lets go pavel

I actually wonder of Holland is going to sign anyone else before summer. It seems pretty clear that some guys are going to be gone, and if he starts signing people now it'll be pretty obvious who's not coming back. I realize they are all professionals, but I wonder how it would affect the lockerroom if some of our guys, whoever they might be, know they won't be back next year. Perhaps it would be better to deal with all of that after the playoffs?

Yeah, I don't see the hating either. I'm not sure Datsyuk is the most valuable player, but he deserves to be mentioned ... he was. Lidstrom has not had his best year, while other defensemen have raised their game. I don't see a problem ...

Indeed!

If he still had the kids with her then yes, he probably would still have to pay. A guy commits adultery, and you blame the fallout on marriage? You're a gem, Mindfly.

True, but it is an interesting idea ... instead of contracts that specify a dollar amount, the contracts could be for a % of the cap. Hank and Pavel get 11%, Holmstom 5%, etc ... obviously the team has to be under 100%. Of course then the big issue would become how the cap is calculated ...

They usually don't so long as the economy and the league are healthy. The NFL has a hard cap tied to revenue, and it remains to be seen whether they will be affected adversely. The NBA has a soft cap tied to revenues, and already there are signs of teams cutting salaries and trying to save. The cap in both sports may well drop in 2010, just as is predicted with the NHL. You're right, comparing normal folks to sports is not the same, but some of the same principals of fiscal reponsibility apply.

True, but what happens when your neighbor's lack of income means he stops taking care of his property? Now consider that the increased money you spend on your property makes his property look even worse. Multiply that by half of your neighbors, and you have a neighborhood with dropping property values. Like it or not, the huge discrepancy in income and spending can be detrimental to the health of the neighborhood, just as it can for the league. (It's not the perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.)

Good point ... maybe the NHL should just get rid of the cap and start filling out the bailout applications instead!

What doesn't make sense about it? It's like tying how much you spend on groceries to how much you earn each month. If your income drops, aren't you going to try to spend a little less at the grocery store? (edit: typo)

The cap isn't designed to prevent teams from having financial problems, it's designed to keep them (mostly) competitive without having to compete financially with the richer teams. Without a cap teams either spend more than they should to field a competitive team, or they spend what they can afford and hope for a miracle or risk losing their fanbase. The cap doesn't guarantee a profit, but it should help.

Not going to happen. A soft cap doesn't do anything, teams who are willing to spend over the limit have no issue paying the luxury tax, and the tax isn't enough to help the poorer teams be able to afford the same kind of talent. It has been suggested that players who play for the team that drafted them should only have a portion of their salary count towards the cap, and this I think would be more likely to happen. Every team would potentially benefit equally (depending on their ability to scout and draft, obviously) and it would make it easier to keep the home-grown talent. This I would be in favor of ...

Nashville has a potentially brutal schedule from here on out ... SJ twice, Anaheim twice, Detroit twice, Columbus twice, Chicago twice, LA and Minnesota 7 of 12 on the road, where they are 14-17-4 St. Louis has a slightly easier schedule, but 9 of 13 on the road. I'd be surprised if either of them make it, but it would be cool.

It's not about needing to be defended, it's about setting a tone. If the other team is allowed to pound on our skill guys and we never hit them back (and this doesn't have to mean fighting, just returning the physical play) it tells the other team they can keep it up all day long with no consequences, and it would likely be a long game for us. On the other hand, if we bring the physicality too it sends the other team the message that we won't be intimidated and they have nothing to gain with the big hits.

Yes, I like this. The only time anyone should get a point for a loss is in the shootout. An OT loss shouldn't be rewarded any more than a regulation loss, and an OT win should be worth the same as a regulation win.

So it seems. As for the Godfathers, I honestly don't even bother to compare the two ... in my mind they were both epic.

Are you sure you're old enough to understand the Godfather? Godfather II is widely regarded as one of the few sequels to equal or better the original. Your posts are starting to smell like pre-deodorant teenager ... and why are you following GMR around, nipping at his heels?

Bitter, are we?

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but have any of them ... NHL, GMs, owners, etc ... actually explained what the specific problem is with fighting that they're trying to solve? If it's the potential for injury/death, I don't see how eliminating some fighting accomplishes that at all; the only logical solution would seem to be to ban fighting entirely (not saying that's what I want, but it would be the logical fix to that particular problem). If that isn't the impetus for all this, then what is?

The fact that we have a team so stacked with talent that we CAN play almost the entire season half-assed and still be at the top of the league is great. The fact that we have a team so stacked with talent and we HAVE played almost the entire season half-assed is a concern. I realize it's a cliche to say "you can't just turn it on when the playoffs start", but it's a cliche for a reason. There have been times where it does seem like we turn it on for the big games, but there have also been plenty of times where we haven't. I hope we don't go into the playoffs with the same up-and-down play that we've been seeing ...

Maybe ... but I guess my point was that there was really noone else who could have gone down because of contracts, not so much because of what they bring to the table. Maltby and Draper aren't going to GR. Meech stayed because he plays F and D. That pretty much leaves Kopecky, and I think we would have risked losing him to waivers had we tried to send him down. Looking at it that way, I'm not sure they decided to give Downey's spot to someone else, but rather there was never a spot for him to begin with this year, particularly once we signed Hossa.

I see what you mean, but I'm still not sure I'm buying it. If he doesn't cost us games, then obviously there's no harm in giving him a roster spot. If he does cost us games, I think you could still argue similarly to GMR that the Wings are in a better position than the lesser skilled teams to give him the spot. Sure, the expectations are higher, but a point or two means significantly less to us, even as we're trying to win the division, than it does to the myriad of teams trying to scratch their way into the bottom half of the playoffs. I disagree. I think his lack of games this year has more to do with the players/contracts we had already committed playing time to, combined with the glut of forwards we already didn't have playing time for. If they had actually made a decision not to play him, why would they bring him up for the last couple games? Why even give him a contract at all?

I assume a "clean hit" would be one that isn't penalized? So no fighting unless a penalty is called ... except that then there's a stoppage, and a faceoff ... so no fighting then either. So I guess they just fight later ... except, of course, that probably makes it staged. Doesn't sound like there's gonna be a whole lot of fighting going on ...

Why do you assume having Downey on the roster will cost us games? Last year Downey played 56 games and we finished with 115 points, the President's Trophy, and the Stanley Cup. I can't imagine the Wings' management looks at that, shakes their heads, and say "nope, not doing that again".

Can't see the picture, but could they be for winning President's Trophies? What are the dates? Just found it, it's for the President's Trophy before there was such a thing ... from Wikipedia "The trophy was introduced at the start of the 1985–86 NHL season by the league's Board of Governors. Prior to this, the best team in the league during the regular season was allowed to hang a banner stating "NHL League Champions"."

What is meaningless about what he's saying? His point is that we haven't won without the toughness ... thus it is logical to conclude that if we want to win, we need the toughness. Throwing pumpkin in a bowl doesn't give you a pumpkin pie, but you sure as hell can't make one without it. Just because toughness doesn't guarantee a Stanley Cup win doesn't mean it isn't a necessary ingredient.