concerned about my own personal goals for the summer to even have the energy to pay attention to all the nonsense. Is that a proper thing to say? I've never been a fan of any hockey award besides the Stanley and the Calder.In general, yes. But when finishing top 3 puts money in a guy's pocket, he probably does/did care. And this comment should in NO WAY be construed as saying Eichel is driven by the greenbacks. But pretty sure he's heard he wasn't a finalist. Saves him from having to buy a tux. ;) (And you do realize you just said you don't believe Eichel should care about the Calder in a thread about the Calder & in which you said you DO care about the Calder? :huh: If you're somehow referring to the AHL championship adding the word 'Cup' would help clarify. :)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 No Art Ross?Not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) Apparently the NHL does not consider the KHL a professional league. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=24931 "To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league." Edited May 4, 2016 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Apparently the NHL does not consider the KHL a professional league. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=24931 "To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league." Pretty sure WHA was pretty much the only other league they considered a "major professional league" since the REAL early days before they took sole possession of the SC. Bourque won the Calder in Gretzky's 1st NHL year because Wayne wasn't eligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Pretty sure WHA was pretty much the only other league they considered a "major professional league" since the REAL early days before they took sole possession of the SC. Bourque won the Calder in Gretzky's 1st NHL year because Wayne wasn't eligible. Good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 No Art Ross? Not really. I feel like I should only care about the Art Ross, and the Stanley Cup. No subjectivity there. The Hart is always ridiculously subjective, the "most valuable TO HIS TEAM" aspect makes it exceptionally ambiguous in most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Gostisbehere and McDavid didn't play enough games IMO, staying healthy and on the ice is part of being a good player. Panarin is too old. Eichel and Larkin had the most impressive rookie campaign IMO. Gostisbehere played 64 games, which, I believe, is every game since he was called up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Gostisbehere played 64 games, which, I believe, is every game since he was called up. Agreed, Ghost's game count is definitely high enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Apparently the NHL does not consider the KHL a professional league. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=24931 "To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league." How do they feel about the Swiss league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.