ATD#8 Don Cherry Semi-Final: #1 Aurora Tigers vs. #5 New York Rangers
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
If nothing else, a series involving arrbez and Sather should be good for a few laughs, some wit and some sarcastic remarks. May the best talker win.
If the Rangers are going to win this series, they need Billy Smith at his playoff best. If he is, they have a shot. Tiny Thompson is a good No. 1, he won't hurt Aurora, but he won't steal them the series. Smith can steal the series.
Aurora's going to have to withstand New York's physical play. Outside of Naslund, all of New York's top six forwards bring a physical presence. We remember the ultra classy, highly skilled Jean Beliveau. Few remember that he's in a special class of players (seven, I believe) to lead a team in goals, assists, points and PIMs in the same season.
It's a New York team that was built for this time of year. They showed it in the first round. They showed it by winning Game 7 in the team with the biggest home ice advantage in the league.
Chemistry is always a strength with any arrbez team. He reunited the Espo line. I have doubts about Cashman's ability to play on a first line, but when you bring Espo and Hodge into the equation, that answers the doubts. Klukay's a find for Oates and Hull; I see him fitting into that role much like Brind'Amour did before he was traded to Philly.
arrbez, I'm not sure about Paiement on a two-way line. I think he's better as a physical scorer on a third scoring line, or as an RW on a crash-and-bang fourth line. That's okay, though: Henderson played a lot of RW, and can move into Paiement's role. And Ab McDonald is one of the best 13th forwards in the draft. He would be fine with Draper and Doan.
The Rangers were built for the playoffs and it carried them to victory in the first round. Guys like Propp, Beliveau, Forsberg and Lemieux. Even Naslund had his moments in the playoffs. Naslund is very underrated. I think he's the better Naslund. Even the checking line guys had playoff moments. My only concern with the bottom two lines is Rolston. He's okay, but as a checking winger in an ATD, there were a couple LWs not picked who were better options.
arrbez's defence is tough and well-built. The only weakness is Kevin Hatcher. The Rangers would be wise to forecheck him heavily, and force him into bad penalties and turnovers. This is where guys like Lemieux, Propp and Broadbent will be valuable.
The Rangers don't have a star like Chelios on their blue-line. Howe was at the bottom of my list for No. 1 defencemen. But it's well-built. Reinhart gives them an excellent puck-moving presence. Do you bring in a guy like Korab in place of Patrick for a little more physical play? Or do you trust that you will get it from Hall, Goodfellow and Ludwig? As I said before, it's very reminiscent of kreuzer's defence in the last draft - one star (Gadsby) and a lot of really good defencemen.
Give the blue-line edge to the Tigers, but in terms of team defence, it's very close. I'd probably give the forward edge to the Rangers, but as far as team offence goes, I'll take the Tigers.
Coaching is a draw. Sinden's the best coach, but Quinn-Martin compliment each other well, and it's a fine duo for this team.
If the Rangers are going to win this series, they need Billy Smith at his playoff best. If he is, they have a shot. Tiny Thompson is a good No. 1, he won't hurt Aurora, but he won't steal them the series. Smith can steal the series.
Aurora's going to have to withstand New York's physical play. Outside of Naslund, all of New York's top six forwards bring a physical presence. We remember the ultra classy, highly skilled Jean Beliveau. Few remember that he's in a special class of players (seven, I believe) to lead a team in goals, assists, points and PIMs in the same season.
It's a New York team that was built for this time of year. They showed it in the first round. They showed it by winning Game 7 in the team with the biggest home ice advantage in the league.
Chemistry is always a strength with any arrbez team. He reunited the Espo line. I have doubts about Cashman's ability to play on a first line, but when you bring Espo and Hodge into the equation, that answers the doubts. Klukay's a find for Oates and Hull; I see him fitting into that role much like Brind'Amour did before he was traded to Philly.
arrbez, I'm not sure about Paiement on a two-way line. I think he's better as a physical scorer on a third scoring line, or as an RW on a crash-and-bang fourth line. That's okay, though: Henderson played a lot of RW, and can move into Paiement's role. And Ab McDonald is one of the best 13th forwards in the draft. He would be fine with Draper and Doan.
The Rangers were built for the playoffs and it carried them to victory in the first round. Guys like Propp, Beliveau, Forsberg and Lemieux. Even Naslund had his moments in the playoffs. Naslund is very underrated. I think he's the better Naslund. Even the checking line guys had playoff moments. My only concern with the bottom two lines is Rolston. He's okay, but as a checking winger in an ATD, there were a couple LWs not picked who were better options.
arrbez's defence is tough and well-built. The only weakness is Kevin Hatcher. The Rangers would be wise to forecheck him heavily, and force him into bad penalties and turnovers. This is where guys like Lemieux, Propp and Broadbent will be valuable.
The Rangers don't have a star like Chelios on their blue-line. Howe was at the bottom of my list for No. 1 defencemen. But it's well-built. Reinhart gives them an excellent puck-moving presence. Do you bring in a guy like Korab in place of Patrick for a little more physical play? Or do you trust that you will get it from Hall, Goodfellow and Ludwig? As I said before, it's very reminiscent of kreuzer's defence in the last draft - one star (Gadsby) and a lot of really good defencemen.
Give the blue-line edge to the Tigers, but in terms of team defence, it's very close. I'd probably give the forward edge to the Rangers, but as far as team offence goes, I'll take the Tigers.
Coaching is a draw. Sinden's the best coach, but Quinn-Martin compliment each other well, and it's a fine duo for this team.
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
Here's my special teams for this series (if you want to paste them in that first post, I'll delete this one):
pp1: Oates, Hull, Esposito, Suchy, Hatcher
pp2: Shadrin, Lewis, Hodge, Chelios, Ragulin
pk1: Klukay, Shadrin, Chelios, Flaman
pk2: Lewis, Draper, Harris, Ragulin
Last edited:
*sigh*
Upon further inspection, Wendel Clark edged Darcy out for goals that year in Tampa. I'd be angry, but I can't hate Wendel. But the sad reality is that Tucker is not Beliveau's equal. Beliveau is like Tucker but with a better scoring touch. It's very close though, regardless. One thing that works against Beliveau is that he's never tried to beat a man with his own helmet. I really should have drafted Darcy Tucker.
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,171
- 14,534
Aside from strength down the middle, these teams are quite dissimilar and it will be interesting to see which style will prevail.
This matchup features two of the most formidable pairs of centres going head-to-head. I'd give the edge to the Rangers (Beliveau over Esposito is easy, and I'd take a healthy, prime Forsberg over Oates on the strength of his physical play and PO performances, though Oates gets the edge in PK ability). Both will make their linemates better, though Oates has more to work with (and has proven success) with Hull.
Aurora has a big edge with their top defense pair. I believe Ragulin is one of the most underrated hockey players ever, and is like the Soviet Tim Horton. With Chelios and Ragulin on the ice together, not only will it be very hard to score, it will be painful just to move the puck up the ice. Fern Flaman, on the second pair, won't make things any easier.
ES, I'd take Hall off the top pair. It looks like he was very prone to taking penalties, and this would be very dangerous against a team with two great PP units. Ebbie Goodfellow (a former centre with good offensive instincts) should be a good complement to Howe on the top pair--both are good balance between offense and positional D. Craig Ludwig is one of the slowest defensive defensmen in history, but he won't be at a terrible disadvantage against Esposito and Oates.
I have little doubt that Thompson (4-time all-star, 6-time league leader in GAA including PO) was a better/more talented/more dominant goalie than Smith. Still, despite Thompson's very solid PO record, Smith was unstoppable during the spring and, heading into the second round, it's a tough call between the two.
The Rangers have an exceptional group of grizzled playoff veterans on their bottom two lines, who, like their goalie, lives for this time of year. Aurora's bottom six forwards have quite an advantage in international tournament experience.
This matchup features two of the most formidable pairs of centres going head-to-head. I'd give the edge to the Rangers (Beliveau over Esposito is easy, and I'd take a healthy, prime Forsberg over Oates on the strength of his physical play and PO performances, though Oates gets the edge in PK ability). Both will make their linemates better, though Oates has more to work with (and has proven success) with Hull.
Aurora has a big edge with their top defense pair. I believe Ragulin is one of the most underrated hockey players ever, and is like the Soviet Tim Horton. With Chelios and Ragulin on the ice together, not only will it be very hard to score, it will be painful just to move the puck up the ice. Fern Flaman, on the second pair, won't make things any easier.
ES, I'd take Hall off the top pair. It looks like he was very prone to taking penalties, and this would be very dangerous against a team with two great PP units. Ebbie Goodfellow (a former centre with good offensive instincts) should be a good complement to Howe on the top pair--both are good balance between offense and positional D. Craig Ludwig is one of the slowest defensive defensmen in history, but he won't be at a terrible disadvantage against Esposito and Oates.
I have little doubt that Thompson (4-time all-star, 6-time league leader in GAA including PO) was a better/more talented/more dominant goalie than Smith. Still, despite Thompson's very solid PO record, Smith was unstoppable during the spring and, heading into the second round, it's a tough call between the two.
The Rangers have an exceptional group of grizzled playoff veterans on their bottom two lines, who, like their goalie, lives for this time of year. Aurora's bottom six forwards have quite an advantage in international tournament experience.
I know Paiement's not a Selke threat, I feel I have two elite defensive players already on the line in Lewis and Shadrin. Paiement was decent enough on the defensive side of the puck, and he brings size, goal-scoring ability to go with two very good playmakers, and some bigtime nastiness. I felt the line was already good enough defensively that I could indulge a little.
I did pick Henderson with this in mind however, and I'll have to think about the matchups. Swapping Henderson in for Paiement would make that line incredibly fast, but it would lose some toughness against a very tough team.
Tucker is like Beliveau but with an extra chromosome.
Yeah, the good kind of chromosome that makes you want to fight the other team's bench all by yourself (another feat that Mr. Beliveau never achieved. Just sayin'.)
I guess I'll start giving my take on this series over the next couple days when I have time. So, here's a start I guess. More to follow.
Advantages:
Scoring
While the top two lines and defense may be a wash offensively, I believe my third line is significantly better offensively than either of New York's bottom two lines (and gives nothing up defensively). Herbie Lewis was consistantly in and around the top-10 in NHL scoring (coming as high as 4th), Shadrin was an excellent offensive player; a slick playmaker with a history of big performances. Paiement may be the worst offensive guy on that line, and he has multiple 40 goal seasons and a career high of 97 points. Not one of New York's bottom 6 forwards ever hit 80 points.
Advantages:
Scoring
While the top two lines and defense may be a wash offensively, I believe my third line is significantly better offensively than either of New York's bottom two lines (and gives nothing up defensively). Herbie Lewis was consistantly in and around the top-10 in NHL scoring (coming as high as 4th), Shadrin was an excellent offensive player; a slick playmaker with a history of big performances. Paiement may be the worst offensive guy on that line, and he has multiple 40 goal seasons and a career high of 97 points. Not one of New York's bottom 6 forwards ever hit 80 points.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I like Ragulin a lot and Nalyd and I probably would have taken him if Horner went before our 6th rounder, but I think you're presenting a slightly skewed picture of him as a player. Ragulin was big, very strong, excellent in his own zone and highly skilled with the puck. He was not a particularly aggressive player, however, in spite of his size, and he was an awful skater.
I praised arrbez's selection of Ragulin at the time and I still think he was a nice pick in the 7th given the run on defensemen, but let's not make him into Tim Horton now. Horton was a very strong skater, while Ragulin's footspeed is a serious disadvantage. Ragulin couldn't match the acceleration of Phil Esposito (who wasn't exactly known as a superb skater) in 72 and got royally burned for it. Rags is a fantastic player for clearing the crease, blocking shots, etc. due to his size, strength and defensive awareness and he will make a lot of plays with the puck on his stick, but there are real and exploitable holes in his game. Against the quicker forwards, he is going to have problems and aside from head-man passing, he offers nothing in transition. Luckily, he only has to see Phil Esposito in practice.
In fairness to Ragulin, he was at the end of his career in '72 (he retired the following year), and Esposito was pretty much unstoppable at that time.
I think he'll be great with Chelios. The in-zone coverage that those two provide is going to be unreal, and it's an excellent match-up for them against a forward group that's more physical than they are quick.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
You're right about Ragulin being past his peak. Another thing that worked against him in that series is that he'd simply never seen a player like Esposito before - a guy who could get off a shot so quickly and so decisively with neither windup nor warning. Ragulin in his prime with adequate preparation probably would have fared a bit better. I also agree with you that against New York, his skating is not as much of an issue, and he and Chelios will certainly be a tough nut to crack down low.
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
You have a very nice top pairing for my set of forwards. Big, very mean, tough, defensively sound. They'll make life difficult.
You also have a small, pillowy soft Jan Suchy on the second pair and Kevin "I have some of the most absurd brain-farts an all-star defenseman has ever committed" Hatcher on the 3rd.
Just sayin.
You also have a small, pillowy soft Jan Suchy on the second pair and Kevin "I have some of the most absurd brain-farts an all-star defenseman has ever committed" Hatcher on the 3rd.
Just sayin.
You have a very nice top pairing for my set of forwards. Big, very mean, tough, defensively sound. They'll make life difficult.
You also have a small, pillowy soft Jan Suchy on the second pair and Kevin "I have some of the most absurd brain-farts an all-star defenseman has ever committed" Hatcher on the 3rd.
Just sayin.
Why's there this assumption that Suchy is soft? Because he's European and skilled? I'm not saying he's Scott Stevens out there, but all indications are that he certainly had grit to his game.
He not only excelled offensively but did it defensively as well. Suchy was also a master shotblocker who never hesitated to throw his body in front of a shot. http://www.1972summitseries.com/othersuchy.html
Hell, he was the first european player to be put on an NHL protected list, and this was by the Big Bad Bruins. I doubt they'd go out of their way to claim some cream puff.
In 1969 and 71 he was selected as the best defenseman in the World Championships. Many thought that he should have been selected in 1970 as well, including the winner "Lill-Strimma" Svedberg.
When "Lill-Strimma" skated out to accept his award he immidiately went over to Suchy and patted him on the back to tell him that the jury didn't know what they were doing and that Suchy and nobody else deserved the award.
" I have no idea if he understood what I had told him" said "Lill-Strimma" later on, " But I've never seen a better defenseman in my life, and it only felt appropriate to tell him what I felt about it."
I have Suchy paired with Fern Flaman (a man who's in the argument for the most physically intimidating defender of all time), so I'm not worried about toughness on that pairing at all.
As for Hatcher, yeah, he makes some mistakes at even strength. However, he brings a bigtime physical presence and great offensive ability (he'll be seeing most of his icetime on special teams). I have him paired with a uber-steady player in Ted Harris, and I always have Glen Wesley ready to step in for Hatcher at a moment's notice.
Last edited:
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
Nothing you quoted refutes my position. Scouting back then, especially international scouting was LOL so the Bruins thing is irrelevant -- that he blocked a lot of shots is admirable and shows a certain kind of toughness but we both know that's not what was meant.
He's a guy who's going to get pounded by my team with 4 lines of forecheckers. Flaman will help, but how much? Kevin Hatcher... yikes. He's the Jovonavski before Jovo. Talented, but keep him away from any 2 goal leads. Back later.
He's a guy who's going to get pounded by my team with 4 lines of forecheckers. Flaman will help, but how much? Kevin Hatcher... yikes. He's the Jovonavski before Jovo. Talented, but keep him away from any 2 goal leads. Back later
.All I'm saying is that I think the burden of proof is on you in this situation. Stereotypes aside, what leads you to believe Suchy was soft? Scouting wasn't great in those days, but the fact that an NHL team went out of their way to look into and claim this guy probably means they saw enough of him to pass judgment.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,171
- 14,534
Just to clarify, I meant Ragulin is very similar in style to Horton; he's obviously quite a bit behind in terms of quality, though most teams could use him as a #2 defenseman. (Keep in mind that I passed on Ragulin for both Pronovost and Howell). I even think that Ragulin is comparable to Horton in the sense that they're not overly aggressive given their size/strength--I wouldn't say that they went out of their way to make a big hit (ie Scott Stevens), but they could knock anyone over when they wanted to.
Was Ragulin a bad skater during his entire career? He looked pretty bad in the Summit Series but I thought that he was at least a few years past his prime by that point.
Wisent
Registered User
Ragulin was a bad skater his entire career. But for his style it was not really important to be a great skater. He was the last one in the attacking zone in case there was a counterattack. He would not have been able to beat most skaters in a race. But his defensive awareness was excellent so you rarely saw him out of place anyway. I think if he was a bit faster, he would have more career points as well since it would not always ve him joining the rush later.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Sturminator
Love is a duel
- Wisent already answered this question, but I'll further illuminate the situation. Ragulin was born in 1941 (hard year to be born in the Soviet Union), putting him at 31 years old in 1972. Players didn't have quite the same longevity back then (though it wasn't the 30's, either), but suffice it to say, Ragulin wasn't exactly an old man, and in fact the Canadian press was shocked that he hung up his skates after 1973 and didn't appear in the 74 Summit Series. Aside from having fewer offensive responsibilities, the Ragulin you see in 1972 isn't a substantially different player from the one you'd have seen five years previous. When you start off that slow, you don't really lose much by your early thirties.
- as far as Suchy is concerned, he's both small and light (Eurohockey lists him at 5' 8" 170 lbs.), but was a fast skater and a tough, determined player in the defensive zone who was willing to do what was necessary to keep the rubber out of his own net. Why Jan Suchy declined in effectiveness so quickly after 1971 (still in his late twenties when most defensemen are peaking - he was born in 1944) and retired from international hockey is something I've never fully grasped. Given that Suchy was off the 1972 Czechoslovak world championship roster the year after winning his second IIHF best defenseman award strongly suggests that he was broken (and as an aside, playing without their best defenseman in 1972 makes what the CSSR did that year all the more amazing - I wonder how many GMs know that story?). He came back in 1973 and played well, but was finished with international hockey after that. So most likely, we're looking at a player who was not inconsistent, but rather is an injury risk. Against a physical team like New York, that could be an issue.
At any rate, for about 4-5 years Suchy was the Francis M. "King" Clancy (for some reason I find Clancy's whole name funny) of European hockey, only without the sweet nickname, the aggression or quite the skill level. A nice 2nd pairing puck-mover and well-paired with Flaman. How he'll fare physically against the likes of Forsberg, Lemieux and Hall (to name a few) is up to the voters to decide.
- one thing I really like about arrbez's team is that he went out and drafted some of the less-heralded Europeans (it's not going out on much of a limb to take Kharlamov, for example), and I think it has served him well. I have a great interest in European hockey (I'm an American, but many of the hockey fans I know here tell stories about guys like Suchy, Ragulin, etc.) and find it easier to talk about specific players when they're not on my own squad. Talking about your own players always leaves a funny smell.
- I am probably Tiny Thompson's most vocal critic. He had a nervous problem, and in my opinion what goes on between a goalie's ears can make or break him in pressurized playoff situations. Of all the possible knocks against a goalie, makeup is the one I take most seriously. Also, Tiny Thompson's Bruins were a very strong team. After Thompson's rookie season in which Boston won its first Cup, that team placed first in the regular season standings six more times in Thompson's career and yet couldn't win another Cup.
Of course it wasn't all Thompson's fault, but that club was simply not a team of winners. Parts of the nucleus (Shore and Clapper, basically) would later form what I call the Lost Dynasty in the early 40's ("lost" because they'd won 2 out of 3 when the war broke them up), but the 30's Bruins were hockey's answer to the Buffalo Bills. Thompson wasn't a winner in the playoffs and benefitted (in the form of his Vezina trophies) from playing behind the decade's best regular-season team, not to mention playing in the weakest goaltending era in NHL history.
Thompson's only consistent competition for the Vezina during his career came from Lorne Chabot, Shrimp Worters and Dave Kerr - not exactly a list of all-time greats. Hainesworth played on the downside of his career in the early 30's and Chuck Gardiner was actually the dominant goalie in the league until he died after the 1934 season. Normie Smith beat Thompson in 36-37 and then promptly hurt his arm. Against normalized competition in a modern "best goalie" Vezina format, Thompson wins maybe one or two. I don't think he's better than a 9th - 10th rounder and I've got him rated lower than a number of goalies picked later, including Lumley and his backup, Vachon.
Which leads me to the next point: Rogie Vachon is a great backup and a guy who a team can win with in the playoffs. He's on the lower-end of ATD starters, but he's reliable and the right backup for a team that has Thompson as the starter because he can handle a heavier-than-normal load for a backup when Tiny falters. I don't like Thompson, but arrbez did well to get Vachon where he did. That said, Billy Smith vs. Aurora's two-headed monster is a clear advantage for New York.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
To explain the situation, I'll use a direct quote from Joe Pelletier's Summit Series site as written by Patrick Houda.
This is one of those one's I have no idea how to interpret, similar to, but different than how culture shock ruined Krutov. I think inconsistent is the only logical way to judge Suchy. But yeah, his peak value is probably top 5 offensive d-men ever.http://www.1972summitseries.com/othersuchy.html said:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Hmmm...that's interesting, Nalyd. Suchy's poor off-ice decision-making is an interesting fit on a team that is captained by Phil "we weren't disciplined" Esposito (that's a direct quote - and not the worst one - from Espo's Legends of Hockey film biography, arrbez. It's on Youtube, for those who are interested) and has the Hodge vs. Sinden subplot. To be honest, given the team's questionable leadership and some of the other distractions and personalities (Hull, Thompson, etc.), I think Aurora is clearly the team with the most character questions in the draft.
I think Phil Esposito provides the worst leadership in the captain's role in the league. His only captaincy came at the end of his career on some lousy Rangers teams (though I will say that he at least brought a winning attitude to a club that was mostly full of losers at the time) and some of the things he said in his ludicrously-titled biography, Thunder and Lightning, raise serious character issues. I'm not going to quote the book because I think it's inappropriate to dwell on the personal problems of individuals, but suffice it to say, Phil Esposito is not a guy I'd want providing an example to other players in the locker room.
I'm really not trying to pick on your team, arrbez, and in fact I think they'll win this series, but those 70's Bruins teams were the 84' Mets of hockey: hugely talented and comically undisciplined. They were the big team when I really became a hockey fan (I was born in 1961) and I remember them all too well, the good and the bad. The coaching and management mess in Boston didn't help the situation, but then again, neither did Hodge, Esposito and a bunch of other players.
- Nalyd, you like Suchy more than I do if you think his peak value is that of a top-5 all-time offensive defenseman. I've got the top-4 offensive defensemen as Orr, Coffey, Harvey and Shore with a crowded field for the #5 spot. If what you're saying is that Suchy's offensive peak was better than that of Kelly, Lidstrom, Potvin, Clancy, Fetisov and Bourque (just off the top of my head, all candidates for the #5 spot), I disagree. I see Suchy as a high-end 2nd pairing offensive defenseman (in terms of talent) with some size, health and character questions, not as an all-time great 1st pairing guy, even at his best.
I think Phil Esposito provides the worst leadership in the captain's role in the league. His only captaincy came at the end of his career on some lousy Rangers teams (though I will say that he at least brought a winning attitude to a club that was mostly full of losers at the time) and some of the things he said in his ludicrously-titled biography, Thunder and Lightning, raise serious character issues. I'm not going to quote the book because I think it's inappropriate to dwell on the personal problems of individuals, but suffice it to say, Phil Esposito is not a guy I'd want providing an example to other players in the locker room.
I'm really not trying to pick on your team, arrbez, and in fact I think they'll win this series, but those 70's Bruins teams were the 84' Mets of hockey: hugely talented and comically undisciplined. They were the big team when I really became a hockey fan (I was born in 1961) and I remember them all too well, the good and the bad. The coaching and management mess in Boston didn't help the situation, but then again, neither did Hodge, Esposito and a bunch of other players.
- Nalyd, you like Suchy more than I do if you think his peak value is that of a top-5 all-time offensive defenseman. I've got the top-4 offensive defensemen as Orr, Coffey, Harvey and Shore with a crowded field for the #5 spot. If what you're saying is that Suchy's offensive peak was better than that of Kelly, Lidstrom, Potvin, Clancy, Fetisov and Bourque (just off the top of my head, all candidates for the #5 spot), I disagree. I see Suchy as a high-end 2nd pairing offensive defenseman (in terms of talent) with some size, health and character questions, not as an all-time great 1st pairing guy, even at his best.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 16Staked: $17,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $14,827.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $2,309.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
