SKA vs NHL clubs

[that is unfortunate]

They'd probably finish near the bottom of the league.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Pls, be more particular. Botom six players like Artyukhin (NHL) and Feedor Feedorov (AHL) didn't improve their stats for years in SKA, neither did top player Maxim "mad one meter scoring skills" Afinogenov. And no, not really, I have no reasons to believe that North American mediocrities, who are the meat of the NHL, would perform better on bigger ice than native European mediocrities, cherrypicked Dallmans don't do that for me. And I have even less faith in sucess of North American coaches on European rinks, Maurice failed to prove that with both Carolina and Magnitka.

Obviously NHL teams are built for the small ice and they would use some different players and tactics if they were to play a full season on the larger ice surface.

I know Afinogenov gets it a lot for not producing more in Russia but he did much better Moscow in 04/05 than he did the year before in Buffalo. He clearly started to decline after 06/07 but even in his first year in the KHL he placed 53rd in league scoring and he only did better than that once in the NHL, finishing 44th in 05/06.

I thought Maurice did pretty well last year, I'm not sure what he failed to prove condiering he went over because he couldn't get a head coaching job in the NHL and they wanted him back for next year.

 

[Atas2000]

Some cold hard facts for you too: there was no way 2012-13 SKA could play against 2008-09 Ak Bars. I'm glad that you recognize that we can't really speculate if Ak Bars could win a series with SKA or not, that makes the hypothesis of SPb being 6-7th in the league even more groundless.

Let's respect logic here. Being a contender means being potentially able to win a series against each and every team in the league. Your attempts to push SKA to some spot they don't belong in is groundless. The KHL sports 6 to 7 legit contenders(they stay the same and that's a problem for the league, but thats not what we're discussing here). Let's have a look at the last 10 years:

West: Dynamo Moscow 3 Championships
SKA 0 Championships and they never made it to the finals

East: AkBars 3 Championships
Avangard Omsk 1 Championship
Metallurg Magnitogorsk 1 championship
Salavat Yulaev 2 Championships
Traktor 0 Championships, but they are the newcomers in the contender group and were in last years finals at least.

Any questions why SKA is at the bottom of that group? They need to win to prove they do belong higher than a on-paper-contender.

So I can't really think of any objective rankings of the league's teams other than the results of the regular season.

I won't even comment on that. Everybody watching hockey knows the corelation between regular season success and real success.

And, no, taking regular season series as a measuring stick for anything wasn't inveted by lazy writers, that's how championship titles have been determined for decades of Russian hockey hisotry.

You are trying to bend facts or you are just mistaken. There is a big difference between a season series and a round robin championship.

I'm glad for all the good things that happened to Ak Bars years ago, but except for several cases like said Ak Bars or Dynamo, the KHL teams still are even less stable than the NHL teams. It's somewhat silly to judge nowdays SKA by the performance of SKA from three years back.

Nope, look at the above stats again. They are stable enough to be contenders every year and get to the finals or win it all every once in a while. SKA just isn't. Accept that.

 

[Atas2000]

I would like to see some KHL clubs come over and play some games on the small ice vs AHL teams first, and the IIHF rankings?? I don't even think most hardcore Europhiles put any value in those.

Ppl from NA don't even seem to notice how full of themselves they are at times. As a KHL team official my honest reaction to an offer to play against "AHL first" would be: "Please tell those NA *** to go *** themselves.". And as a fan I would support every single word of it.

 

[metmag]

I thought Maurice did pretty well last year, I'm not sure what he failed to prove condiering he went over because he couldn't get a head coaching job in the NHL and they wanted him back for next year.

Maurice had a job offer from the Washington Capitals and chose Metallurg Magnitogorsk over them.

I liked him as the coach and think that he would have done much better during his second season after a full season of acclimatization. That being said management wanted him back despite the fact that the team had the worst playoff record since the establishment of the KHL, not because they were satisfied with the teams' performance.

 

[obskyr]

Let's respect logic here. Being a contender means being potentially able to win a series against each and every team in the league. Your attempts to push SKA to some spot they don't belong in is groundless. The KHL sports 6 to 7 legit contenders(they stay the same and that's a problem for the league, but thats not what we're discussing here). Let's have a look at the last 10 years:

Only pure logic. I guess so, that's what the teams do during the regular season. I don't need to push anything, I jsut judge SKA's performance by the number of games they win and the number of goals they score. Let's not have a look at the last 10 years, because we're not discussing the most successful hockey franchises of the last decade here, the subject is the most competitive KHL teams of the current season. Once more, there's no point in bringing the perferomance of any team from three/five/ten years back to the topic. Even a couple of seasons ago SKA had a different offensive core, different goaltenders, different coaches, different GM. I don't see how they matter today.

I won't even comment on that. Everybody watching hockey knows the corelation between regular season success and real success.

Duh. The teams that get a higher playoff seed are considered to be the stronger ones, people call them favorites. That's the natural correlation.

You are trying to bend facts or you are just mistaken. There is a big difference between a season series and a round robin championship.

The difference isn't big. It's big in the NHL, in the KHL the regular season is played in a round robin format. See?
The results aren't really irrelevant either. It isn't some pre-season bull, they set your team's position in the cup playoffs.

Nope, look at the above stats again. They are stable enough to be contenders every year and get to the finals or win it all every once in a while. SKA just isn't. Accept that.

Arrgh, no, not again. There are like 7 contenders in the league because there are only 7 clubs can afford that. SKA just got its big budget relatively late and it took quite some time to get reasonable management. The same thing is going to happen to CSKA as well, it doesn't matter if the franchise was a laughing stock for the last two decades. They already bought some of the core elements of 2011 Salavat Yulaev success (you may argue if it's a good thing, or whether or not Bykov will follow), they have plans for the best arena in Europe and it seems like they're reconsidering their marketing strategy too. The conference disparity is less noticable with every new season, because the western teams are already buying out the East. And they're doing it for good, because they're more certain about putting quality product not only "on ice" and not just for their governors.

But that's all one big OT, the point stands still, there are no objective grounds whatsoever to claim that SKA is the 6-7th team in the league.

 

[obskyr]

Obviously NHL teams are built for the small ice and they would use some different players and tactics if they were to play a full season on the larger ice surface.

I know Afinogenov gets it a lot for not producing more in Russia but he did much better Moscow in 04/05 than he did the year before in Buffalo. He clearly started to decline after 06/07 but even in his first year in the KHL he placed 53rd in league scoring and he only did better than that once in the NHL, finishing 44th in 05/06.

I thought Maurice did pretty well last year, I'm not sure what he failed to prove condiering he went over because he couldn't get a head coaching job in the NHL and they wanted him back for next year.

lol, okay
You should know better. Cheers.

 

[Vicente]

How can anyone even claim that regular season has NO relevance regarding the strength of a team? Do you guys think the opponents all lose on purpose against a special team or what?

There might be little difference between teams 1-3 of a conference when it comes to playoffs but the 3rd will always be a far better team than the 10th of the conference.

SKA IMHO is among the top 3 of all KHL teams together with Dynamo Moscow and Ak Bars Kazan. They were dumb and unlucky in playoffs so far but that doesn't mean they are not one of the best teams.

Real Madrid in football reaches CL semifinals very often but they didn't win the cup in the last 11 years. Would you consider them a weak team then? Or Manchester United, FC Barcelona, Juventus Turin etc for not winning CL 2013? Unfortunately only 1 side can win per year... For me having SKA failing in playoffs rather shows that the league has more depth than many people might believe but it doesn't mean they are not good...

 

[malkinfan]

Like I've said before, for the past 5 years, SKA has never had a high calibre goaltender, only average for KHL standards. This year they get Salak, if he's the real deal then they can line up against any team on the planet.

 

[Atas2000]

How can anyone even claim that regular season has NO relevance regarding the strength of a team? Do you guys think the opponents all lose on purpose against a special team or what?

There might be little difference between teams 1-3 of a conference when it comes to playoffs but the 3rd will always be a far better team than the 10th of the conference.

SKA IMHO is among the top 3 of all KHL teams together with Dynamo Moscow and Ak Bars Kazan. They were dumb and unlucky in playoffs so far but that doesn't mean they are not one of the best teams.

Real Madrid in football reaches CL semifinals very often but they didn't win the cup in the last 11 years. Would you consider them a weak team then? Or Manchester United, FC Barcelona, Juventus Turin etc for not winning CL 2013? Unfortunately only 1 side can win per year... For me having SKA failing in playoffs rather shows that the league has more depth than many people might believe but it doesn't mean they are not good...

The regular season winner is not automatically the best team. I think it's obvious enough.

"Dumb and unlucky" happens to bad teams only for x years in a row.

Please no football. Let's discuss sports.

 

[Atas2000]

Only pure logic. I guess so, that's what the teams do during the regular season. I don't need to push anything, I jsut judge SKA's performance by the number of games they win and the number of goals they score. Let's not have a look at the last 10 years, because we're not discussing the most successful hockey franchises of the last decade here, the subject is the most competitive KHL teams of the current season. Once more, there's no point in bringing the perferomance of any team from three/five/ten years back to the topic. Even a couple of seasons ago SKA had a different offensive core, different goaltenders, different coaches, different GM. I don't see how they matter today.

I also judge SKA by the number of goals they score and the games they win... in the playoffs, when it effing matters!

Current season? There is no current season yet. Talking about how good a team is before the season opener is like giving a kid a degree in physics before it's even born. I'm talking facts, not some crystal ball visions. And whether you like it or not facts are previous acievements. You mean SKA is a better team this season? Let them prove it first.

Duh. The teams that get a higher playoff seed are considered to be the stronger ones, people call them favorites. That's the natural correlation.

Please tell that the 2012 LA Kings or the last 10 SC or 5 GC winners none of whoch won the regular season. Very natural indeed.

The difference isn't big. It's big in the NHL, in the KHL the regular season is played in a round robin format. See?
The results aren't really irrelevant either. It isn't some pre-season bull, they set your team's position in the cup playoffs.

Every hockey fan knows being 1st to 4th seed means basically nothing when you face a team in the playoffs. Even being a lower playoff seed doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

Arrgh, no, not again. There are like 7 contenders in the league because there are only 7 clubs can afford that. SKA just got its big budget relatively late and it took quite some time to get reasonable management. The same thing is going to happen to CSKA as well, it doesn't matter if the franchise was a laughing stock for the last two decades. They already bought some of the core elements of 2011 Salavat Yulaev success (you may argue if it's a good thing, or whether or not Bykov will follow), they have plans for the best arena in Europe and it seems like they're reconsidering their marketing strategy too. The conference disparity is less noticable with every new season, because the western teams are already buying out the East. And they're doing it for good, because they're more certain about putting quality product not only "on ice" and not just for their governors.

But that's all one big OT, the point stands still, there are no objective grounds whatsoever to claim that SKA is the 6-7th team in the league.

Yep, and SKA is on the weaker teams among them. Still one of the top teams in the league overall.

The west buying out? Oh please, even there they screw it. CSKA(West) gets Morozov wo is clearly in decline and MMG(East) gets Zaripov, the only player I'm really sad and worried about being let go. Immonen being 2nd on that list. And he goes guess where? Torpedo(East).

Quality product? As a real hockey fan I couldn't care less about some stupid videos with hockey players dancing around or a nice cheerleader squad. Better lighting - yes, better parking at the arena - yes, better TV-picture - yes, please! Some neat merchandize and a pizza special at the arena? I don't really care.

And for the record, all I wrote in this thread about SKA is basically objective reasons to put SKA in that spot in the league.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Ppl from NA don't even seem to notice how full of themselves they are at times. As a KHL team official my honest reaction to an offer to play against "AHL first" would be: "Please tell those NA *** to go *** themselves.". And as a fan I would support every single word of it.

That's fine if you feel that way. The best KHLers are certainly better than the best AHLers but the average talent level between the two leagues is comparable and I think a KHL team would have a lot of trouble with an AHL team on the small ice. Interleague play doesn't interest me that much either as things are now and furthermore I don't think the NHL has anything to gain by playing teams from lesser leagues so I'd be fine if they just dropped the idea.

 

[od71]

That's fine if you feel that way. The best KHLers are certainly better than the best AHLers but the average talent level between the two leagues is comparable and I think a KHL team would have a lot of trouble with an AHL team on the small ice. Interleague play doesn't interest me that much either as things are now and furthermore I don't think the NHL has anything to gain by playing teams from lesser leagues so I'd be fine if they just dropped the idea.

It's just great. Tell me pls what are you smoking? Have you seen Ak Bars during first lockout in 2004? If not, let me remind it's roster: Kovalchuk, Heatley, LeCavalier, Brad Richards, Alex Kovalev, Habibulin, Casparaitis, Michael Nulander, Ruslan Salei, Morozov and other NHLers. What about NHL talent combined in AkBars 2004? They combined didn't light up the russian league. They lost to Loko in playoff. The only NHLers that showed true greatness during lockout in season 2004-2005 were Datsyuk and Jagr. Pls name me AHL roster that will do better than AkBars 2004.

 

[vorky]

That's fine if you feel that way. The best KHLers are certainly better than the best AHLers but the average talent level between the two leagues is comparable and I think a KHL team would have a lot of trouble with an AHL team on the small ice. Interleague play doesn't interest me that much either as things are now and furthermore I don't think the NHL has anything to gain by playing teams from lesser leagues so I'd be fine if they just dropped the idea.

@talent
LOL You can not be serious.

@NHLvsKHL
It is NHL´s best interest to play against KHL clubs, it is about money, tv deals, money, money and money.

 

[ozo]

@NHLvsKHL
It is NHL´s best interest to play against KHL clubs, it is about money, tv deals, money, money and money.

I have to quote one famous person: "I have an opinion that your knowledge of anything hockey related is low, so it is difficult to discuss with your".

 

[vorky]

I have to quote one famous person: "I have an opinion that your knowledge of anything hockey related is low, so it is difficult to discuss with your".

If that is your reply to my quoted post, then you did not get my point. Try one more time

 

[ozo]

If that is your reply to my quoted post, then you did not get my point. Try one more time

Not but really, nothing you write about inter-league relations makes sense. Ever. I like KHL as much, I really do, but to think NHL has something to gain from couple of games against KHL teams is stupid beyond belief. If NHL wanted more hockey, they would rather make their regular season last 182 games and call it a day.

Also, the fact that you seem offended that AHL champs could face KHL champs in some trophy is ridiculous and ironic, when you fail to see that it is just as insulting to NHL when you want some super final of some sorts when the gulf in quality is huge already when you realize, that basically the whole hockey world works toward producing top-sixers for NHL and NHL only. KHL have failed to assemble even all the cream of Russian talant, not even speaking about Canadians, Americans, Swedes or any other really relevant country.

NHL can't gain anything by playing exhibition games against KHL, only loose some percentage of credibility if they manage to loose a couple of games. There is no real aura of mystique around KHL like it was during 70's or 80's around old Soviet league. Your average NHL fan just by looking at those rosters can see names that failed to crack their rosters years ago and can imagine the overall strenght of the team. Of course, there fair amount of exceptions on top KHl rosters, but really that's how it is.

 

[vorky]

Not but really, nothing you write about inter-league relations makes sense. Ever. I like KHL as much, I really do, but to think NHL has something to gain from couple of games against KHL teams is stupid beyond belief. If NHL wanted more hockey, they would rather make their regular season last 182 games and call it a day.

Also, the fact that you seem offended that AHL champs could face KHL champs in some trophy is ridiculous and ironic, when you fail to see that it is just as insulting to NHL when you want some super final of some sorts when the gulf in quality is huge already when you realize, that basically the whole hockey world works toward producing top-sixers for NHL and NHL only. KHL have failed to assemble even all the cream of Russian talant, not even speaking about Canadians, Americans, Swedes or any other really relevant country.

NHL can't gain anything by playing exhibition games against KHL, only loose some percentage of credibility if they manage to loose a couple of games. There is no real aura of mystique around KHL like it was during 70's or 80's around old Soviet league. Your average NHL fan just by looking at those rosters can see names that failed to crack their rosters years ago and can imagine the overall strenght of the team. Of course, there fair amount of exceptions on top KHl rosters, but really that's how it is.

I wanted to reply seriously, but when I read bold parts I changed opinion nad realized it is pointless to discuss with someone who does not want to discuss.

Thank God, NHL industry has another opinion than you.

I would welcome if you did not insult me.

 

[ozo]

I wanted to reply seriously, but when I read bold parts I changed opinion nad realized it is pointless to discuss with someone who does not want to discuss.

Thank God, NHL industry has another opinion than you.

I would welcome if you did not insult me.

Stop bailing out, I'm very open to a rebuffal. Just tell me, what NHL can get from facing Dynamo, that they couldn't get just by adding couple of games to their regular season. Please, we want to know.

 

[vorky]

Stop bailing out, I'm very open to a rebuffal. Just tell me, what NHL can get from facing Dynamo, that they couldn't get just by adding couple of games to their regular season. Please, we want to know.

Are you so naive or I dont understand you?? NHL´s main goal is to earn money. What do you think they would gain from playing against KHL? Good feelings?

It was reported in US/CAN press this summer that NHL wants to bring World Cup and more games against Euros. Ask US/CAN broadcasters what they prefer - games against some local club from Czech rep, Sweden or SKA with Kovy/CSKA with Radulov?

NHL owners want to earn more money on hockey. Adding couple of games to their regular season is biggest nonsense I have ever read on HFB. NHL needs/wants new product and playing against KHL is good one. Obvious.

It is not possible to write now all details and pros/cons but it must be obvious for everyone.

Suming up FACTS

1) NHL wants to play games against Euros
2) KHL is best euro league
3) KHL has money and influence in euro hockey
4) KHL´s president has talked to Bettman many times (sure, they discussed about weather )

There are two IFs

IF NHL wants to play against Euros
IF NHL wants to earn money from playing against Euros

Then KHL is sole partner of NHL in Europe.

Pls, dont write propaganda (losing some percentage of credibility etc). NHL´s main market is US/CAN, how can NHL loose credibility if plays against KHL in eyes of US/CAN fans? Do you really think that US/CAN fans/media will consider KHL better league after a few looses? No, they dont because they (media) earn money in US/CAN. Will NHL loose credibility in eyes of euro fans?? Does NHL even care? Will NHL loose credibility in eyes of young euro players? Maybe, but they still go to NHL because transfer rules are pro-NHL.

Honestly, it is crazy to read this propaganda again and again. I am suprised that ppl still believe it.

EDIT
Your words remind me Jussi´s statements like that "No, no chance finnish club to join KHL, ever". After a few months, boom, Jokerit announced joining KHL in 14/15.

I just want to say that it is irrational to say now that NHL has nothing to gain.

 

[Jussi]

Except I always said there wouldn't be a Finnish KHL club with Finnish money. Who bought Hartwall Areena and will be part owners of Jokerit soon? I did also say that Finnish clubs would be reluctant to have Russian owners in general but Harkimo's financial woes (nor Kummolas hunger for money, well ok, that was to be expected) weren't that well known then.

As for NHL wanting to play more games against European teams, that is still an undefined concept: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...nd-european-business-plan-191105228--nhl.html

The NHL is not expected to send teams to Europe to start the regular season if it sends players to Sochi in mid-season. But the NHL could stage more than the Premiere Games in the future. The NHL and the NHLPA are considering a nation-on-nation tournament like the World Cup and a champions league concept.
“Maybe we bring NHL teams over to play the best teams in Europe,†Collins said. “How do we stage that, and where do we play? That’s definitely something that we’re looking at.â€

 

[ozo]

Basically you couldn't make up anything better than money again. And as I already said, they can get sold out arena just by adding a couple of games to the regular season if they wanted. Though your point about new and marketable product is a good one, but that's where the World Cup comes in, a tournament where NHL would get all the profit, which they wouldn't have to share with anybody.

And I fail to see, how wouldn't NHL loose some of it's credibility and feeling of clear superiority, it regularly would go and loose to KHL teams in seemingly competitive games if such are arranged. Even further, what has the fact that most NHL fans are in NA has to with anything, wouldn't they start to question the strenght of the league like any other normal people would?

But I still love your incoherent essay anyway, only you could turn a fact of "1) NHL wants to play games against Euros" into something that isn't certain by any means a second later "IF NHL wants to play against Euros" and then seemingly feel proud about your post.

Also it's clear that you don't have any idea what propaganda really is.

 

[vorky]

Basically you couldn't make up anything better than money again. And as I already said, they can get sold out arena just by adding a couple of games to the regular season if they wanted. Though your point about new and marketable product is a good one, but that's where the World Cup comes in, a tournament where NHL would get all the profit, which they wouldn't have to share with anybody.

Do you want to claim that NHL is charity?

Again adding games? Not serious, right?

And I fail to see, how wouldn't NHL loose some of it's credibility and feeling of clear superiority, it regularly would go and loose to KHL teams in seemingly competitive games if such are arranged. Even further, what has the fact that most NHL fans are in NA has to with anything, wouldn't they start to question the strenght of the league like any other normal people would?

You believe your propaganda, your choice.

But I still love your incoherent essay anyway, only you could turn a fact of "1) NHL wants to play games against Euros" into something that isn't certain by any means a second later "IF NHL wants to play against Euros" and then seemingly feel proud about your post.

Also it's clear that you don't have any idea what propaganda really is.

Not my problem you dont understand written text.

 

[Yakushev72]

That's fine if you feel that way. The best KHLers are certainly better than the best AHLers but the average talent level between the two leagues is comparable and I think a KHL team would have a lot of trouble with an AHL team on the small ice. Interleague play doesn't interest me that much either as things are now and furthermore I don't think the NHL has anything to gain by playing teams from lesser leagues so I'd be fine if they just dropped the idea.

Neither league has any real interest in interleague play right now, so its not going to happen for several more years. Once they start playing, what happens if the KHL representative(s) does well? That would start to increase the pressure for an annual playoff. The NHL would be reluctant to take that risk, and at the present time, the KHL is not fully ready to challenge the NHL's best. Although, the KHL could field an individual team loaded with talent based on the financial power of the owner. But I think interleague competition is at least 5 years away, maybe more.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

It's just great. Tell me pls what are you smoking? Have you seen Ak Bars during first lockout in 2004? If not, let me remind it's roster: Kovalchuk, Heatley, LeCavalier, Brad Richards, Alex Kovalev, Habibulin, Casparaitis, Michael Nulander, Ruslan Salei, Morozov and other NHLers. What about NHL talent combined in AkBars 2004? They combined didn't light up the russian league. They lost to Loko in playoff. The only NHLers that showed true greatness during lockout in season 2004-2005 were Datsyuk and Jagr. Pls name me AHL roster that will do better than AkBars 2004.

I think I've mentioned three or four times already that I'm talking about games on the samll ice. It takes time and dedication to adjust to the large ice which are two things most locked out NHLers don't have.