52 names on the Stanley Cup (+1)

**mitchrock** · September 25th, 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

He played in games the Kings won during the playoffs.

As for his attitude or commitment to the organization (re: KHL vs AHL).... I don't think that should be enough to negate his contribution (however slim) to winning the Cup.

He was underwhelming at best.

**Dr. Naysay** · September 25th, 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by mitchrock

He was underwhelming at best.

He played.

**LOSTcauseZERO** · September 25th, 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by mitchrock

He was underwhelming at best.

So was Westgarth, but his name is on the cup. I'll take Loktionov over Westgarth every single time.

**Bogey** · September 25th, 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO:2588508

Originally Posted by mitchrock

He was underwhelming at best.

So was Westgarth, but his name is on the cup. I'll take Loktionov over Westgarth every single time.

It's a good point.

**Dr. Naysay** · September 25th, 2012, 03:32 PM

Again... why are we all assuming it's a "Loktionov or Westgarth" dilemma.

There's 52 names available. Any player who was part of the Cup run deserves to be on there. Bernier, Westgarth, Drewiske and ESPECIALLY Loktionov all were present and available during the Cup run. They were at the practices, on the flights, in the meetings and in Loktionov's case occasionally ON THE ICE.

**LOSTcauseZERO** · September 25th, 2012, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

Again... why are we all assuming it's a "Loktionov or Westgarth" dilemma.

I wasn't. I was just saying if we use the logic of leaving a player's name off of the Stanley Cup because he was underwhelming, then there would be a few player's names left off of the Stanley Cup. Loktionov and Westgarth both deserve to have their names on the Stanley Cup. Nancy Anschutz does not. That's my dilemma.

**Dr. Naysay** · September 25th, 2012, 04:35 PM

I think I may be changing my mind about Nancy Anschutz. I wasn't aware that she was the big hockey fan and I suppose one could argue that a married couple shares ownership.

But Ted Fikre? No way.

**mitchrock** · September 25th, 2012, 04:42 PM

Doc, why get all fired up. The team is up for sale and is finally going to KC like you always wanted.

**LOSTcauseZERO** · September 25th, 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by mitchrock

Doc, why get all fired up. The team is up for sale and is finally going to KC like you always wanted.

Seattle would be better.

**Dr. Naysay** · September 25th, 2012, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by mitchrock

Doc, why get all fired up.

Because it's the Cup.

Thread: 52 names on the Stanley Cup (+1)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions