lets go pavel

What are you talking about? He already took less. He didn't reject $90 million because it wasn't enough, he rejected it because he wanted to win, not sit at home spending his millions in Vancouver this May. Maybe he decides after this year that he wants the $, but it's just as reasonable to think he might make the same decision that he made last summer.

Rafalski has a no-trade clause.

You're right, Flip makes too much money to stay as a 3rd line center. I think the plan for him for this year, prior to signing Hossa, was to have him centering the 2nd line, and I would guess that is still the plan for him for next year. I'm guessing we keep one of Hossa and Franzen, and maybe Sammy if he'll take 1.5. We probably lose Huddles, unless he'll take a huge discount for a year. As for which one of Hossa or Franzen, I would think Hossa is the more expensive option, but it is funny that I have not heard any mention of trying to get Franzen extended, but every time I hear Kenny talk about Hossa he sounds very interested in dealing with him. Maybe something like this, if Hossa goes for something similar to Z: Z (6) - D (6.70 - H (2.25) Leino (.9) - Flip (3) - Hossa (6) Cleary (2.85) - Drapes (1.58) - Sammy (1.5) Maltby (.88) - Helm (.6) - ? (.5) ? (.5) -------------------------- Lidstrom (7.45) - Rafalski (6) Stuart (3.75) - Kronner (3) Lilja (1.25) - Lebda (.65) Meech (.48) -------------------------- Ozzie (1.4) - Howard (.75) Or maybe we let Hossa walk and keep Huddles and Conklin? Who knows ... I've had my fun. Glad it's not my job!

He pretty much did get 7 a season. The original rumor was 10 years, 70 million. They basically just added 2 years on the end at 1 million apiece to drop the cap hit.

Personally I see him closer to $3 million, and I'd highly doubt a GM would give up that much for Huddles. His size is going to lower his value for some teams, and as good of a year as he's having, a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seems like a lot of potential talent to part with. But you never know ...

I believe it depends on how much his new contract is. To give you an example, this is the approximate compensation table for this year: The current expected RFA compensation table for 2008-09 is: Amount Compensation Due $863,156 or less None $863,156 - $1,307,811 3rd round pick $1,307,811 - $2,615,623 2nd round pick $2,615,623 - $3,923,434 1st and 3rd round pick $3,923,434 - $5,231,246 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick $5,231,246 - $6,539,061 Two 1st's, one 2nd, one 3rd round pick $6,539,061 or more Four 1st round picks link

Because for the first 4-5 years of this deal Z isn't getting $6 million per, it's likely closer to 7 or 8 a year, closer to his actual market value. It's the extra years tacked on to the end at @ $1 million apiece that bring the cap hit lower ... you couldn't do that on a shorter deal.

Maybe that was what was causing the back spasms ... now he should be good to go next game! Glad we've got him locked up, time to see what Kenny can do with the rest of them ...

I would agree, it shouldn't ... but it's hard to gauge how the writers will vote and whether they'll hold a grudge. To be honest, I don't think Lidstrom would win the Norris even without the suspension, not because he isn't deserving, but this year there seems to be a lot of publicity around a number of younger guys - Weber, Phaneuf, Chara, Green - and the impression I get from many of the articles is that it's time to give it to someone else. I don't think Pavel gets Hart unless Ovechkin and Malkin cool off considerably, and noone else heats up, and I'd be surprised if he gets Selke twice in a row. We won the cup last year, and a number of individual awards, and for whatever reason I just feel like there's going to be a backlash this year ...

Rafalski has a no-trade clause, so that really isn't an option. But if it were ... I think I would still say no. I think the quality of our defense, specifically it's ability to move the puck, start breakouts from our zone, and generate offense from the blueline is more integral to our team success than having a strong winger with a sweet shot. Hossa is a great talent, and I wouldn't say he is easily replaceable, but I do think his role is easier to fill than Rafalski's, and the replacement would likely be cheaper. I think our team would suffer less if we downgrade at Hossa's position than if we downgrade at Rafalski's position.

I understand what you're saying, and on one hand I agree, but I don't think it was left up to the team to just "send SOMEBODY" ... the league didn't want Huddles. Somewhere buried in the last however many pages I seem to remember reading that they asked for Hank, Hossa, and Rafalski, but all of them had plans already and declined.

What, exactly, do you want them to do? If they are on the ice during a scrum, they are involved. I have a rather vivid memory of Pavel on top of a certain Gary Roberts during the finals last year. Short of dropping the gloves, I'm not sure what you want them to do that they don't already do. If you don't mind my asking, which of our players are you not skeptical of? Which ones meet you requirements for toughness and sticking up for teammates?

Luongo was, in your own words, "just off an injury" ... he wasn't hurt anymore! Datsyuk had to come out of the last game early because he was hurt. Lidstrom has a nagging injury that he could play through when the games mattered (toughness, perhaps?) but that could use the rest. Neither of us have any idea if Gordie had tendinitis, but even if he did, the fact that he decided to play doesn't make Lidstrom a douchbag.

Can you tell me when, in past years, it has been the expectation that injured players show up for the ASG? Or do you think every injured player is a d-bag for not being tough?

I'm sorry dude, but this is ridiculous. Now you're questioning their toughness? They have legitimate injuries that prevented them from playing. At the time that they told the league that they would not be playing, there was no expectation for them to attend otherwise. The injuries didn't prevent them from attending the off-ice stuff, they didn't know the league expected them to be there for that until FRIDAY, when that expectation became clear through the "Crosby conversation". Had that expectation been in place all along I have no doubt that they would have been there.

Pink Floyd, right?

I understand what you're saying, but you have to realize the GM's just made the rule, and they ALL agreed to it. I'm not surprised that Lids and Dats didn't call, and at the same time I don't blame Crosby for calling, and quite frankly I think the revised rule is better. I just don't like how it was handled publicly by the league, and how the Wings were made an example of when they were following the rule that was in place when they made their decision.

GS&T, I don't have a problem with Crosby and I don't have a problem with the suspensions, as long as they are being suspended "in order to prove they are injured", which is the original intent of the rule. What I take issue with, and what I have yet to hear an answer to, is that the league, by not suspending Crosby since he attended the events, has changed the crime that the punishment is supposed to be for. Now they are being suspended for not attending, even though that was not, to their knowledge, the expectation of injured players. This tarnishes their image, makes it appear to some that they don't respect the game or the ASG, etc. etc., and I don't believe that is fair.

Sooooo once again ... why does Crosby not have to sit out? The CBA has been in place for what, 3-4 years now? Never in that time, until now, has an injured player who is not playing been expected to attend. That is the precedent that had been in place ... until Friday. At the GM meeting last year they agreed that players have to miss a game if they don't play. Noone is arguing otherwise. The issue everyone is arguing with is that THE RULE CHANGED ON FRIDAY. Now Datsyuk and Lidstrom are being suspended for not attending, something they didn't know they had to do because that was not the precedent that had been set.

I think what most of us are upset about is the way the league is portraying Lidstrom and Datsyuk, not the suspension, although many of us do think the whole thing is a load of BS to begin with. When Lidstrom and Datsyuk declined to play because of injury they knew they would likely have to sit a game ... those were the rules. Then on Friday the league changed things up and decided that you could avoid the suspension just by showing up. At that point Lids and Pavel were likely long gone, because up until that point there was no expectation that injured players would still attend. Then the league decides to make an example of them, but they cite the REVISED rule, not the original rule that was in place when they made their decision. Now it appears the suspension is because they didn't care enough to show up, and many in the media are bashing them for being selfish and not appreciating the fans, the ASG, etc., when in reality at the time they told the league they wouldn't be playing due to injury there was no expectation that they would still attend. As for why we haven't heard anything from them, I would guess that 1. they are enjoying their family time, and 2. they will let the team, i..e Holland, Ilitch, Babs, etc. do the talking.

Right ... another way to think about it, you're icing the best team ever but you still have a salary cap. You can't afford to have Feds, Shanny and Yzerman on the 4th line, you have to pick the best depth players to fill out your team ...

If only it were a home game, I would suggest everyone wear Datsyuk and Lidstrom masks ... sounds like a good promotional giveaway.

I think he has, Harold. I dont feel like going back through all the pages here, but somewhere I remember reading that the team was aware of that and prepared to play without them if need be. I don't think that's what he's upset about. I think Holland's issue, and most of our issues, is that by Bettman eliminating Crosby's suspension for showing up at the meet-and-greets he changed the intention of the rule, from one designed to prevent players faking injury to one designed to have them present no matter what. Again, when Lidstrom and Datsyuk made their decisions not to attend the rule was the former, and the missed game was simply to verify their injuries. Since then, the rule has changed and now the missed game has become a punishment for not attending the other events, and they are being made an example of publicly for this.

How do you not understand that injured players have NEVER been expected to attend if they weren't playing, that is, until Bettman changed the new rule yesterday? How do you blow off something you aren't expected to attend in the first place?

The rule, as I understand it (and it doesn't seem to be written explicitly anywhere) was created to keep players from faking injuries. As it says here: Both will miss the Red Wings next game Tuesday night in Columbus under an NHL rule adopted last February that says players who skip the all-star game must demonstrate that they are really injured by sitting out either the game just before or just after the all-star break. link If this is the case, and it would make sense, then they have to sit out to prove they are injured. Holland had that discussion with league earlier in the week, and understood that. Assuming that was the intention of the rule, and Holland had no problem with it because it was agreed to at the last GM meeting, why would he call again to try to work out something different? Then the rule changed, apparently stemming from the conversation with Crosby, and in changing the details it changed the whole purpose of the rule. Explain to me how Crosby's appearance at the off-ice events verifies his injury? Instead of being designed to confirm the authenticity of a player's injuries, the rule became a punishment for not attending the event at all ... a completely different animal entirely! Datsyuk and Lidstrom made their decisions based on one rule, and now are being made an example of for breaking a different one.