Elliott

Barring catastrophe, Jason isn't going to play at all in the Stanley Cup finals, but I thought it was worth noting here that he is on the playoff roster. I think he has been a healthy scratch in every game.

If the Red Wings win (knock wood) does he get his name on the Cup?

I think the team selects everybody who goes on the Cup. The last time Detroit won, the owner put his entire family on the Cup, which was completely bogus -- akin to Bush awarding his drunken daughters the Medal of Honor or something.

Speaking of spoiled twits, has anybody else checked out the Hilton heiresses' web site? It's hysterical.

Doesn't he have to have actually played in at least one playoff game to be on the Cup?

Wonder in how many games the Red Wings owner's family played the last time they won the cup.

Exactly.

I;m referring to the listing of players specifically. I recall that in '94 when the Rangers won, there was a question about whether or not a few of the guys who had been with them until the trading deadline would be included...the "answer: I heard was that they would not be if they had not played in a playoff game.

I don't recall how it turned out...does anyone recall?.. but it was a legit question since the most notable name in that group was Mike Gartner, who at the time of his retirement had the record for most games played in the NHL without winning a cup. The Rangers traded him to Toronto at the deadline.

Obviously owners are looked at differently.

Well, there may have been such a discussion in '94. But it could be that the Rangers (ownership or players) came up with the playoff game rule. It might not be an "official" cup rule (I don't know, just speculating).

I know that championship rings are generally given out by the team owner to whomever he pleases and (at least in baseball) shares of the playoff money are voted on by the players.

While the playoff game rule seems entirely reasonable, imagine if the top player on a club, who carried the team on his back and got them into the playoffs, manages to get seriously injured on the last day of the season and misses the playoffs. Somehow his team pulls a miracle and wins it all anyway. Shouldn't the injured guy still get his name on the cup? My point is that voting or team decision could be better than set rules under certain conditions.

This was brought up on USCHO. The rule, as it was cited, is that a player must have played in at least half of the team's regular season games, or have played in at least one game in the finals (not the playoffs, the finals). I'm not sure how this would apply to a case like Gartner.

As far as rings, interestingly, I'm told that Patriots Super Bowl Rings are being given to every full-time employee of the Pats and every full-time employee of Foxboro Stadium. I guess Bob Kraft was feeling generous.

That's actually a pretty reasonable rule, come to think of it. Though it would miss a late season acquisition who got hurt in the conference finals.

Gartner played well over half the Ranger reg season games in '94...but not a single playoff game of course...and I dont recall what finally took place.

Re: rings...The Devils owner...Mr. McMullen made sure all their front office people got rings in '95 and '00 too!

Just a note: according to the current box score on ESPN.com, Elliott wasn't scratched for tonight's final game. Since I'm moving and I don't have a TV right now, did anyone see him on the bench?

Jordan

I saw Elliott on the ice , but they cut to an interview with Luc Robitaille before I got to see him skate with the Stanley Cup.

So, does he get his name on the Cup, even though he never stepped on the ice during a game?

AAAAND.....does he get the cup for a day!?!? and where will he take it?

According to Gary Thorne on ESPN, one needs to actually play in a game in the fina round. He said that in reference to Jiri Slegr who played in the final game...finally!

I'm still not convinced because I thought I had heard of cases where guys who had not played in the finals had their names inscribed on Lord Stanley's Cup...

I heard that also, Rich S., but it didn't answer the question for me. Slegr had been a scratch in all of the first 4 games. Elliott was eligible to play in the first and fifth games (from what I can tell); is that enough.

For instance, did Manny Legace play enough? Legace only played 20 games this year (but was eligble for more than 40) and didn't play at all in the Finals (but was eligible for all 5 games).

Or Rogie Vachon in 1971--who played almost every game for Les Habitants in the regular season but rode the pine throughout the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Al - since Vachon played in more than half of the regular season games he qualified for listing even if he didn't play in the Finals. (And I don't think the new rule went into effect until 1977).

wouldn't goalie standards be different? How many teams alternate goalies and WIN the Cup? Most often the winning team has a great goalie and a back up, who never sees the ice. The skaters can jump on the ice for a 20 second shift and be considered to have played in a game. Last I've checked, goalies don't do line changes, so it stands to reason that if you dressed for the game then you'd be eligible and it would be a 'team' decision to enscribe you or not. though I think its a stretch for the back up goalie's back-up to get on the cup. But he's got a 0.00 GAA!

Yeah, I agree that goalie standards should be different (although who knows if they are). If skaters are given a single 20 second shift in order to get their names on the cup, I can imagine a situation where, in the final game with one team holding a comfortable lead late, the coach pulls a Mark Morris and swaps in the backup goalie for one stoppage. He takes the ice after an icing call. The offenive team wins the faceoff and throws a quick shot on net which is covered. The backup heads off with a grand total of 1 second of icetime, but gets his name inscribed on the cup...

So, does this answer the Elliott-on-the-cup question? Click on the picture for a close-up.

[www.prosportsmemorabilia.com]

(I don't think so either. I'm sure there are others, but Jiri Slegr, who played in Game 5, isn't in the picture. And Manny Legace is.)

Well, I'm sure the requirement for goalies is different than other players. It's not like you can insist a goalie play 1/3rd of games or something, bc that would eliminate all but the most solid backups.

I hope the guy who played in game 5 is on it, even if he's not in the picture - otherwise would be ridiculous.

-Fred

Greg - I meant to ask - do you have a URL for the Hilton kids?

i believe it is hiltonsisters.com

No visit to Ithaca by Lord Stanley this year, but Jason does get the cup for a day...

[theahl.com]

GW

What, he's not taking it to Chapman, Australia?

I think what happened in '94 was that the Rangers traded Gartner in mid-season, but he was the #1 players' union rep. in the league. When the Rangers won The Cup, there were two players who didn't qualify to have their names on it under the league's rules (Greg Gilbert and someone else, I think). The Rangers appealed to the league to let those two players get their names on The Cup, since they played a fairly important role on the team throughout the regular season. Since Gartner had such a high-ranking position in the union, he went to bat for his former teammates, the appeal went through, and the two guys got their names on The Cup, even though they didn't play in the playoffs/finals (whatever the rule is).

I would definitely think that they would have different rules for backup goalies though. Third-stringers, I don't know, but backups, definitely. And didn't Thorne and Clement specifically say during Game 5 that Slegr would get his name on The Cup because he was playing in Game 5?

Who ever thought that a guy I was cutting carrots next to in HA 236 would be dancing with the Stanley Cup for a day. Idiot, Elliott, Idiot, Elliott, LGR!!!