lets go pavel

Bettman's going against his own trend of encouraging hockey teams to be located in warm-weather cities and is eyeing Chicago for a possible expansion team ... an outdoor game is a great way to gauge interest and drum up corporate sponsorship, and ... wait ... what's that you say? Chicago already has a team?

Turco + Semin + Abdelkader = The Turminader

Upshall + Hordichuk = Upchuk

Datsyuk + Osgood = Datsgood

I was just looking at ESPN.com to see if there were any more details on Sundin signing with Vancouver, and they have a caption saying we are still in the mix for his services ... not sure how the hell that's even possible? It's a "rumor central" story and I don't subscribe so I can't read it, but I thought maybe someone else here does and can check it out ... here's the link: link or rumor central

I agree for the most part, and I realize it's all about the $, and for ESPN the $ isn't in hockey anymore. Had they never given hockey any attention it wouldn't bother me so much, but it just irks me that they basically dropped all hockey coverage once they stopped carrying games, and now make fun of hockey for not getting media attention even though they are the ones not giving it the attention. Apart from that I don't think anyone is really bent out of shape about it, it's just one of those things you snicker at in passing.

But this is exactly the point, and what the thread was pointing out to begin with! If you ask any devoted hockey fans, most (not all) will agree that Crosby was not the best player in the league last year ... hell, for much of the regular season he wasn't even the best player on his team. This is why it is so appropriate that he win ... you have a network that barely acknowledges hockey, and when they do it usually revolves around him (not his fault), so it is fitting that their viewers voted for him.

Yes. One of the primary complaints on here about ESPN is that they broadcast all these other "sports" but give hockey almost no coverage. CBC and TSN aren't guilty if this. Why do you have such a problem with people complaining about ESPN? I don't hear anyone saying that they should love hockey, or that ESPN should recognize it as the greatest game ever, but if you watch their hockey coverage you would think there is only one team (Pittsburgh) and the season spans 2 weeks at the end of May/beginning of June. This irks people.

There are people who love hockey, and see fighting as an important part of the game. Moreover, fighting is an integral part in their enjoyment of the game. They love good dekes, fancy passing, sweet defense, great hits, awesome goaltending, pretty goals, and of course winning, but the package is not complete with some ass-kicking along the way. Since fighting is integral to their enjoyment if the game, it is natural that they want fighters on their team. There are people who love hockey and enjoy fighting, but don't feel it is integral to their enjoyment of the game. They love good dekes, fancy passing, sweet defense, great hits, awesome goaltending, pretty goals, and of course winning too, but they don't really care whether there is some ass-kicking along the way. They aren't against having fighters on the team, as long as the fighters aren't detrimental to the other things they love. I think that about sums it up ... can't we all just get along?

Unless I'm mistaken, the winners are chosen by fans voting online ... ESPN may have been responsible for the nominations, but not him winning. So I guess it just proves that people who watch ESPN don't watch hockey ...

seems like a no-brainer to me ... isn't it pretty obvious that leadership isn't leadership if no one listens, so you have to choose your leadership wisely? and experience does not equate to leadership ...

you'll notice he didn't say he "wasn't on drugs", just that he didn't have "a drug problem" ...

agreed, and actions speak louder than words ... he's talking the talk, now let's see if he can walk the walk ...

technically that's 2/18, the first time the teams won they weren't repeating ... still, 11% is higher than 3.3 ...

nah, he'll let his fists do the talking ... they transcend language barriers ...

i don't understand what you are objecting to ... it sounds like both you and he are agreeing that you have to have desire to repeat ...

my 2 cents regarding the original question about the instigator rule ... yes, i think it has contributed to the decreased # of fights ... not so much because the enforcers are afraid of a 2 minute penalty, but because their coaches are, particularly if the game is close ... now factor in that many of the enforcers are 4th line types who are clinging to their playing time by staying in their coach's good graces, and you're not going to have too many fights without the coach's approval ... in my opinion, the instigator rule has diminished the coaches' willingness to fight, not the enforcers' ...

personally i'd rather see the young guys, but i don't mind cheli and what he brings to the table ... don't forget, kenny said there's a good chance we'll be moving a d-man or two in september ... whether that means quincey or meech or lebda or lilja i guess depends on how camp goes, but once the dealing is done i'm guessing there won't be such a logjam and cheli will fit nicely in the 8th spot ... i do like the idea of him as a coach though ...

unless i'm mistaken, didn't the pens trade away malone's rights (and roberts', but primarily malone's) specifically because they needed cap space to sign hossa and they were given the impression that he would sign with them provided the money was there? that's why i would be pissed if i were a pens fan ... if the wings gave up the rights to one of our better players to sign hossa, and hossa said he wanted to play for us, and then went and signed elsewhere for less ... oh yeah, we'd all be pissed ... otherwise, the guy leaving is just sour grapes ...

i don't really have a problem with what he says either, although it's pretty funny how much he hates lowe ... most of it is true, but i'm not sure about the whole grenade thing though, i don't think the change really damages the league, just adds a bit more danger to free agency ... instead of waiting and paying free agents what they've earned (i.e. the second step) gms are now trying to lock players up to longer terms and paying more than what they've earned now but less then what they could be earning in the future ... it's not a bad strategy, but the obvious risk is that players won't end up earning their contracts, so it tends to reward teams with good scouts and talent evaluators ...

i don't know, i can pretty easily understand why they're pissed ... they gave up quite a bit at the deadline to get hossa, obviously with the hopes of locking him up longterm, and then they trade malone's rights to open up cap space for hossa (and malkin) ... i'm sure at some point before all this they talked to hossa and he gave them the impression that he wanted to stay ... had he left for more $ that pittsburgh couldn't match then that's one thing, but it's pretty clear he came to detroit not for the money but because he'd rather play here ... so he did screw them over a bit ... but hey, i'm not complaining a bit

come on kenny, now we just need to sign flip ... franzen - filppula - hossa ... the mule, the filly, and the hoss

yeah, that's what i was just wondering about ... suppose the economy tanks and revenues drop significantly ... i assume the salary cap would then drop ... so then what happens? would teams have to start buying players out of contracts, only to watch them turn around and sign elsewhere for less? would teams be able to renegotiate with their own players? seems like an incentive to actually leave some cap space unused just in case, although i guess every team has a few players they can do without ...

huet wants to start ... not gonna happen here

seriously ... any idea how much huet was asking for?