NHL maps out major changes (Realignment to 4 divisions?)

[MoreOrr]

Because divisional playoffs and conference playoffs both follow some sort of logic - the top seed plays the lowest seed. Teams are being paired off willy-nilly based on what division they're in, standings be damned, with any mismatches getting paired off because they have nobody else to play.

Such a system of determining playoff pairings would have the same logic as determining them based on the skate size of each team's starting goaltender.

...and your scenario above implies that your 3rd-ranked team, for example) would still be ranked third if they were in the opposite division, despite having an entirely different schedule.

I've been reading that a lot recently? And again I ask, How so? In a more balanced 6-Division structure, every team would play every other team at least 2 games, and in a 4-Division schedule, after the 1st Round, won't half the teams have played a "different schedule"? The only important factor is that all teams facing each other in the Conference play each other an even number of games. But even at that, at least with the current system, you play against Conference opponents that you faced a minimum of 4 times in a Season. In a more balanced schedule, with 4-Divisions, the 2nd and 3rd Rounds will be with several matchups of teams that only played each other 2 times in the Season.

You're sacrificing the 2nd and 3rd Rounds in order to get teams that played each other the same number of times in the 1st Round only. How is that an improvement?

 

[KingsFan7824]

But my "hanging out to dry" comment was meant to say that such a Division would have very little fan-appeal to the teams in it.

Possibly. Who knows, maybe they get an us against the world type thing going.

East: Phi, NYR, NYI, NJ, Was, Pit, Car, TB, Fla
NE: Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Det, Clb

The East gets 5 playoff teams, the NE gets 3, and you seed 1-8. That way, both have 4 teams that miss the post season.

 

[Nashvols]

meh, this is standard NHL. Heard the same before

Source comes out and says "Deal is not done for Jets" - deal was, for all intents and purposes done.

Source comes out and says Bond sale is dead for glenndale - NHL - Bond sale not done, we've sold half. Bond sale was actually done

To be honest, I believe sources like liepold and steve brunt more than the official NHL statements now. Burnside seems to be a mouthpiece for the NHL.

The question of realignment was asked at last nights Skate of the Union Address for the Predators. The representatives from the team (David Poile, Barry Trotz, Sean Henry, Jeff Cogen, Tom Cigarran) said that the league sent out sort of a "template" to what the alignment might look like, confirmed that they were looking at the possibility of 4 divisions instead of 6, and confirmed that a balanced schedule was a big part of it.

However, they said that the league wants to carefully plan this out, and that they have "all year" to do so. Among the teams, the coaches and GMs will have the most say, with the CEOs and COOs having some input (Cogen said it was 60/40), and the chairman/owners having final veto power over the plans.

They stressed that the NHL doesn't have any hard plans, but just want to get the ball rolling on the issue. So I wouldn't expect an announcement at least until mid season.

 

[Bucky Katt]

Why would it have to be 1-8 Conference matchups? Don't some of you ever think outside the box? You could have an approximated Divisional Playoff, with the the Top-8 teams in the Conference making the Playoffs, but in the 1st Round, Divisional matchups are done where possible. What's the problem with that?

Interesting idea, I'm going to do it for all years since the lockout. My criteria for matchups will be:

1. Division champions automatically qualify but are ignored for seeding.
2. If 2,2 and 4 teams from the divisions qualify there are 4 divisional matchups.
3. In all other scenarios, the two divisions that have an odd number of teams qualify are combined. This should result in 1 non-division matchup. If there are two divisions that have 3 teams qualify and when combining it results in 3 non-division matchup, the two closest teams in points will swap (Note: this happened twice in the Western Conference in 2006-07 and 2007-08).


2005-06
(1) OTT 113 vs (7) MON 93
(2) CAR 112 vs (8) TB 92
(3) NJ 101 vs (5) PHI 101
(4) BUF 110 vs (6) NYR 100 (non-divisional)
(1) DET 124 vs (4) NAS 106
(2) DAL 112 vs (7) COL 95 (non-divisional)
(3) CAL 103 vs (8) EDM 95
(5) SJ 99 vs (6) ANA 98

2006-07
(1) BUF 113 vs (4) OTT 105
(2) NJ 107 vs (8) NYI 92
(3) ATL 97 vs (7) TB 93
(5) PIT 105 vs (6) NYR 94
(1) DET 113 vs (4) NAS 110
(2) ANA 110 vs (8) CAL 96 (non-divisional)
(3) VAN 105 vs (7) MIN 104
(5) SJ 107 vs (6) DAL 107

2007-08
(1) MON 104 vs (8) BOS 94
(2) PIT 102 vs (6) PHI 95
(3) WAS 94 vs (7) OTT 94 (non-divisional)
(4) NJ 99 vs (5) NYR 97
(1) DET 115 vs (8) NAS 91
(2) SJ 108 vs (7) CAL 94 (non-divisional)
(3) MIN 98 vs (6) COL 95
(4) ANA 102 vs (5) DAL 95

2008-09
(1) BOS 116 vs (8) MON 93
(2) WAS 108 vs (6) CAR 97
(3) NJ 106 vs (7) NYR 95
(4) PIT 99 vs (5) PHI 99
(1) SJ 117 vs (8) ANA 91
(2) DET 112 vs (7) CBJ 92
(3) VAN 100 vs (5) CAL 98
(4) CHI 104 vs (6) STL 92

2009-10
(1) WAS 121 vs (7) PHI 88 (non-divisional)
(2) NJ 103 vs (4) PIT 101
(3) BUF 100 vs (8) MON 88
(5) OTT 94 vs (6) BOS 91
(1) SJ 113 vs (6) LA 101
(2) CHI 112 vs (7) NAS 100
(3) VAN 103 vs (8) COL 95
(4) PHX 107 vs (5) DET 102 (non-divisional)

2010-11
(1) WAS 107 vs (5) TB 103
(2) PHI 106 vs (8) NYR 93
(3) BOS 103 vs (6) MON 96
(4) PIT 106 vs (7) BUF 96 (non-divisional)
(1) VAN 117 vs (8) CHI 97 (non-divisional)
(2) SJ 105 vs (7) LA 98
(3) DET 104 vs (5) NAS 99
(4) ANA 99 vs (6) PHX 99

Hmmm. Mixed feelings. It does promote rivalries and in many years by swapping teams in the bottom 4 with very little difference in points you can create some better first round matchups. On the other hand, there are some years where high ranking teams are really penalized for the division they are in. 2006-07 is a terrible year where the best teams in each conference got bad first rounds matchups - so bad that there were two other matchups in the conference where both teams had worse records than their opponent.

 

[MoreOrr]

The question of realignment was asked at last nights Skate of the Union Address for the Predators. The representatives from the team (David Poile, Barry Trotz, Sean Henry, Jeff Cogen, Tom Cigarran) said that the league sent out sort of a "template" to what the alignment might look like, confirmed that they were looking at the possibility of 4 divisions instead of 6, and confirmed that a balanced schedule was a big part of it.

However, they said that the league wants to carefully plan this out, and that they have "all year" to do so. Among the teams, the coaches and GMs will have the most say, with the CEOs and COOs having some input (Cogen said it was 60/40), and the chairman/owners having final veto power over the plans.

They stressed that the NHL doesn't have any hard plans, but just want to get the ball rolling on the issue. So I wouldn't expect an announcement at least until mid season.

Marvelous, nashvols! Obviously you don't have a "link" to confirm that, but if we take you on your word, or the word of whoever you got that info from, then it states quite clearly that Nothing has been decided on yet and there's a whole process of debate instore about it before final decision is made. Thanks!

 

[MoreOrr]

Interesting idea, I'm going to do it for all years since the lockout. My criteria for matchups will be:

1. Division champions automatically qualify but are ignored for seeding.
2. If 2,2 and 4 teams from the divisions qualify there are 4 divisional matchups.
3. In all other scenarios, the two divisions that have an odd number of teams qualify are combined. This should result in 1 non-division matchup. If there are two divisions that have 3 teams qualify and when combining it results in 3 non-division matchup, the two closest teams in points will swap (Note: this happened twice in the Western Conference in 2006-07 and 2007-08).


2005-06
(1) OTT 113 vs (7) MON 93
(2) CAR 112 vs (8) TB 92
(3) NJ 101 vs (5) PHI 101
(4) BUF 110 vs (6) NYR 100 (non-divisional)
(1) DET 124 vs (4) NAS 106
(2) DAL 112 vs (7) COL 95 (non-divisional)
(3) CAL 103 vs (8) EDM 95
(5) SJ 99 vs (6) ANA 98

2006-07
(1) BUF 113 vs (4) OTT 105
(2) NJ 107 vs (8) NYI 92
(3) ATL 97 vs (7) TB 93
(5) PIT 105 vs (6) NYR 94
(1) DET 113 vs (4) NAS 110
(2) ANA 110 vs (8) CAL 96 (non-divisional)
(3) VAN 105 vs (7) MIN 104
(5) SJ 107 vs (6) DAL 107

2007-08
(1) MON 104 vs (8) BOS 94
(2) PIT 102 vs (6) PHI 95
(3) WAS 94 vs (7) OTT 94 (non-divisional)
(4) NJ 99 vs (5) NYR 97
(1) DET 115 vs (8) NAS 91
(2) SJ 108 vs (7) CAL 94 (non-divisional)
(3) MIN 98 vs (6) COL 95
(4) ANA 102 vs (5) DAL 95

2008-09
(1) BOS 116 vs (8) MON 93
(2) WAS 108 vs (6) CAR 97
(3) NJ 106 vs (7) NYR 95
(4) PIT 99 vs (5) PHI 99
(1) SJ 117 vs (8) ANA 91
(2) DET 112 vs (7) CBJ 92
(3) VAN 100 vs (5) CAL 98
(4) CHI 104 vs (6) STL 92

2009-10
(1) WAS 121 vs (7) PHI 88 (non-divisional)
(2) NJ 103 vs (4) PIT 101
(3) BUF 100 vs (8) MON 88
(5) OTT 94 vs (6) BOS 91
(1) SJ 113 vs (6) LA 101
(2) CHI 112 vs (7) NAS 100
(3) VAN 103 vs (8) COL 95
(4) PHX 107 vs (5) DET 102 (non-divisional)

2010-11
(1) WAS 107 vs (5) TB 103
(2) PHI 106 vs (8) NYR 93
(3) BOS 103 vs (6) MON 96
(4) PIT 106 vs (7) BUF 96 (non-divisional)
(1) VAN 117 vs (8) CHI 97 (non-divisional)
(2) SJ 105 vs (7) LA 98
(3) DET 104 vs (5) NAS 99
(4) ANA 99 vs (6) PHX 99

Hmmm. Mixed feelings. It does promote rivalries and in many years by swapping teams in the bottom 4 with very little difference in points you can create some better first round matchups. On the other hand, there are some years where high ranking teams are really penalized for the division they are in. 2006-07 is a terrible year where the best teams in each conference got bad first rounds matchups - so bad that there were two other matchups in the conference where both teams had worse records than their opponent.

Nice, Bucky Katt, thanks for that more extended demonstration.

As for your reservations about it, as I demonstrated above, the same misbalanced matchups could easily take place in a Top-4 Divisional 1st Round Playoff:

So, you have 2 Divisions, one of 7 teams and one of 8 teams.
In the one Division you have the Top-4 teams ranked 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 9th in the Conference.
In the other Division you have the Top-4 teams ranked 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th in the Conference.

 

[Bucky Katt]

Nice, Bucky Katt, thanks for that more extended demonstration.

Thanks for quoting my entire short novel.

As for your reservations about it, as I demonstrated above, the same misbalanced matchups could easily take place in a Top-4 Divisional 1st Round Playoff:

So, you have 2 Divisions, one of 7 teams and one of 8 teams.
In the one Division you have the Top-4 teams ranked 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 9th in the Conference.
In the other Division you have the Top-4 teams ranked 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th in the Conference.

How is that going to be any different from what your complaining about above?

That is true but there are two big differences. First, that wouldn't happen in the 1st round but in the 2nd round. Secondly, it is possible under your proposed system that the best two teams in the league could play each other in the 1st round. Because of that, I think that it would be a really hard sell.

Also, I refer you back to my preferred format with 4 divisions. All teams are reseeded after the 1st round based on regular season play so the best two teams in the league could only meet in the finals regardless of which division they play in.

If the league were to stick to a 6 division, 2 conference format I would consider the change but I think a 4 division format (2 conferences or no conferences) would be a better option and definitely a more simple option.

 

[Grudy0]

The question of realignment was asked at last nights Skate of the Union Address for the Predators. The representatives from the team (David Poile, Barry Trotz, Sean Henry, Jeff Cogen, Tom Cigarran) said that the league sent out sort of a "template" to what the alignment might look like, confirmed that they were looking at the possibility of 4 divisions instead of 6, and confirmed that a balanced schedule was a big part of it.

However, they said that the league wants to carefully plan this out, and that they have "all year" to do so. Among the teams, the coaches and GMs will have the most say, with the CEOs and COOs having some input (Cogen said it was 60/40), and the chairman/owners having final veto power over the plans.

They stressed that the NHL doesn't have any hard plans, but just want to get the ball rolling on the issue. So I wouldn't expect an announcement at least until mid season.

Marvelous, nashvols! Obviously you don't have a "link" to confirm that, but if we take you on your word, or the word of whoever you got that info from, then it states quite clearly that Nothing has been decided on yet and there's a whole process of debate instore about it before final decision is made. Thanks!

Of course nothing has been decided; the BoG hasn't even voted on it yet. However, it does appear most likely that the League is headed to the four-division route, and at this point it is a matter of the makeup. There may still be some opinion changes regarding first-round divisional playoffs, etc. That is exactly the debate that will be ongoing from now until the actual vote.

 

[Overkamp]

I find it hard to believe that league will shake up everything with Phoenix's uncertain future. Talk about a monkey wrench..

 

[Mothra]

When the NL team goes to the AL's ballpark, they play with 9 hitters too. It's not like they are forced to have the pitcher bat still.

And when the AL team goes to the NL ballpark they are at the same disadvantage the NL team has with only 8 hitters.

In general AL teams will have a roster spot for a guy who pretty much is just a DH, not so much in the NL. That said....in DH games they likely have the advantage. Not all players can DH....or are as good a hitter as they are when fielding too. AL teams tend to get that guy and have him play that position all year. NL teams may fill out the roster with an extra utility guy and/or guy who can PH

At least it used to be that way...I dont follow it nearly as close as I used to

 

[HisDudeness]

should just have an 8 team division and a 7 team division. division winners get first two seeds. then next 6 get in by points. no top 2 BS. schedule should be the following

play each team in other conference 2 (2*15=30)
play each team in your conference 3 times(3*14=42)
so you have ten games left and just mixed it up. could be all in you conference.

i just think having less divisions is better. if your 3rd out of 5 now in your division but in 10th place you will know your team sucks........... just like if your 5 out of 8 in your division. your team still sucks.

 

[KevFu]

At least wait until there are 32 teams! And then the League will go with 8 Divisions of 4 teams each (not my choice, but that's what they'll do.)

I think failure to plan ahead for future configurations of the league is what go the NHL in this mess in the first place. It blows my mind that the NHL didn't have a "ok, we just told the commish to add SEVEN new teams. What's this going to look like?" chart on the wall. Instead it was "cut us a check, and we'll fit you in somewhere."

Something like:
1 Washington vs. 5 Tampa Bay (if too unfair, rotate with Montreal and Buffalo)
2 Philadelphia vs. 8 NY Rangers
3 Boston vs. 7 Buffalo
4 Pittsburgh vs. 6 Montreal

1 Vancouver vs. 8 Chicago
2 San Jose vs. 7 Los Angeles
3 Detroit vs. 5 Nashville
4 Anaheim vs. 6 Phoenix

BTW, the teams in each conference played 11 different games than non-division opponents. So, using "points" to determine who's 1-8 in the conference with an unbalanced schedule is already unfair.

Nothing like hanging Columbus, Carolina, Tampa, and Florida out to dry. That right there shows the problem that exists... Nobody wants to be in a Division with those teams. Even you change one team in the current Divisions to fit just one of those teams in, .... No way in hell, is the outcry!

And yet, I was called crazy for not changing the other divisions and slotting TB, FLA and WAS in the Atlantic and CAR and DET in the Northeast. Geography and Rivalries are a weird marriage.

Possibly. Who knows, maybe they get an us against the world type thing going.

East: Phi, NYR, NYI, NJ, Was, Pit, Car, TB, Fla
NE: Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Det, Clb

The East gets 5 playoff teams, the NE gets 3, and you seed 1-8. That way, both have 4 teams that miss the post season.

See what I mean? 5 bids, 3 bids... for the same of preserving the geography of CAR/FLA/TB? Or a CAR vs TB/FLA rivarly? That's insane.

#1 - Carolina is the closest team to TB and FLA, but not vice-versa. Carolina is closer to BUFFALO than it is to either of them. There's no geography here other than "y'all are in the south."

#2 - Division games = Rivalry games. Rivalry games = fan interest. Realignment plans that end those rivalries = absurd. So where's the CAR/TB/FLA fan interest?

Carolina's Home Attendance since the lockout:
AVG vs Southeast: 16,238
AVG vs Northeast: 16,532
AVG vs Atlantic: 16,717

The geographic rivalry has not built fan interest for the Canes within the division.

My suggestion for a four-division alignment, was to blow up the SE and combine them with the ATL and NE, similar to the old Adams/Patrick alignment:

CAR home attendance since lockout...
AVG vs Adams: 16,638 (BUF, BOS, MON, OTT, TOR, DET and CAR)
AVG vs Patrick 16,484 (NYI, NYR, NJ, PHI, WAS, FLA, TB… and PIT)
-- PIT and CAR both won't fit in the Patrick, so I didn't include the Pens numbers.)

Yes, CAR is closer to the Patrick, but it's a not a question of "where should they be?" it's a question of "What's the most acceptable loss" in realignment? Losing CAR vs TB/FLA/WASH is easily the smallest loss on the board.
PIT vs PHI (and 22 years of being in the same division) is a more important rivalry to maintain than CAR vs anyone. Even Washington.

Washington is the Canes' closest geographic rival.
Yet the AVG CAR attendance vs the Caps is 16,029, lower than vs the Islanders or Sabres.

Splitting CAR from FLA and TB makes the East work for EVERYONE. Including Carolina.

 

[drive45]

Best avatar ever, Mothra! I agree with overkamp, wait till PHX is settled, then realign. Or has that secretly already been decided, and the realignment will feature the Kansas City Komets or whatever? or will the realignment signal the NHL's dogged determination to stand their ground in the desert, come hell or high water? (Hell being more likely, in PHX)

 

[KingsFan7824]

Splitting CAR from FLA and TB makes the East work for EVERYONE. Including Carolina.

Sold.

 

[knorthern knight]

I agree with overkamp, wait till PHX is settled, then realign. Or has that secretly already been decided, and the realignment will feature the Kansas City Komets or whatever? or will the realignment signal the NHL's dogged determination to stand their ground in the desert, come hell or high water?

I think that an alignment can be made that's reasonably Phoenix-proof. Start by assuming that Phoenix stays (yeah, I know)

• WEST Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver
• CENTRAL Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, Winnipeg, St Louis
• GREAT LAKES Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Toronto
• ATLANTIC Carolina, MIami, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Tampa

Let's look at possible Pheonix scenarios

• Fold the franchise outright... nobody else moves
• PHX to Portland... stays in WEST... nobody else moves
• PHX to Houston... moves to CENTRAL... nobody else moves
• PHX to KC... moves to CENTRAL... nobody else moves
• PHX to QC (or, less likely, Hamilton)... moves to GREAT LAKES
  • if NHL accepts 2 8-team eastern divisions and 2 7-team western divisions... nobody else moves
  • if they insist on balanced conferences, move Detroit to CENTRAL

 

[MoreOrr]

Sold.

Done:
PACIFIC
Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
NORTHWEST
Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Colorado
MIDWEST
Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus

NORTHEAST
Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, NY Islanders, NY Rangers
EAST CENTRAL
Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Nashville
ATLANTIC
New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington, Tampa Bay, Florida

Tampa and Florida are split from Carolina, and Nashville isn't added in with the Florida teams either.
Detroit and Columbus keep each other company in the West, but with a more balanced schedule things will be better for them anyway.
Minnesota escapes Vancouver, and Vancouver is separated from the other western Canadian teams, just as Winnipeg would be with 4 Divisions.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think that an alignment can be made that's reasonably Phoenix-proof. Start by assuming that Phoenix stays (yeah, I know)

• WEST Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver
• CENTRAL Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, Winnipeg, St Louis
• GREAT LAKES Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Toronto
• ATLANTIC Carolina, MIami, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Tampa

Let's look at possible Pheonix scenarios

• Fold the franchise outright... nobody else moves
• PHX to Portland... stays in WEST... nobody else moves
• PHX to Houston... moves to CENTRAL... nobody else moves
• PHX to KC... moves to CENTRAL... nobody else moves
• PHX to QC (or, less likely, Hamilton)... moves to GREAT LAKES
  • if NHL accepts 2 8-team eastern divisions and 2 7-team western divisions... nobody else moves
  • if they insist on balanced conferences, move Detroit to CENTRAL

Easier to manage when you're forgetting to factor Washington into one of those Eastern Divisions. Do that and then see what happens if the Coyotes relocate to Quebec City or Hamilton. And what's your plan, to leave Columbus in the West forever?

 

[KevFu]

Done:
PACIFIC
Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
NORTHWEST
Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Colorado
MIDWEST
Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus

NORTHEAST
Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, NY Islanders, NY Rangers
EAST CENTRAL
Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Nashville
ATLANTIC
New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington, Tampa Bay, Florida

Tampa and Florida are split from Carolina, and Nashville isn't added in with the Florida teams either.
Detroit and Columbus keep each other company in the West, but with a more balanced schedule things will be better for them anyway.
Minnesota escapes Vancouver, and Vancouver is separated from the other western Canadian teams, just as Winnipeg would be with 4 Divisions.

Like the majority of proposals, it only works under the right scheduling model.


How about this hybrid of geography/revenue?
TOR, NJ, OTT, CBJ, TB
MON, BOS, PIT, FLA, CAR
NYR, PHI, WAS, BUF, NYI

CHI, DAL, MIN, STL, NAS
DET, CAL, EDM, COL, WIN
VAN, LA, SJ, ANA, PHX

The revenue teams win, the poor teams get the better draft picks and improve their teams; we end up with parity. Yay.

 

[KevFu]

I think that an alignment can be made that's reasonably Phoenix-proof. Start by assuming that Phoenix stays (yeah, I know)

I think the NHL should have about 30 plans at the ready:

No teams added.
No teams added, Phoenix relocates (Quebec, KC, Houston, Seattle)
Two expansion teams added.
Two expansion teams and Phoenix relocates

 

[Retail1LO*]

I have to admit, with 4 divisions, the idea of eliminating conferences, really appeals to me. Or at the very least, maintain the conferences for the purposes of regular season scheduling, but have a no conference playoff system. Division winners with the top four seeds, and the next best 12 teams from around the league. I think it'd be INCREDIBLE for east coast teams to play west coast teams in the opening rounds of the playoffs. Think about it, there's only an hour difference between teams in the Eastern time zone and the Central time zone...so it's not going to be a huge difference if east and west coast teams meet in the opening rounds, seeing as how it already happens between teams in the Pacific and Central time zones. What's one hour? Besides, I think any two teams in the league should have the opportunity to face one another in the final. The fact that say, the Rangers could never ever face Boston in the Stanley Cup final...or Chicago and Detroit...Edmonton and Calgary....is just garbage.

 

[LadyStanley]

Limit reached.

Closed.