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

Originally Posted by pg1067

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.

no we can't. you need to look at the whole picture. guys like Davis Drewiske and Kevin Westgarth are in a category that is more along the lines of Jonathan Bernier. not only have these two been official roster players for the better part of the last couple of years, neither has seen time in the 'A' during that span. whereas Andrei Loktionov basically split the season between Manchester and Los Angeles.

if an exception were to be made for Loktionov, why not then for Scott Parse?

again, apparently i'm the only one who not only isn't surprised, but had originally figured it was gonna play out that way as well

same goes for Bob and Jim, who again, are to my knowledge employed solely by Fox Sports... make an exception for them, why not Nick and Daryl, who ARE Kings employees?

Originally Posted by gescom

no we can't. you need to look at the whole picture. guys like Davis Drewiske and Kevin Westgarth are in a category that is more along the lines of Jonathan Bernier. not only have these two been official roster players for the better part of the last couple of years, neither has seen time in the 'A' during that span. whereas Andrei Loktionov basically split the season between Manchester and Los Angeles.

if an exception were to be made for Loktionov, why not then for Scott Parse?

again, apparently i'm the only one who not only isn't surprised, but had originally figured it was gonna play out that way as well

same goes for Bob and Jim, who again, are to my knowledge employed solely by Fox Sports... make an exception for them, why not Nick and Daryl, who ARE Kings employees?

Perhaps my perspective is all wrong...

But I see winning the Stanley Cup as a flash in the pan momentary award. The fact that Drewiske was with the Kings longer than Loktionov is irrelevant to me. Loktionov was around for the few months it took them to win the Cup. He played in games they won on their way and when he wasn't playing he was just as "present" as Bernier, Drewiske and Westgarth.

BUT EVEN WITH ALL THAT.....

The real issue shouldn't be seen as "Loktionov or Westgarth"... it should be "Loktionov or Beckerman/Fikre/Altieri/McGowan/N. Anscutz/Lieweke/Robitaille(I know I know)/etc

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

The real issue shouldn't be seen as "Loktionov or Westgarth"... it should be "Loktionov or Beckerman/Fikre/Altieri/McGowan/N. Anscutz/Lieweke/Robitaille(I know I know)/etc

Can't say I disagree with this.

The rules for players, in general, are stupid. If you are on the team, especially during the playoffs, your name should go on the cup. Loktionov played games during the run, he traveled with the team, and was available in case there was an injury. There are rules after the trade deadline to prevent too many call ups so it's not like you can just call up everyone in Manchester to have their names on the cup. If Manchester won the Calder Cup, Loktionov wouldn't have been a part of that team either. So where does he belong? This, in essence, is a message to Loktionov that he wasn't part of the team and isn't equal to the rest of the players and staff. For a franchise that's beaten the "everyone cares about one another" idea to death, this just seems odd.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti:2588152

The rules for players, in general, are stupid. If you are on the team, especially during the playoffs, your name should go on the cup. Loktionov played games during the run, he traveled with the team, and was available in case there was an injury. There are rules after the trade deadline to prevent too many call ups so it's not like you can just call up everyone in Manchester to have their names on the cup. If Manchester won the Calder Cup, Loktionov wouldn't have been a part of that team either. So where does he belong? This, in essence, is a message to Loktionov that he wasn't part of the team and isn't equal to the rest of the team. For a franchise that's beaten the "everyone cares about one another" idea to death, this just seems odd.

He also wasn't invited to sushi with Richards, Doughty, & Lewis.

Originally Posted by Paddy24

There was talk of having Jack Johnson's name on the cup at one point, but it was minus in the scheme of things.

No?

I don't know what you're referring to, but JMFJ was not eligible because he wasn't a member of the team. Player who are traded away or coaches who are fired part way through the season aren't eligible.

Originally Posted by gescom

no we can't. you need to look at the whole picture. guys like Davis Drewiske and Kevin Westgarth are in a category that is more along the lines of Jonathan Bernier. not only have these two been official roster players for the better part of the last couple of years, neither has seen time in the 'A' during that span. whereas Andrei Loktionov basically split the season between Manchester and Los Angeles.

if an exception were to be made for Loktionov, why not then for Scott Parse?

Yes, we can. You may have an answer to the question and an opinion, and it may well be that you ended up being correct, but it's certainly reasonable to ask why two guys whose games played totals combined wouldn't be sufficient to qualify them automatically if they were a single person get on the Cup. In my view, what these guys did in the past doesn't make bit of difference. Of course, we know that DD and Westy got on the Cup because the team petitioned to get them on and the league approved the petitions. Did their past contributions and "good guy" attitudes factor into the team's decision to petition on their behalf. Probably. As I said, we'll never know whether the team didn't petition to get Lokti on the Cup or whether the team petitioned and the league said no. If you look at past Cup winners as precedent (and who knows if the league looks to precedent), there was little or no precedent for DD (and, in fact, precedent exists that he shouldn't have been included). Precedent existed for both Lokti and Westy.

I also agree that the rules for player qualification are a bit silly, that this is isn't an issue of Lokti v. DD/Westy, and that the real issue is Lokti v. one of the non-players.

And what about Arnold?!

Originally Posted by pg1067

Yes, we can. You may have an answer to the question and an opinion, and it may well be that you ended up being correct, but it's certainly reasonable to ask why two guys whose games played totals combined wouldn't be sufficient to qualify them automatically if they were a single person get on the Cup. In my view, what these guys did in the past doesn't make bit of difference. Of course, we know that DD and Westy got on the Cup because the team petitioned to get them on and the league approved the petitions. Did their past contributions and "good guy" attitudes factor into the team's decision to petition on their behalf. Probably. As I said, we'll never know whether the team didn't petition to get Lokti on the Cup or whether the team petitioned and the league said no. If you look at past Cup winners as precedent (and who knows if the league looks to precedent), there was little or no precedent for DD (and, in fact, precedent exists that he shouldn't have been included). Precedent existed for both Lokti and Westy.

I also agree that the rules for player qualification are a bit silly, that this is isn't an issue of Lokti v. DD/Westy, and that the real issue is Lokti v. one of the non-players.

And what about Arnold?!

that's your view, so i guess you can contest or question it until the cows come home. the answer is pretty simple... BOTH players were on the ACTIVE roster for the ENTIRE season, PERIOD. seventh defensemen and tough guys simply aren't going to play in an actual game as often, and certainly less often in the playoffs - barring injury (as was the case with Kevin Westgarth who played in all 6 playoff games against San Jose in 2011.)

i don't know who was petitioned for and who wasn't... that's neither here nor there. and again, i knew that Loktionov would not have his name on the cup because he not only failed to meet the criteria, he failed to meet any special circumstances outside of warming the cockles of a gaggle of LGKers' hearts... do you think i just 'lucked' out on my the guess i pulled out of my ass?

you wanna talk seventh defenseman precedent, and whether or not the precedent is that Drewiske should not have been included? look at Bryan Muir. traded to Colorado in 2001, played 8 regular season games and 3 playoff games (NONE in the Finals) en-route to the Stanley Cup... the seventh defenseman.


and which non-player do YOU omit, and can you give reason for such... outside of making room for Loktionov?

Originally Posted by gescom

I knew that Loktionov would not have his name on the cup because he not only failed to meet the criteria, he failed to meet any special circumstances outside of warming the cockles of a gaggle of LGKers' hearts... do you think i just 'lucked' out on my the guess i pulled out of my ass?

Just because you were "right" doesn't make what happened "Right".