Talk:Rick DiPietro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just an observation---Rick DiPietro is not a Canadian anything. He never even played on a Canadian team, juniors or otherwise. What's up with referring to him as a "Canadian rookie ice hockey goalie"???


[edit] Not the first goaltender to go first overall in the draft

That honor belongs to Michel Plasse —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeadEyeArrow (talkcontribs) 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

True, it would be more accurate to call DiPietro the first goalie to be selected number one in the NHL Entry Draft. Prior to 1979, it was called the NHL Amateur Draft (as only players who had never played pro hockey were allowed to be drafted). The draft age was also lowered by one year in '79... --rsgdodge 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

Can someone please find a source that says the NHL discouraged the 15-year deal and that he signed a 1-year deal? He is not listed on NHL.com's Free Agent list nor on their signed list, as he would've been a free agent this year had he signed a 1-year deal. If no source can be found, the article should be changed. --David7581 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the article. It does not say that he signed a 1 year deal last summer. Croctotheface 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is a misunderstanding, it's because of the wording: "Newsday reported that the team offered him a 15-year contract in September 2005, but the league discouraged this, instead he signed a one-year offer." The part at the end that says "instead he signed a one-year offer." is what I'm talking about. --David7581 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does say 2005, but I don't recall him being a free agent last year, and I've seen sites still listing him as being under the 15-year deal. --David7581 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I see it, but I still think the paragraph should be rearranged chronologically. --David7581 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be, but I don't think it's necessary. Maybe "the year prior" would be better language than "in September 2005", but it's appropriate to mention the 1-year deal after and in the context of the longer deal. The 1-year deal would not be significant enough to mention if not for the rest of the story. Also, and this is probably neither here nor there, but I think that WP articles are a little too wedded to chronology as an organizing method. Organization by topic, with the most important topic coming first, would be appropriate in a decent number of articles. Croctotheface 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

This article is not an editorial. The words many beleive sould be used with overatedness and his ridiculous contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)