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

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

I don't know! That's the point of a discussion. Do we really think that Phil Anschutz had much "personally" to do with winning the Stanley Cup? Sure he put up the money... but in a salary cap/floor league where he's separated from the team by two full corporate entities how much did he actually do to win the Cup vs. not win the Cup? Sure I think the GM and Coach should be on their... but the legal council for AEG? The COO? The media guys?

Really?

I have no problem with them having their names on the Cup...... but don't tell me that some of those guys being on the Cup is less ridiculous than suggesting Jim Fox and Bob Miller should be on there too. EVEN IF IT ISN'T "TRADITION". How many teams have put their "Vice President of Communications" on the Cup before?

EDIT : OH yea... and Loktionov.

I don't have any problem with Phil Anschutz being on the cup. It's his team and his money, no matter how technical you want to get. Do you think this team would be in the direction it's in with Bruce McNall? Nancy shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned but it's clear that the owner gets say in who's name goes on and who's doesn't. Loktionov should be on there. The media guys are a surprise to me and I would agree with that part. Bob and Jim fall under the same category and shouldn't be on there. If they go on, then Nick and Daryl should absolutely go on too.

My initial post was in response to the outrage on the board about Bob and Jim not being on there. That's not surprising.

Why should Loktionov be on the cup? I could swear i said i thought that of those three, he was the odd man out.

And, aren't Bob And Jim employed by Fox Sports?

Originally Posted by gescom

Why should Loktionov be on the cup? I could swear i said i thought that of those three, he was the odd man out.

And, aren't Bob And Jim employed by Fox Sports?

Odd man out, maybe. Our point, or my point at least, is that there shouldn't be an odd man out. He was a part of the team.

I could be wrong but Bob and Jim are employed by both the Kings and Fox Sports. I know that was the case with Heidi.

Originally Posted by AllenA07

Loktionov on the other hand is a disappointment.

Finally! Something we agree on!

oh... you're talking about the Cup... I thought you ment in general

Lokti is a good player that can't hit the broad side of a barn. He had his shot to stick with the big boys and it didn't work, so he didn't get his name on the cup. Tough cookies.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the wife is actually the hockey fan and encouraged Phil to buy the team. If that is true, he may feel that she is really the reason he is the owner and that's why he put her on the cup.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Nancy shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned but it's clear that the owner gets say in who's name goes on and who's doesn't.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there is a very strong likelihood that Uncle Phil's ownership interest is community or marital property such that Nancy is every bit as much an owner as Phil. We know from the Pocklington incident that the owners cannot simply put anyone they want on the Cup.

While Loktionov's omission surprises me, I am most surprised that Roski's name is not on the list.

Originally Posted by gescom

Why should Loktionov be on the cup? I could swear i said i thought that of those three, he was the odd man out.

We could reasonably ask the same question about Drewiske and Westgarth.

Using recent history (i.e., the prior 5 Cup winners) as a guide, I think it's reasonable to say that Loktionov's omission is surprising. Lokti had more regular season and playoff games and points than the other two combined. I guess we'll never know even whether the team tried to get his name on and was denied, but my guess is that this tells us a lot about how the team views Loktionov and his future with the team as a whole.

Altieri, Mc Gown and Nancy Anschutz none of them should be there befor Jim Fox Bob Miller and ZAM MAN they have all done more for the team

The only omission that REALLY deserves to be there is Scott Howson

Originally Posted by aaron:2588097

The only omission that REALLY deserves to be there is Scott Howson

Paul Holmgren

Hadn't this already been covered in another thread?