- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hurricanes Owner put his young children on the Stanley Cup instead of actual players.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:55 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:55 am
So not sure who knows this given hockey is not super popular on this board but the Stanley cup is the same trophy every year. It has bands engraved with the names of coaches and players and other staff who win each year.
This year the hurricanes won. Traditionally there are eligibility requirements for players but “staff” is at the discretion of ownership. There are usually 55 names for each team allowed so there are always tough omissions.
There are also individual stories of players sneaking their dads names instead or their wife leading to actually X’s on the Stanley cup in place of their names after this was discovered.
Well this year the hurricanes owner put his wife and I think 5 kids on the cup and actual players who played but didn’t necessarily meet the eligibility requirements were left off. The kids have no role with the team. This isn’t a situation where the kids are also high level execs who help run operations. The youngest I think is 5 or 6.
Is this stupid? Yes. Should I care about this? No. But for some reason hockey has always jealously guarded how special the Stanley cup is compared to other sports trophies with nowhere near the history. And to me this kind of sullies that legacy. Others have done this before but it appears to be getting worse. Those kids and his wife contributed nothing to the team but the owner puts them on there basically like a spoiled child asking just because they can.
News article
This year the hurricanes won. Traditionally there are eligibility requirements for players but “staff” is at the discretion of ownership. There are usually 55 names for each team allowed so there are always tough omissions.
There are also individual stories of players sneaking their dads names instead or their wife leading to actually X’s on the Stanley cup in place of their names after this was discovered.
Well this year the hurricanes owner put his wife and I think 5 kids on the cup and actual players who played but didn’t necessarily meet the eligibility requirements were left off. The kids have no role with the team. This isn’t a situation where the kids are also high level execs who help run operations. The youngest I think is 5 or 6.
Is this stupid? Yes. Should I care about this? No. But for some reason hockey has always jealously guarded how special the Stanley cup is compared to other sports trophies with nowhere near the history. And to me this kind of sullies that legacy. Others have done this before but it appears to be getting worse. Those kids and his wife contributed nothing to the team but the owner puts them on there basically like a spoiled child asking just because they can.
News article
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 8:56 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:03 am to jlovel7
quote:
But for some reason hockey has always jealously guarded how special the Stanley cup is compared to other sports trophies with nowhere near the history
Which IMHO is pretty funny considering the history of how the Stanley Cup has been used and abused over time, including being abandoned twice and being dropped kicked into a frozen river at least once.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:04 am to jlovel7
Same as the Florida Panthers last year
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:05 am to jlovel7
quote:
for some reason hockey has always jealously guarded how special the Stanley cup is compared to other sports trophies with nowhere near the history.
It's the coolest trophy in sports, IMO.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:10 am to jlovel7
quote:
actual players who played but didn’t necessarily meet the eligibility requirements
Expound on this.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:10 am to JimTiger72
quote:
Same as the Florida Panthers last year
That’s what I mean about this getting worse. This has been a trend for a few years now. I sense a new rule is going to come about and I would like to see those names from the last few years who do not deserve it to be X’d out
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:11 am to jlovel7
quote:
eligibility requirements for players
quote:
actual players who played but didn’t necessarily meet the eligibility requirements were left off.
While I understand the big picture of "limited space, why are children on it", it doesn't sound like any players that are allowed to be on it were booted right? Were there any important staffers left off?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:11 am to jlovel7
quote:
I would like to see those names from the last few years who do not deserve it to be X’d out
I don’t see why anyone should care about this at all
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:12 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Expound on this.
You have to play a certain number of games in the regular season, playoffs, or Stanley cup finals to be eligible as a player to be on the cup. If you hit that threshold you are guaranteed to be on the cup.
For further clarification I think it’s like 43 regular season games. I’m unsure of actual playoff games. And then I think if you appear in just a single finals game, no matter your participation the rest of the season, you’re on the cup.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 9:13 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:13 am to teke184
quote:
Stanley Cup has been used and abused over time, including being abandoned twice and being dropped kicked into a frozen river at least once.
Which adds to the awesomeness for me
If that thing could talk, the stories it could tell.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:13 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
Which adds to the awesomeness for me
100%!
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:14 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
While I understand the big picture of "limited space, why are children on it", it doesn't sound like any players that are allowed to be on it were booted right? Were there any important staffers left off?
I think there were some veteran staffers left off and there was a player who played like 40 games and barely missed the cut left off. Surely anyone who works or plays for the team in literally any capacity who was left off (even a fricking popcorn vendor) should be on there over a 6 year old who’s only accomplishment was having a billionaire squirt him into some trophy wife’s womb, yes?
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 9:17 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:15 am to JimTiger72
quote:
don’t see why anyone should care about this at all
Then kindly see yourself out of this thread. Here is the door. LINK
Posted on 7/9/26 at 9:23 am to jlovel7
Still can't believe the Allen family refused to sell Phil Knight the Blazers and instead sold to this scumbag
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:23 am to usc6158
Dundon is a douche canoe.
But, and I mean this sincerely, he was smart enough to let his coaches and GMs do their jobs, and now he's a Stanley Cup champion. The Trailblazers would be ecstatic to have the success that the Canes have had during his ownership.
But, and I mean this sincerely, he was smart enough to let his coaches and GMs do their jobs, and now he's a Stanley Cup champion. The Trailblazers would be ecstatic to have the success that the Canes have had during his ownership.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:24 am to jlovel7
quote:
Surely anyone who works or plays for the team in literally any capacity who was left off (even a fricking popcorn vendor) should be on there over a 6 year old
I totally agree and am not arguing that. I just don't know the protocol and norms on what is typically done but from the OP it sounded like nothing was done out of the norm. But yeah, I think putting children on there for any reason is silly and defeats the purpose of the sanctity of the list.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:16 am to jlovel7
quote:
You have to play a certain number of games in the regular season, playoffs, or Stanley cup finals to be eligible as a player to be on the cup. If you hit that threshold you are guaranteed to be on the cup.
For further clarification I think it’s like 43 regular season games. I’m unsure of actual playoff games. And then I think if you appear in just a single finals game, no matter your participation the rest of the season, you’re on the cup.
It’s either 41 regular season games or 1 game specifically in the Stanley Cup Final (not the playoffs).
It’s kinda weird; a guy can play in 40 regular season games and every playoff game through the conference finals (but not play at all in the SCF) and he wouldn’t be eligible to have his name on the Cup. Meanwhile a guy who played 41 regular season games and no playoff games, or a guy who played in 0 regular season games and only Game 2 of the SCF (and no other playoff games at all) would be eligible.
There’s also an appeals process though, so I imagine the team would file an appeal for the first hypothetical guy I mentioned above and it’d probably be granted.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:01 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
OP it sounded like nothing was done out of the norm.
The putting the kids uninvolved in day to day operations. on the cup is a very recent thing. One is six years old for gods sake. What’s the point of that? He’s not a Stanley cup champion?
There are scattered instances of odd inclusions throughout history but many of them have been X’d out.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 5:41 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
It's the coolest trophy in sports, IMO.
I'm not disagreeing with you but the Claret Jug has to be up there too.
Popular
Back to top

17







