lets go pavel

Why yes ... yes it is. Hmmmmmm .... Is it possible, perhaps, maybe, that the OP's response seems so absurd because ... it's also a joke? Which would make all of the outraged replies equally absurd? Ahhh, the irony ...

Why would the Wings need a warm body? We have tons of players who could contribute, why sign a 34 year old warm body if he has nothing to contribute? That doesn't sound like something the best run franchise in pro sports would do. This year they haven't had a spot for him ... we have a glut of forwards. We all know he has his limitations, and that's why he doesn't play all the time or in the playoffs. I will readily admit that there are times that his contributions aren't needed ... why can't you admit that there are times when they ARE valuable?

On the other hand, the Wings signed Downey, played him a good deal last year, and kept him around this year too, albeit primarily in GR. I don't think they have any illusions about Downey's abilities, and yet they clearly seem to think his contributions are valuable or he wouldn't be here. Of course the Red Wings are skilled enough to succeed without him, but that doesn't mean they aren't better with him.

You're right! We should demand apologies! Let's do a Million Man Skate! And there must be restitution! ESPN and SI should have to remove the S's from their names, because there's only 1 sport and they're not worthy! And all those other "games" should wear Stanley Cup patches on their uniforms to acknowledge hockey's superioriy, and they should all play only 3 periods! No more quarters, no more halves, no more innings, none of that malarkey ... just 3 periods! And no more balls either, only pucks! Because pucks rule! YEAH!!!

Who cares? They're both sports, they're both games. They exist for the purpose of entertainment. So someone made a joke at the expense of hockey. Big deal. Are we, as hockey fans, really so insecure about the validity of the sport we love that we can't take a joke?

No, all you have shown is that there is at least one case where an enforcer didn't prevent a cheap shot. No enforcer can prevent ALL cheap shots, and no one is arguing to the contrary. You haven't proven that an enforcer NEVER prevents a cheap shot, and you can't. To do that, you would have to prove that every time there is intent to injure the player followed through with that intent, regardless of whether there was an enforcer present, which is just as impossible a task as the proof you're asking of me. Which brings us back to this ... it can't be proven one way or the other. You don't think they prevent anything, that's your belief. Me, I think they do deter some dirty plays. I also think the value of a player like Downey goes beyond simply policing dirty plays. He brings energy and excitement. He pumps up the fans, which in turn can pump up a team. When he does fight, whether in retribution or not, it adds energy to the team. Perhaps most importantly, the players like having him there and have said as much. They like the security of having him watch their back. Whether this sense of security is real or imagined is irrelevant, it still can affect their play. So the real question, at least in my mind, is whether it is worth it to sacrifice a player with 4th-line skill for a player of lesser skill who brings these other things. To me, the 4th-line skill player brings the same things that the other 11 skaters do, only in lesser quantities, and his loss can easily be compensated for. Not so for Downey.

Opie, I suppose you can write the story that way. Of course, I could just as easily write the ending so Downey kicks his ass, Lappy cowers in fear, and the Red Wings never get cheap-shotted again en route to 6 straight Stanley Cups. What does that prove? I can't prove to you that fighting prevents anything, but you can't prove it doesn't. It's kinda like arguing whether aliens exist; there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, so in the end it boils down to belief. As for whether enforcers are the best way to prevent cheapshots, that's a whole different argument. I agree that stiffer and more consistent penalties would certainly be a good deterrent, and I also agree that the instigator rule has hurt the effectiveness of enforcers.

Wouldn't that be a form of prevention? I realize an enforcer generally only fights as an act of retribution, but the threat of a fight can be preventative, and a fight that is retributive at the moment can also be preventative in future meetings. Again, we can never prove what is or isn't prevented, but that does not prove nothing is prevented.

Bingo. This argument will never end because everyone is arguing about the existence, or lack thereof, of something that DIDN'T HAPPEN. There is no way to know what an enforcer prevents or doesn't prevent, but there are a lot of players who feel that it helps. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Are there better skaters, defenders, faceoff men, PKers, agitators, etc. that we could put on the 4th line in place of Downey? Sure. But would that person's contributions be more significant to the team than Downey's? That's debatable, but what isn't is that Downey brings something to the table that no one else on the team really does. To me, what we sacrifice in skating ability and all-around hockey ability by paying Downey is more than made up for by having that little bit of muscle and energy in the lineup. We have plenty of skill to compensate for one less skilled 4th liner ...

Of course, we're doing a lot of things right. Our forwards and defense rival any team's, from top to bottom, and I think Clement even acknowledged that. Some people say defense wins championships, some say offense, some say goaltending ... it sounds like Clement thinks goaltending is most important. If our goaltending picks it up we'll be tough to beat. And yeah, I can definitely see Ned Flanders

I would be very hesitant to compare Conklin to Nabby and Kipper. He has had a good year, but I would take either of those other two over Conks in a heartbeat. And that, I believe, is Clement's point. As for his past respect, or lack thereof, for the Wings, I honestly haven't paid him that much attention, so I'll have to take your word for it.

The question was who is the favorite to win. He didn't say the Wings can't win, he said they aren't the favorite because of their goaltending. Do you think the goaltending to this point has been championship caliber?

Did any of you actually hear what he said, or are you all just jumping on the "bash the guy who hates the Wings" bandwagon? I realize that may be fun, but he had a valid point, there was no irrational Red Wing hate in anything he said. Given our current goaltending/defensive inconsistencies, I don't know that I'd say we're the favorite either. That doesn't mean I don't think we can win it, because we can, but SJ and Calgary are both tough too, and based on the year so far they do have the edge in goal. Just out of curiosity, where are all the posters who were adamant two weeks ago that we needed to pick up a goalie at the deadline or there was no way we'd make it out of the first round? Sounds an awful lot like what Clement was saying ...

Who cares? I wouldn't get all up in arms about it, it's no different than what many of the posters on here have been saying most of the year ... we can't win with Ozzie, trade Ozzie, out in the first round, etc etc. He also acknowledged that the rest of our roster is the best in the conference, but looking at how they've played so far Kipper and Nabby give Calgary and SJ the advantage in goaltending, and Clement thinks that makes a big difference. The weird-looking dude sitting next to him felt differently. They can't all pick us to win.

Toskala's done for the year ... and do any of the others really count as goalies?

No clue ... maybe they're just bored?

Not to be a party pooper, but the deadline was an hour ago. We can revisit this topic next year if we re-sign him ...

Olli Jokinen to Calgary? Wow, they could be scary ...

Vermette to CBJ for Leclaire ... maybe

Vokoun's got 2 more years at $5.7M ... we can't afford him.

from Wikipedia: "Eating crow (archaically, eatin boiled crow) is an English idiom meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position. It is most likely an Americanization of the English “to eat humble pie.” The English phrase is something of a pun—“umbles” were the intestines, offal and other less valued meats of a deer. Pies made of this were known to be served to those of lesser class who did not eat at the king’s/lord’s/governor’s table. It may also be the American version of "umble," since the Oxford English Dictionary defines crow (sb3) as meaning 'intestine or mesentery of an animal' and cites usages from the 1600s into the 1800s (e.g., Farley, Lond Art of Cookery: "the harslet, which consists of the liver, crow, kidneys, and skirts." Another dish likely to be served with humble pie is rook pie (rooks being closely related to crows). This may be another clue as to how humble pie became boiled crow." ... but what's really important is that it tastes great!

Woohoo! Trade deadline day is here and schools are closed for a 3rd straight day (it's pretty amusing how far 6" of snow goes in VA ), so for once I can watch all the action ... hopefully there will be plenty!

I think I prefer the forwards like this ... Datsyuk-Zetterberg-Holmström Hossa-Hudler-Leino Franzen-Filppula-Samuelsson Helm-Draper-Cleary Maltby, Kopecky

Very true ... Avery's such a ho.

Anyone else waiting for a Dallas press release taunting the Rangers for going after their sloppy seconds?