Leaderboard

Tough choice, but If you made me I'd choose Nyquist. They are both great players and Tatar brings something that this team was lacking for a couple of years : The raw will score. But as others have pointed out Nyquist is the better all round player with a little more upside than Tatar, so my vote goes to him.

Ive been against this idea from the beginning, and now it's one step closer I still find it totally abhorrent. There'll be no real fan base there, and there could be constant links to gambling. And what about the team that lives there? Can you imagine some of the more shadier characters in the league being able to stay out of trouble? It's another desperate attempt by Gary to try and force hockey onto markets it doesn't belong for the sake of expansion fees to fill the pockets of those paying his salary.

From what I've read on the internet, fetisov seems to be walking an odd road on this whole thing, but honestly I trust your take on it more than I do writers just trying to get hits on their articles. And most of the time they're just using translation programs that are flawed anyway. So thanks for the insite.

It's situational.. Nyquist is better if you have a cold and Tatar is better if you are eating a nice fish dinner. ....I'll see myself out..

Even the densest Russian hockey officials understand by now that if a Russian kid got drafted in top 5, or even top 40, he WILL be going to the NHL. Whatever they do. See Malkin, Eugeny, as an example.They can choose to burn bridges with him, or give their blessing and have him play for there national team and perhaps return to the KHL in the future. This idea that top players can be kept in Russia has been dead for at least a decade now. The current concern is that a lot of young prospects go to NA before they are ready, play in juniors and AHL, but very few make it to the NHL. So an ideal state of affairs from Russian standpoint would have been for the players to go to NHL after they mature, and incidentally, after they played a few years for the club that paid for their development costs and the club had a chance to make back that investment. That age would be somewhere between 25 and 28. How to get to this ideal is ... unclear, to put it mildly.

Lol that was gonna be a BoS post, huh? Hee hee rubber

Edit nm Lol

Realgud points everyone. I've been swayed and forced to change my vote again! The major difference between Nyquist and Tatar is that Nyquist is a goose, and Tatar is a Mexican water bug. Now the thing about geese is that some can lay golden eggs, like Gus did during the 13-14 season. However, to lay golden eggs, geese have to be loose. Hence the phrase "loosey goosey". Because geese are not always loose, a goose like Nyquist will be streakier from time to time. Being a Mexican water bug, Tatar is obviously more lively and quick with the puck. But the main advantage of being a Mexican water bug is that it is a made-up insect that only exists inside the mind of Mickey Redmond. So basically the sky is the limit on Tatar's potential and what he will develop into. Don't ask me why Mickey's made-up bug is Mexican. I know it's boring nerdy science stuff i got from a spread sheet, but the facts are there. Each has their strengths and weaknesses.

I deleted my vote for Tatar then voted for Tatar so I could feel the satisfaction of making the right choice again.

I think that a lot of the success attributed to Howard AND Mrazek really belongs to Babcock's shot suppression system. I'm not saying that either guy wouldn't be good otherwise, but it's pretty clear that they didn't get challenged nearly as much as most goalies do. I think I'd wait to see how things pan out under Blashill before I start penciling in starting goalies. Might be that Howard stink worse than we thought, and Petr easily takes the job. Then again, maybe Mrazek falters under more shots every single night and the veteran is our saving grace. Who knows?