Kukla's Korner

The Puck Stops Here

Early Season Top Rookie

I like to track the leaders for awards as the season progresses.  I think there is a clear top rookie at this point in the season.  It is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins of the Edmonton Oilers.  He has nine points in ten games and is tied for the rookie led with Luke Adam of Buffalo.  Nugent-Hopkins leads his Oiler team in goals and is tied for the point lead with Jordan Eberle.  His +3 +/- rating is the second highest on his team. 

Nugent-Hopkins was the top pick in the 2011 Entry Draft and is expected to be a big part of the Edmonton Oiler future.  However, there are reasons to doubt that Nugent-Hopkins is as good as his numbers show.  He may not be able to maintain this level of dominance over an entire season.  He has been a beneficiary of playing against a very poor calibre of opposition.  If he plays against top opposition, he will probably not be able to put up these numbers.  In fact a strong argument can be made that he shouldn’t be in the NHL this season.

The argument is not that Nugent-Hopkins is not ready for NHL competition.  It appears that he is.  That really isn’t relevant.  Teams regularly make roster decisions based on waiver eligibility and salary cap hits.  Teams do not pick the best possible roster; they often pick rosters for non-hockey reasons.  There are compelling non-hockey reasons to keep Nugent-Hopkins out of the NHL.

A player achieves unrestricted free agency when his contract expires if he is 27 years old or if he has played seven NHL seasons.  If a player starts playing in the NHL at age 18, he will reach seven seasons by age 25.  A typical NHL player will be better from age 19-26 or 20-27 than he will be from 18-25.  This is because a player in his mid to late twenties is better developed and closer to his prime than a teenager.  A team is better served by making sure that they get as good as possible a group of seasons from a player in the years he is going to serve the team.

The most underpaid players in the league in any season are typically superstars who are still on entry level contracts.  In a salary capped league it is valuable to have significantly underpaid players. In fact it appears to be a necessary condition in the salary capped NHL to win a Stanley Cup.  Superstar players on entry level contracts who recently won Stanley Cups include Evgeni Malkin, Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane.  The Edmonton Oilers have a young core full of potential and it is possible that they could be a Stanley Cup contender if they develop properly.  Jordan Eberle, Taylor Hall and Magnus Paajarvi are all on entry level contracts that expire next season.  At that point, the Oilers will not be likely Stanley Cup contenders yet.  Each of these players will likely have earned large new contracts that will eat up a significant portion of the Oilers salary cap space.  Keeping Nugent-Hopkins on an entry level contract as long as possible into the future will help the Oilers keep their core below the salary cap for as long as possible.  If Nugent-Hopkins did not stay in the NHL this season, his entry level contract would not have begun this season.  He would remain on the cheaper entry level contract three years into the future instead of two.  That extra year might be the year when the Oilers have their best shot at a Stanley Cup.

Salary cap management is probably the most important skill of an NHL GM today.  Keeping Nugent-Hopkins out of the NHL would do a lot to help the Oilers manage their cap situation.  Keeping him in the league increases the likelihood of future salary cap problems.

It is true that keeping Nugent-Hopkins out of the NHL would cost the Oilers a few wins, but this is not a top team where those wins matter much.  The Oilers may currently lead the Northwest Division, but it is an unsustainable start.  The Oilers have the second lowest goals per game in the league (Minnesota is the only team below them and not by any significant amount).  The Oilers are winning because they are keeping goals out of their net.  Nikolai Khabibulin has had an unsustainable start to the season.  He is no longer a good NHL-level goalie, yet he currently leads the league with a 0.97 GAA and a .964 saves percentage.  There is no way he can keep up those numbers.  Likely his final numbers this season will be below average for a starting goalie.  When that happens, the Oilers will drop significantly in the standings.  In the end, they will likely have a poor year with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, so why not do it without him if it has a significant value in the future?

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins has been the best rookie in the league so far this season.  It is entirely possible that he could win the rookie of the year this season.  Despite that, it would quite likely be in the Edmonton Oilers best interests if he was kept out of the NHL this season.

Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink


Da lil Guy's avatar

It occurs to me that Nugent-Hopkins has 10 GP, making the argument for his demotion somewhat moot.

Personally I think there are some others who deserve RoTY consideration as well - Luke Adam was mentioned, and watching Colin Greening emerge in Ottawa has been a treat.

Posted by Da lil Guy from Guelph, Ontario on 10/30/11 at 06:31 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Yes Nugent-Hopkins won’t be going back to junior.  He has played too many games.  I am arguing that perhaps the wrong decision was made.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/30/11 at 06:51 PM ET


I think this is a particularly lazy time to apply this argument.

The emphasis on ELCs on competitors is that well they have the ability to win.  Like you said, Edmonton has little chance to keep up their pace.  Rather than this working towards sending him back, as you claim, I think it just sort of emphasizes why and how he made the team.

The chief concern of this argument is ‘future cap problems’. Edmonton has no reason to worry about minimizing this, especially at the expense of optimally developing what is hopefully a franchise caliber center.

If the Oilers had a stronger base that would lend itself to utilizing a really good player on an ELC to put them over the top then I would understand your use of it here.  As they’re so far back they’re better off investing in the future by developing their future stars on a very young and rebuilding NHL squad. 

The Oilers biggest need was a top 6 C as a team full of young players who were going through a slow rebuild.  They got that exact player in Nugent-Hopkins and he’s done his part showing he deserves to be in the league.

Even though you think he’s played better than every other rookie thus far, you think that a particularly moot ‘non-hockey decision’ should keep him out of the NHL.  What then would stop you from applying that same claim to Hall last year?  How about Tavares and Duchene before?  If the paper thin application of this argument can apply to RNH and some of these other previously successful young players-which of their team is a SC contender? Or would you argue that them making the league when they did was a mistake as well?-then perhaps it doesn’t say quite as much as you think.

Posted by JBM on 10/30/11 at 08:40 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

I most definitely would have applied this line of logic to Taylor Hall last year and wrote about it

The problem with assessing these deicisions now is we do not have the information to do so yet.  If these players wind up leaving town at age 25 due to free agency, then there will be a very strong argument that things should have been done differently.  That is years off in all of these cases.  Then it will be too little too late to say something should have been done differently at age 18 and the player in question should have been given another year in the minors.

I am not suggesting that no 18 year olds should ever play in the NHL, but only those on teams that look to have a better window now to win the Stanley Cup than they might in the future.  Tyler Seguin is the best recent example in Boston last year and he wasn’t the best example of a player who hit the ground running as a superstar.  He had 22 points last season and was a healthy scratch at several times in the 2011 playoffs.

This is a reality of the current CBA.  You are better off letting your junior age players return to junior than bringing them to the NHL now.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/30/11 at 08:51 PM ET


So what’s stopping you from making it again this year for Hall?  If the Oilers are better off saving ELCs with this weak squad, like you suggest with RNH and this team, do you think Hall should have been held in the juniors another year (this current season)?

Certainly not, why make a former #1 overall pick develop in the CHL for two more years when he’s shown he has the ability to learn in the professionals.  Hall’s no worse off for being stuck on a putrid squad last year.  See I think the bottom line in all of this should be, and obviously is the player’s development, not salary cap issues.  That’s why despite you pointing out there is some advantage to having really talented players on ELCs, this yields to the ideal developmental path usually available to only the top handful of picks each year.

Edmonton needs to groom their future stars, first and foremost.  Look at the progression from their squad’s caliber from the start of last season to this season.  You made the exact same assessment, they are poor squads overall.  How do you expect them to realistically progress to a point to utilize Hopkins’ ELC in a meaningful manner?  They’re much better off starting his development where he belongs, you agree his play is not in question at all here, and getting him comfortable with the organization they hope he calls home for the rest of his career.

Also I think you have the Seguin thing twisted.  I think he supports this whole argument way better than Hall or Nugent-Hopkins. You pointed out rightly how Boston used him in a very limited role and often not at all.  I’d ask really how useful an addition that’d be when burning the first year off an ELC.  If he had a meaningful contribution in the playoffs that could offset this but he didn’t do that either really.  I’m not saying he was bad, I mean he was a teenager in the Stanley Cup finals, but he wasn’t really the type of ELC utilization you wanted, especially when you indentified Kane, Toews, and Malkin who had very meaningful postseason success.

I agree there’s a distinct advantage to having the equivalent of a salary cap ringer in a young star on an ELC, but I stand by my initial stance that this is just a lazy instance to try to make this argument in.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 08:07 AM ET


This is a silly argument! Cap reasons? Hall , eberle and mps will not demand high paychecks when their elc expires. It is that simple. They are winning and above 500, there is no reason to send him to a league where he isn’t challenged.

Posted by Jason from Michigan on 10/31/11 at 12:39 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

  If the Oilers are better off saving ELCs with this weak squad, like you suggest with RNH and this team, do you think Hall should have been held in the juniors another year (this current season)?

This question is moot given that Hall played in the NHL last year, so his entry level conmtract has already started.

Hall , eberle and mps will not demand high paychecks when their elc expires.

Why not?  Even players who haven’t lived up to expectations yet like James Van Riemsdyk are getting pretty big longterm contracts.  Players who work out like Drew Doughty are getting $7 mill a year.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 01:57 PM ET


This question is moot given that Hall played in the NHL last year, so his entry level conmtract has already started.

Not when you just re-affirmed that in your eyes he shouldn’t have been in the NHL last year and then made the same assessment for his teammate this year.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 03:10 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

I think your question is in a hypothetical world where Hall was not in the NHL last year, should he be kept out of the NHL again this year.  The only answer I can offer is it depends on how things happened in that hypothetical season last year when Hall was kept out of the NHL.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 03:32 PM ET


PSH there’s nothing hypothetical about you setting a threshold worthy of ELC use, and then applying that to a cellar dweller two years in a row.  All I’m saying is you’re giving this singular concept far too much weight, especially at the expense of more important things like grooming your draft picks, or the makeup of their roster.

The reason I bring up Hall and descend into supposed hypotheticals is that it points out where your argument falls short.  If we trusted your advice last year with Hall, the Oilers would have essentially gained nothing by holding back a year.  They’re no more competitive today, which is all that matters to you.  Seguin was a success even though he was often a healthy scratch and saw 4th line minutes simply because his team had an ELC as a SC winner.  Hall on the other hand was a mistake and should have been held back even though he clearly had the better year and had the opportunity to play a bigger role than Seguin. Your judgments are not reflective of anything but just this one concept and the Oilers just are not a squad that this concept would be particularly useful for.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 04:19 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

What exactly did the Oilers gan by playing Hall in the NHL last year?  For the cost of free agency one year earlier and the burning of one year on a low priced entry level contract thet finished in last place in the league.  Not a good trade-off.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 04:23 PM ET


They gained a year of proper development.  They were able to make a hockey decision, not the non-hockey decisions we are concerned with here.  I’d say that itself is a significant result, especially if the concern here is the non-hockey decisions stipulated in the CBA controlling teams decisions.

I’m not sure why the onus is on me to continue to re-list these things when you still haven’t addressed that according to your thresholds the Oilers had nothing to gain by keeping Hall this year either.  This creates a clear problem that you have first called ‘hypothetical’ and now tried to shrug off when it it’s emphasis has been re-started a few times.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 05:00 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

I question that this year of proper development means much.  There are two cases of first overall draft picks who were NHL ready who didn’t play in the league at age 18.  Mike Modano didn’t come to a contract agreement in Minnesota in his first season.  It didn’t seem to hurt him.  He is likely going to the Hall of Fame.  Eric Lindros held out the year after he was drafted.  That didnt stop him from winning a Hart Trophy.  Starring in the minors appears to be proper development just as much as playing in the NHL at age 18.  At least there is no clear data to suggest otherwise.

I’m not sure why the onus is on me to continue to re-list these things when you still haven’t addressed that according to your thresholds the Oilers had nothing to gain by keeping Hall this year either

Given that the Oilers played Hall in the NHL last year, his entry level contract is already started regardless of if they keep him in the NHL or not this year.  He is a year closer to free agency regardless of if he plays.  There is nothing to gain by keeping Hall out of the league this year under the current circumstances.  You still seem to want me to address the hypothetical situation that he was kept out of the league last year and how i would address that this year.  My only answer there is that the answer depends upon how things played out last year.  Under some circumstances it would make sense to keep him out again and in other circumstances it would make sense to play him.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 05:09 PM ET


I didn’t mean to suggest there is one size fit-all proper developmental path.  I simply meant each player, dependent on their individual ability not historical comparisons, has a developmental route that fits them best.  As RNH has demonstrated, granted in a very limited sample size, he seems to be one of the rare kids able to compete the year he was drafted.  This is a hockey decision, based on what the club thinks is his ideal developmental route.  Whether that route worked for anyone else is irrelevant as we must always remember that each prospect is an individual.  You agree with me too, you have said you don’t question RNH’s abilities, I mean hell you said he’s ROTY so far, so how could we not view him being held back, as you suggest he should be, a mistake that is based on the dreaded non-hockey decisions.

I just think if you had faith in your claim here you’d realize the obvious progression I’m making with Hall.  If you were Tambellini last season Hall would have been held out because the Oilers weren’t ready to compete.  This year you have assessed the Oilers’ worth again and deemed them unworthy of ticking UFA clocks.  So why wouldn’t you hold Hall out again this year?  Because it makes no sense to make a hockey decision that could potentially hurt the development of your 1st overall pick based on particularly absent non-hockey factors stipulated by the CBA.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 05:41 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Because it makes no sense to make a hockey decision that could potentially hurt the development of your 1st overall pick

I am not convinced that there is any more potential that a 1st overall pick’s development gets hurt by keeping him out of the NHL than there is by rushing him into the NHL.  Mike Modano and Eric Lindros both say otherwise.  Can you name a player who didnt develop because he was kept out of the NHL when he was ready?  I am at a loss to come up with a clear example of this phenomenon ever occurring and yet you seem to accept it as a given.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 05:47 PM ET


Again you misunderstand what I am saying.  Trying to compare developmental routes player by player suggesting one is superior to the other is wholly fallacious.  I’m simply suggesting that every player has a path tailored to them as a player and in the rarest of cases some players demonstrate the merit to develop in the NHL immediately.  You agree this occurs, and I think you would agree it is certainly a loss if RNH were to be held back from the NHL in spite of his own efforts because of non-hockey factors that he has nothing do with, and as I’ve repeatedly argued that I feel aren’t even that relevant to his team.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 05:54 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

From reading your last comment, I think we agree that there is no one route to the NHL for any player.  Some players make it at younger ages than others and via different routes.  One is not better than others necessarily.  If we wanted to find the best route for a given player, we would do best by comparing a large group of comparable players in similar situations who wetn different ways.  That is what I am trying to do by bringing up Eric Lindros and Mike Modano.  It is a poor sample size (two) but it seems to show that making the NHL at age 18 or 19 doesnt seem to matter much for NHL players.  Before 1979, first overall draft picks were 20 years old.  For the most part they seem to have developed.  First overall picks in this group include Denis Potvin, Guy Lafleur and Gilbert Perreault and all are in the Hall of Fame.  Of course these players had no option to make the NHL at age 18 or 19.  But it doesn’t seem to have hurt them.

If we do take a historical look at the drafts, we find that there were more frequent top selections who didn’t turn out in the early days because teams didn’t put the same resources into the draft tht they do today.  So that must be taken into account as well.

All of that is somewhat of an aside.  I am arguing that the best data we have indicates that a player develops into a star at a pretty high frequency if he is selected first overall regardless of if he enters the NHL at age 18 or 19 or 20.  That is the conclusion from a data set - which is admittedly incomplete.

The cost for Taylor Hall playing in the NHL last year is that he will have a larger salary cap hit a year earlier now.  He will potentially hit free agency a year earlier and if he accepts a contract that goes into his free agent years he will likely demand more money to do so.  That is a real cost.  What is the gain?  Edmonton finished last in the league with Taylor Hall on their roster.  The data suggests his development won’t be affected.  The Oilers traded 26 and 27 year old Taylor Hall for 18 and 19 year old Taylor Hall by bringing him into the league at age 18.  That is a bad trade.  Almost certainly the 26 and 27 year old player will be the better one.  That is a real cost.  it is a real cost that will be paid - the problem is it is paid in a few years so we can pretend it doesnt exist until then and by then the decision is ancient history so it can be forgotten.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 06:12 PM ET


But it’s paid under the assumption that they’ll absolutely want to leave or take such high pay raises that it’ll cripple the team.  Look at Chicago and Pittsburgh, our shining stars for this discussion, and you see both the possible outcomes from this.

Chicago had to sacrifice a lot of their depth and make a lot of trades forced by cap constraints.  Definitely ugly.

Pittsburgh really only lost Ryan Malone and not much more.  They replaced Gonchar who’s fallen off hard, Scuderi, and Gill with Michalek and Martin.  Pittsburgh provides a lot more optimism here.

The Oilers need to compete and sadly a few teenagers represent their best option for positions of real meaning (top 6 time).  They can’t really hamper their ability to utilize Hall or RNH’s ELCs because they’re just not there yet.

Also we cannot attempt to draw any comparisons from the draft table.  It’s a totally meaningless pursuit.  If we substantiate tendencies for some 1st overall picks there’s no reason it’d necessarily apply to RNH.  Prospects must always be looked at as individuals because when you start clouding your judgments of them based on things that don’t reflect their play we’re no longer making substantive observations.  Does RNH really have anything in common with Modano or Lindros as a player?  Nah, he just got drafted in the same slot as them and from various CHL leagues as well.  Those similarities apply to hundreds of players who all develop differently like you said so we can’t try to draw comparisons to things that will be influenced overwhelmingly by different factors.  Just being drafted 1st overall doesn’t mean he’d have the same transition as a guy like Lindros who has a drastically different playing style and set of concerns standing in the way of their optimal development.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 06:31 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

When I look at Chicago and Pittsburgh, I see teams that won the Stanley Cup in part because they had star players on entry level deals.  When those entry level deals ended, they could not afford their entire roster and had to give up players.  Neither team was good enough to win the cup after the entry level deals ended.  It was worse in Chicago because they had two entry level deals (Kane and Toews) vs. one in Pittsburgh (Malkin).  Without entry level deals, neither team would have had the opportunity to win a cup.

That is why the Oilers need to keep their window open as much as possible by holding down salary costs and an important part of that is keeping top players on entry level deals as long as possible.

Also we cannot attempt to draw any comparisons from the draft table.  It’s a totally meaningless pursuit.

This is false.  It is the most valuable tool we have to predict player trajectories.  You seem to want to throw it out because it does not support your case.  As far as I can tell there isn’t a clear case ofa player who was NHL ready and held out of the league who as a result failed to develop.  There are players who were NHL ready, who were kept out of the NHL and nevertheless developed into Hall of Fame players.  That is evidence you want to ignore.  It seems that holding players out of the league in their teens even if they are ready doesn’t hurt their development.  The best evidence we have shows this.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 07:27 PM ET

shazam88's avatar

I don’t see much of an argument here. On purely theoretical terms, the Oilers would be optimizing their future salary cap options by leaving RNH in juniors for another year. Assuming that any of Hall, Eberle or RNH ask for less than the maximum they can get in the future, is just naive, so there will be a bit of a crunch, particularly if the team needs to spend some dollars elsewhere to maintain / build their defensive corps.

Juniors don’t do as much as the AHL, let alone the NHL, in terms of development, but the cream still rises to the top eventually. That said, the real world doesn’t function the same as an optimal theoretical model; GMs need to appease the fan base, and coaches need to win. A proud franchise can only have so many losing seasons in a row (well, Toronto kind of kills that argument) without a loss of support. Thus RNH is on the roster, as he makes the team better now.

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 10/31/11 at 07:40 PM ET


PSH I’m not saying it’d ruin their careers or make them fail to develop.  I’m saying that it’s an unnecessary divergence from what is the route their team identifies as the ideal for a hopeful young star.

You keep saying the Oilers need to keep their options open but they simply have no talent worth paying.  The talent they have worth paying are on ELCs so they’re not similar to these other teams with already developing cores, and great depth.  Even those teams who have all those nice things that can necessitate needing to make use of an ELC stud can take the hit in stride (see: Pittsburgh Penguins, this current squad without any ELC stars is already better and deeper than the SC winning one; not to say they will perform to that level /deal with injuries like everyone else)

Also you’re misunderstanding what I say about the draft table.  I’m simply saying that comparing players based upon things like draft position and the league they play in is just an awfully misguided act of comparison.

You are essentially saying player X should make it/not make it based on the results of the former development of often totally differing players.  RNH and Eric Lindros are 1st overall picks.  They’re both playmaking centers too from the CHL even but one was physically weak and the other dominant.  Whether they developed as players in the NHL didn’t have to do with overcoming the same issues/shortcomings despite both being 1st overall Canadian-born centers.  If we just tried to draw tendencies to apply towards RNH’s projection from players like Lindros, and other 1st overalls like Lafleur as you mentioned who in this instance, and many others, represent players from entirely different eras with absolutely little to no point of comparison from the developmental perspective. 

If we looked at a scouting report of Lindros in his draft year and use that to guide our judgments of him that we’d be doing ourselves a much greater value.  The same goes for Nugent-Hopkins.  You just can’t confuse different types of dominance at the same age and think it requires the same development.  That’s really what being 1st overall means, you were the 18-year who projected best with a good chance of having the ability to back it up.  Not that you require similar developmental attention.

Posted by JBM on 10/31/11 at 08:11 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

You keep saying the Oilers need to keep their options open but they simply have no talent worth paying.

Today this is true.  We do not know if that will be true in the future.  In fact it is very possible that this young team could be a Stanley Cup contender relatively soon if all progresses according to plan.

Your complaint about comparing players to Ryan Nugent-Hopkins shows that you do not understand what is to be accomplished by doing so.  Nugent-Hopkins is unique.  He isn’t going to have exactly the same career as any first overall pick in history.  That said we can make statements about him that are likely true by comparing him to similar players in similar situations.  His value is probably best estimated now as the median value of a first overall pick throughout history.  This is a group that includes Mario Lemieux, Sidney Crosby and other superstar players.  It also includes Brian Lawton, Alexandre Daigle and Doug Wickenheiser.  So far he looks good, but it is awfully early to draw conclusions.  To get a better idea perhaps we want to compare RNH to other players who had similar point totals in junior.  He is a very low goal scoring forward for a first overall pick.  This makes an argument that maybe he isn’t the best first overall pick in history.  Maybe he won’t be a Crosby or a Lemieux.  We can make all of these statements with some reliablity by comparables.  There is no certainty to any of them, but they have a strong degree of certainty.  Another conclusion we can make with reasonable certainty is that the development of these types of players is not dependent upon the age their NHL career begins.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/11 at 08:51 PM ET


In fact, RNH was almost beaten by Nail Yakupov, who is a draft year younger. I can only think of one highly-drafted player who had worse junior numbers than RNH, Jordan Staal. Compare RNH to Patrick Kane, Steven Stamkos, John Tavares, and it’s clear RNH could benefit from another year to bulk up, get better defensively, etc.

Edmonton is thin on talent right now. They have little need to try to move up in the standings unless they think they can make the playoffs. Depends on how well their goaltending holds up.

Edmonton has Hall, Eberle, and Paajarvi up for new deals all at the same time. With the way those three are developing, they’ll eat up half of Edmonton’s cap room with their 2nd contracts. Linus Omark will get a nice payday as well. Suddenly you have a team that’s probably low-playoff caliber with only enough cap room to add, say, Ryan Suter (FA that will command ~$6 million).

Posted by Ralph on 10/31/11 at 11:03 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Puck Stops Here

imageThe Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.

Who am I? A diehard hockey fan.

Why am I blogging? I want to.

Why are you reading it? ???

Email: y2kfhl@hotmail.com