Seriously though, blow it up. There is no depth. This is not the year.

BTW, weak alliteration

Yup you beat out 5 other teams with intense training and knowledge of the game to win those cups and if it wasn't for the league adding in 24 better teams since then you totally would have won more. Winning a cup back then and winning one now is totally the same thing.
- Meeqsb

Again when you won it doesn't mean anything. There are 12 teams right now that don't have a single player on the cup as they've never won it. Doesn't mean their teams are any better or worse.

I understand you're trolling and it's probably not a good idea to feed the trolls but I'm bored at work right now

Again when you won it doesn't mean anything. There are 12 teams right now that don't have a single player on the cup as they've never won it. Doesn't mean their teams are any better or worse.

I understand you're trolling and it's probably not a good idea to feed the trolls but I'm bored at work right now
- HomerJ_Leaffan

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. When you only have to beat 5 teams and the league is still starting out as a mere concept, winning the Cup under those conditions is completely different than now when the NHL is a major world wide sport, with 29 other teams in a league with huge amounts of parity grinding it out over a whole season with rosters full of players that have devoted their whole lives to learning and perfecting the sport.

Winning a cup then and now are completely different and the claim that "the leafs have the 2nd most cups ever" is weak at best, purely because of when they won them. I would even go so far as to say that the Leafs are actually a really bad franchise, they just have some of the best fans.

If this site got rid of smiling/laughing emoticons, and "lols", your vocabulary would consist of 5 words.
- systemtool

*hears hockey fan in fight with leaf fans and runs outside to help out hockey fan. Sees it's an AVS fan and goes back into the bar.*

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. When you only have to beat 5 teams and the league is still starting out as a mere concept, winning the Cup under those conditions is completely different than now when the NHL is a major world wide sport, with 29 other teams in a league with huge amounts of parity grinding it out over a whole season with rosters full of players that have devoted their whole lives to learning and perfecting the sport.

Winning a cup then and now are completely different and the claim that "the leafs have the 2nd most cups ever" is weak at best, purely because of when they won them. I would even go so far as to say that the Leafs are actually a really bad franchise, they just have some of the best fans.
- Meeqsb

We've been bad for a long time I'll give you that but you can't just arbitrarily take away cup wins. If that is the case can we take away 1 of the 2 that Colorado won as they didn't build that team they just inherited it from Quebec?

*hears hockey fan in fight with leaf fans and runs outside to help out hockey fan. Sees it's an AVS fan and goes back into the bar.*
- bloatedmosquito

*Torts stumbles out of bar poop faced, wins fight, pounds a bottle of Vodka, wakes up the next day to coach the nucks*

We've been bad for a long time I'll give you that but you can't just arbitrarily take away cup wins. If that is the case can we take away 1 of the 2 that Colorado won as they didn't build that team they just inherited it from Quebec?
- HomerJ_Leaffan

I'm not taking the wins away, I am just saying the time frame and the conditions that they were won under changes the significance of them greatly. If you had won a cup over a larger incriminate of time and throughout different periods of expansions then I think you could make the argument, but the Leafs literally won every single one of their cups when there were only 6 teams in the league, which to me is something that you have to take into consideration.

If you want to make the argument that the Avs first Cup is somehow less meaningful because they acquired their team through relocation as opposed to an alternative such as expansion and can make valid points as to why one is less "pure" than the other in some sort of way then we can debate that as well, however both arguments are debating different topics and are under different contexts so they aren't too relatable. 2001 and 2006 are both very recent years as far as the league is concerned so it would be tough to base the relevancy of the based on the time frame and hold up a strong argument. I would also think you would have to pull up the changes made by the Avs roster from when they inherited the team and when they won the Cup, because if there was a large enough % of change from the overall roster that would also negate your claim, but like I said it is a different topic but I am more than willing to dive into it.

I'm not taking the wins away, I am just saying the time frame and the conditions that they were won under changes the significance of them greatly. If you had won a cup over a larger incriminate of time and throughout different periods of expansions then I think you could make the argument, but the Leafs literally won every single one of their cups when there were only 6 teams in the league, which to me is something that you have to take into consideration.

If you want to make the argument that the Avs first Cup is somehow less meaningful because they acquired their team through relocation as opposed to an alternative such as expansion and can make valid points as to why one is less "pure" than the other in some sort of way then we can debate that as well, however both arguments are debating different topics and are under different contexts so they aren't too relatable. 2001 and 2006 are both very recent years as far as the league is concerned so it would be tough to base the relevancy of the based on the time frame and hold up a strong argument. I would also think you would have to pull up the changes made by the Avs roster from when they inherited the team and when they won the Cup, because if there was a large enough % of change from the overall roster that would also negate your claim, but like I said it is a different topic but I am more than willing to dive into it.
- Meeqsb

The time frame they won them under is irrelevant. I wouldn't take away any of the Avalanche wins. They've won it twice. I wouldn't diminish the wins of the Montreal Canadiens or the New York Rangers who have only won it once post expansion.

I was making the argument that subjective things like the "meaning" or "relevance" of those wins doesn't change history.

A Stanley Cup Win is a Stanley cup win regardless of time or circumstance. I wouldn't say that the Chicago Blackhawks 2013 championship means any less because they only had to play half a season to get there.

The same would true for any other sport. I wouldn't diminish the Chicago Cubs last world Series win just because they've been historically bad since or say that the Yankees & Red Sox wins at the turn of the century mean less because they were part of a different era.

Leaf fans can claim their team has won the cup because they did. They can claim they won 13 times because they have. You may not think they are as relevant as they weren't post expansion but it doesn't change anything except the opinion of what you think they "mean".

I'm not taking the wins away, I am just saying the time frame and the conditions that they were won under changes the significance of them greatly. If you had won a cup over a larger incriminate of time and throughout different periods of expansions then I think you could make the argument, but the Leafs literally won every single one of their cups when there were only 6 teams in the league, which to me is something that you have to take into consideration.

If you want to make the argument that the Avs first Cup is somehow less meaningful because they acquired their team through relocation as opposed to an alternative such as expansion and can make valid points as to why one is less "pure" than the other in some sort of way then we can debate that as well, however both arguments are debating different topics and are under different contexts so they aren't too relatable. 2001 and 2006 are both very recent years as far as the league is concerned so it would be tough to base the relevancy of the based on the time frame and hold up a strong argument. I would also think you would have to pull up the changes made by the Avs roster from when they inherited the team and when they won the Cup, because if there was a large enough % of change from the overall roster that would also negate your claim, but like I said it is a different topic but I am more than willing to dive into it.
- Meeqsb

If todays NHL was limited to 6 teams, the competition would be intense. Less 2nd or 3rd rate players on every team, so actually it would be more difficult to win a cup in a 6 team league than the 30 team league the expansion teams have feasted on.

If todays NHL was limited to 6 teams, the competition would be intense. Less 2nd or 3rd rate players on every team, so actually it would be more difficult to win a cup in a 6 team league than the 30 team league the expansion teams have feasted on.
- sloppyseconds2

While the talent may vary I see in no way which only having to go through 29 teams would ever be any easier than only having to beat 6, although the quality would be higher the parity and average skill level would still be similar. So what you are saying is just untrue

The time frame they won them under is irrelevant. I wouldn't take away any of the Avalanche wins. They've won it twice. I wouldn't diminish the wins of the Montreal Canadiens or the New York Rangers who have only won it once post expansion.

I was making the argument that subjective things like the "meaning" or "relevance" of those wins doesn't change history.

A Stanley Cup Win is a Stanley cup win regardless of time or circumstance. I wouldn't say that the Chicago Blackhawks 2013 championship means any less because they only had to play half a season to get there.

The same would true for any other sport. I wouldn't diminish the Chicago Cubs last world Series win just because they've been historically bad since or say that the Yankees & Red Sox wins at the turn of the century mean less because they were part of a different era.

Leaf fans can claim their team has won the cup because they did. They can claim they won 13 times because they have. You may not think they are as relevant as they weren't post expansion but it doesn't change anything except the opinion of what you think they "mean".
- HomerJ_Leaffan

Again if you are going to make this claim (bolded)please have some reasoning to back it up. If not it holds no weight.

While they don't change history, which is just simply defined as something that has previously happened in the past thus unchangable, the context around each win given by the time frame that it took place in did.

The Blackhawks win was still perfectly credible because the playoff format was unchanged from that of a real year and it was fairly obvious they would have made the playoffs even if the season was a full 82 games. I think the only thing the shortened season affected was some teams made the playoffs that might have simply gotten hot that wouldn't if a full season was in effect.

I think it is fairly apparent that you have your mind set and aren't capable,planning or willing to add anything else worthy of noting to the argument so I am probably just going to finish it here as it is more of a one sided debate vs the same statement being said over and over without any added depth.

Always a pleasure leaf fans, sleep well and GL making the playoffs this year! (I am saying this sincerely) It is always more fun with you in the hunt at the end of the year and if it wasn't for all of these injuries you really would be a playoff contending team (in the east, the west is just mental atm)

wain wain

Ya I'de give Liles another shot... Oh, wait... Cant, cap is f-ed.
- aminnes

The cap has nothing to do with Liles.

Villaggio





Fire someone.....





FU Santa...

Garnie wears his wife's underwear on his head...He's silly..

Boring.....




Geez.... might as well go do the wife....

Anyone else see the size of the horseshoe up Montreal's ass last night?

I swear to god I'll lose my poop if PK makes team Canada...he's horrible in his own end....not to mention a dirty little poop stain (slu-footing elias with 40sec left).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... scort.html

Outraged child advocates are blasting NORAD's new 3D Santa Tracker program because it includes a fighter jet escort for jolly old Saint Nick.

Some say the new online portrait could give kids the wrong impression about Santa Claus - associating him with the military and violence.

But Pentagon officials argue the North American Aerospace Defense Command is a military organization - its purpose is to track incursions of the airspace over the U.S. and Canada - and the inclusion of fighter jets into Santa's new digital flight across the world is a nod to NORAD's true mission.

Josh Golin, associate director of the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, says the new campaign is ‘reprehensible’ since it played on children's fears by suggesting that Santa Claus was vulnerable to attack.

‘It's a backdoor way of marketing to kids when they are not supposed to be recruiting until they are much older,’ he said.

Allen Kanner, a child psychologist with the same group, told the Boston Globe: 'Children associate Santa with gifts and fun and everything else that is positive about Christmas.

'They are associating this with the military in children’s minds. It is completely out of line.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... scort.html

Outraged child advocates are blasting NORAD's new 3D Santa Tracker program because it includes a fighter jet escort for jolly old Saint Nick.

Some say the new online portrait could give kids the wrong impression about Santa Claus - associating him with the military and violence.

But Pentagon officials argue the North American Aerospace Defense Command is a military organization - its purpose is to track incursions of the airspace over the U.S. and Canada - and the inclusion of fighter jets into Santa's new digital flight across the world is a nod to NORAD's true mission.

Josh Golin, associate director of the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, says the new campaign is ‘reprehensible’ since it played on children's fears by suggesting that Santa Claus was vulnerable to attack.

‘It's a backdoor way of marketing to kids when they are not supposed to be recruiting until they are much older,’ he said.

Allen Kanner, a child psychologist with the same group, told the Boston Globe: 'Children associate Santa with gifts and fun and everything else that is positive about Christmas.

'They are associating this with the military in children’s minds. It is completely out of line.
- Fruitcakenipple

WHY???? That's stupid.

I'm not following your team much but my opinion is that you need improvement on center and defence.

Bozak is not a first line center. Kadri might be someday.
- sEb_666

awesome, habs move ahead of the leafs for about one week of the 2 month season, and suddenly all their fans are experts

No but if the league is has 5x the amount of teams over a 50 year period and the Avs don't win the cup at any point in time during that span then at that point in the future when a team will have to beat 149 other teams to lift the cup then the cups that the avs have won will mean equivalently disproportionately less than that of the cups that the Leafs won. Why don't you learn to use correct logic before you critique me on my own.


- Meeqsb

This has to be one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time. Sure there were fewer teams at the time, but those teams were absolutely stacked. A cup win is a cup win, it means you were the best hockey team in the world. It seems pretty foolish to start talking about which cup wins are "equivalently disproportionately less" than others.

No but if the league is has 5x the amount of teams over a 50 year period and the Avs don't win the cup at any point in time during that span then at that point in the future when a team will have to beat 149 other teams to lift the cup then the cups that the avs have won will mean equivalently disproportionately less than that of the cups that the Leafs won. Why don't you learn to use correct logic before you critique me on my own.

Homer moron
- Meeqsb

Wtf is this crap? Might want to stick with words you can handle, sport.

Its pathetic, and sad, when you have to troll a fan base with the premise that anything that happened before the modern era is now meaningless and void of any relevance and significance. Hey, sorry...forgive us for helping the Habs and a small handful of other teams, to create the league we all love today. You're right, we should truly feel shame.

Nobody around here...

mornin'

[img]
- Dozzer[/img]

mornin'