Traverse City tomorrow!!!

The long drought is almost over! NHL hockey (kind of) begins tomorrow with the annual Traverse City prospect tournament.

Here is the schedule.

Saturday 10th September
Buffalo Sabres vs Minnesota Wild 21.30
Carolina Hurricanes vs Dallas Stars 22.00
St Louis Blues vs New York Rangers 00.00
Columbus Blue Jackets vs Detroit Red Wings 00.30

Sunday 11th September
Buffalo Sabres vs Columbus Blue Jackets 20.30
Carolina Hurricanes vs St Louis Blues 21.00
Dallas Stars vs New York Rangers 23.00
Minnesota Wild vs Detroit Red Wings 23.30

Tuesday 13th September
St Louis Blues vs Dallas Stars 21.00
Carolina Hurricanes vs New York Rangers 21.30
Minnesota Wild vs Columbus Blue Jackets 23.30
Buffalo Sabres vs Detroit Red Wings 00.00

Then the final games are played on Wednesday 14th September.

Exciting times

Are the times BST?

Who cares? A bunch of rubbish teams playing meaningless hockey

Yeah Pete

Azzy Luongo wrote:Who cares? A bunch of rubbish teams playing meaningless hockey

Bit like watching the majority of the Canucks history then?

The US had a rubbish military a few years ago - don't think they mind now

Not sure you can compare the US military and the Canucks....key difference is the US military has won something

Azzy Luongo wrote:Who cares? A bunch of rubbish teams playing meaningless hockey

17 Stanley Cups have been won by the teams entering the meaningless tournament, whilst the Canucks have won ? Maybe the Canucks should stop slating everyone elsees rubbish teams and focus on not choking as they always do

NYR_UK_Marc wrote:

Azzy Luongo wrote:Who cares? A bunch of rubbish teams playing meaningless hockey

17 Stanley Cups have been won by the teams entering the meaningless tournament, whilst the Canucks have won ? Maybe the Canucks should stop slating everyone elsees rubbish teams and focus on not choking as they always do

lol.

First, the prospects of those teams have won diddly squat. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Or are you saying that the Traverse City tournament is on a par with the Stanley Cup? Or rather, will we see Nick Lidstrom playing in it? No, so these are in fact rubbish teams who have won nothing and are playing in a meaningless tournament.

And how did the Rangers get on last year Marc? Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals was it? No? Shame. I'd suggest looking a lot closer to home before you bandy the word 'chokers' around

Azzy Luongo wrote:

NYR_UK_Marc wrote:

Azzy Luongo wrote:Who cares? A bunch of rubbish teams playing meaningless hockey

17 Stanley Cups have been won by the teams entering the meaningless tournament, whilst the Canucks have won ? Maybe the Canucks should stop slating everyone elsees rubbish teams and focus on not choking as they always do

lol.

First, the prospects of those teams have won diddly squat. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Or are you saying that the Traverse City tournament is on a par with the Stanley Cup? Or rather, will we see Nick Lidstrom playing in it? No, so these are in fact rubbish teams who have won nothing and are playing in a meaningless tournament.

And how did the Rangers get on last year Marc? Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals was it? No? Shame. I'd suggest looking a lot closer to home before you bandy the word 'chokers' around

Its about building a team around young prospects and these guys are future cup winners, no tournament in any sport is pointless. As for last year , did the Rangers claim to be the best team in hockey , did the Rangers appear to have already tied the cup up before playing a playoff game ?No. The Canucks choked , in fact the Rangers did the opposite when the pressure was on to make the playoffs we didn't choke we got there. You choked in 94 and you choked in 2011 have fun choking in 2012 and living in the shadows of the successful and notable Canadian franchises.

Haha, you crack me up!

The Canucks didn't claim to have the best team before the playoffs - it was the media that did that. We never had anything tied up, at any point, and worked harder and played better than all but one team in the NHL. Call that 'choking' if you want - I call that an incredible season from a talented team, stopped at the death by another amazing team. No 'choking', merely three rounds of dominance followed by a colossal battle.

But I guess you can pin your hopes on some random prospects all making the Rangers in five years

As for 94 - you really need to learn your history. The Canucks barely scraped into thd playoffs, and was the underdog before every round. The Rangers were a powerhouse, stacked with talent, and favourites to sweep the Nucks. That was a Herculean effort against a far better side - one of hockey's great cup runs. So learn your history before bandying the 'choking' moniker - I don't think you have a handle on what 'choking' is.

Azzy Luongo wrote: I don't think you have a handle on what 'choking' is.

I think Luongo does though!

How so? The guy won 15 playoff games this year, has an Olympic gold medal, and has achieved far more in his career than most NHL goalies. Did people say that Tim Thomas 'choked' when he gifted Alex Burriws an OT winner in the Stanley Cup Final? Nope - only Luongo chokes

Tim Thomas was just making it interesting....he still won

True, and he was phenomenal in the final. I've never seen a series like it fof goaltending.

Agree with 94 but you still made the final you still choked on the big occasions although we won based on Richter. Luongo and the Canucks do have a history of choking and that is a fact

Also im not pinning the Rangers chances on guys who will be playing in 5 years time, im putting my chances on us keeping our rapidly improving team a team that managed to shut you out last year

NYR_UK_Marc wrote:Agree with 94 but you still made the final you still choked on the big occasions although we won based on Richter. Luongo and the Canucks do have a history of choking and that is a fact

Righto, if you say so. If a team plays 82 games in the regular season, wins through three rounds of playoffs, then comes up against ONE team out of 29 in the league, and loses, makes them chokers? Righto. By that very definition, 29 teams each season are chokers. So join the club everyone (not you CJ, you can go back to drinking from your damn-blasted Cup!).

Two requests:

1. Please tell me how Luongo has a 'history' of 'choking', and
2. Please tell me how the Canucks have a 'history' of 'choking'

Once you've done that, I'll point out many worse examples using the Rangers - but they're not chokers. Only the Canucks are chokers

Rangers are in fact we probably are the biggest chokers in the league but you dont go how many years the Nucks have without winning a cup if you dont choke in big games

(not you CJ, you can go back to drinking from your damn-blasted Cup!).

Love ya Azzy! (seriously, if the Nucks had been playing anyone but the Bruins, I would have been cheering them all the wAY). sCUSE TYPos, I've been out drinking since 3.0opm. and im a bit worse FOR wear.

sodding red sox are losing again. wishe the bloody hocketyseason would hurry upand satrt.

Calamity Jane wrote:wishe the bloody hocketyseason would hurry upand satrt.

choke (chk)
v. choked, chok·ing, chokes
v.tr.
1. To interfere with the respiration of by compression or obstruction of the larynx or trachea.
2.
a. To check or slow down the movement, growth, or action of: a garden that was choked by weeds.
b. To block up or obstruct by filling or clogging: Mud choked the drainpipe.
c. To fill up completely; jam: Major commuter arteries were choked with stalled traffic.
3. To reduce the air intake of (a carburetor), thereby enriching the fuel mixture.
4. Sports To grip (a bat or racket, for example) at a point nearer the hitting surface.
5. To blow games 6 and 7 of a Stanley Cup final series.
v.intr.
1. To have difficulty in breathing, swallowing, or speaking.
2. To become blocked up or obstructed.
3. Sports To shorten one's grip on the handle of a bat or racket. Often used with up.
4. To fail to perform effectively because of nervous agitation or tension, especially in an athletic contest: choked by missing an easy putt on the final hole or by losing games 6 and 7 of a Stanley Cup final series.
n.
1. The act or sound of choking.
2.
a. Something that constricts or chokes.
b. A slight narrowing of the barrel of a shotgun serving to concentrate the shot.
3. A device used in an internal-combustion engine to enrich the fuel mixture by reducing the flow of air to the carburetor.
4. The fibrous inedible center of an artichoke head.
5. A Canuck.
Phrasal Verbs:
choke back
To hold back; suppress: choked back his tears.
choke off
To bring to an end as if by choking: "Treasury borrowing of existing savings would drive up the interest rate and choke off economic activity" (Paul Craig Roberts).
choke up
To be unable to speak because of strong emotion
choked it
Messing up games 6 and 7 of a Stanley Cup final series: "F***ing Hell! The Canucks have choked it big time!" (Timmy Thomas speaking after game 7)

Haha, I stand corrected

*To block up or obstruct by filling or clogging*

I read this on a very small screen and it looked disturbing like the word dogging!

Wish I could be watching this! 7-1 after 2 for the stars