stormboy

the whole cap situation is frustrating to me. it would be great to bring up some combination of helm, lieno, abdelkader, and downey and scratch guys like malts, drapes, and fil for a few games. a) we would get a better idea of how those guys fit in the lineup and b) it might inspire a bit more work ethic from the aforementioned veterans.

yeah, you guys are right, it was kinda funny. my first reaction, though, was "f*** off and shut up. no one likes you." someone was trying REALLY hard to sarcastically make a point. way too hard. see you in the finals, if you make it there.

well said, friends. the only time i liked commodore was when he was beating the oilers in the SCF. babcock wasn't GM, correct? how did he trade commodore. lastly, as you guys have mentioned he admits that his conditioning sucked and that he drank more than he worked out. and yet he's mad at babs for calling him out? what he SHOULD be saying is, "wow, i respect that babs was real enough with me to show me where i needed improvement. without that kick in the ass, i probably wouldn't be the successful player that i am today." geez... edit: spelling.

no good...*grunts* known too many...spaniards. *cough* anyway, my big thing has always been more about passion than anything. i don't care if you fight, facewash, or go crazy after scoring a beautiful fineness goal, just get excited! i feel like wings players don't even raise their hands half the time when they score. they just kind of skate towards each other all ho-hum. i remember when hossa scored his first goal of the season, that OT winner, he did the whole one knee fist-pump thing, and i remember being really excited that we were going to have a fiery goal scorer on the team. now when he scores, i see no excitement on his face. nothing. same goes for just about everyone. people criticized ovie for his over the top goal celebrations, but i'll be damned if that doesn't get the fans' blood boiling. as others have said, last night when players were laying hits and dats was all in that guy's s***, that was some of the most exciting stuff i've seen from the wings. maybe it's hard for them to muster up passion while they're just cruising for the playoffs... so maybe it is a case of cup hangover for both the team and the fans. maybe most people are just bandwagon fans. but i bet the ratings (and intensity) go up come april.

i'd like to agree with you, but i'll believe it when i see it.

is that a response to what Legendary said? Crosby went and jumped through the media hoops even though he "couldn't" play in the game. if dats or lids would have jumped through the media hoops as well and spent the weekend in montreal, they wouldn't have been suspended. Legendary is right. there wasn't a "special exemption" made for crosby...he followed the rules.

maybe we should fire downey and d-mac and hire bettman as our enforcer. it would get him out of the commissioner's chair.

this is not meant sarcastically...i just don't understand how aiming at a corner is different than picking a spot. if a corner is a spot on the net, isn't shooting at a corner picking a spot? maybe i'm missing something...

hmmm..right, i see what you're saying. if "reaction" means always going for the top shelf in a scramble (like you stated) then probably the pads would have absolutely zero effect. if, in a scramble, you *are* able to take a *very* quick look out of the corner of your eye to see if you can sneak in a shot on the short side or something like that, then i think there's the *possibility* that a misleading pad might make someone think "net-tip" in a tiny fraction of second based out of a glimps of the corner of their eye. maybe this never happens, and maybe in only happens every once in a while--again, i'm not a player, so i'll deffer to you here. obviously, if anyone had time to look and think they would not be confused by the pads. i guess i was just trying to imagine a situation where it was possible that it might have some effect. do you feel that there is a zero per cent chance that it would ever have any effect, ever?

i'm not a player, so i can't speak from experience, but the bolded bit of your post actually seems to agree with the theory of the pad design. the less time you have to think and the more you're relying on instinct, the more likely any visual confusion is likely to have an effect. that being said, it still seems to me that 90-99 % of the time, the design of the pads wouldn't make any difference. but as someone mentioned earlier, it's more about confidence. if putting black tape on your stick or a twine design on your pads makes you feel like you have an edge, you're likely to play with just a bit more swagger. this would likely have an effect on your game, whether or not the actual pads/tape make any literal difference. it's like players getting a new stick when they're on a cold streak. it probably doesn't make any actual difference...but even not being a hockey player, i know when something isn't going right in whatever i'm doing, i quickly begin to think that i need to change something. whether that something that i change actually makes a difference or not, i'm now ready to attack the problem with a fresh perspective and enthusiasm. will these pads make me a world class goalie? no. might they help some other goaltender play with a bit more confidence? possibly. thus, if the kid (or rather, his parents) have the cash to pay for the pads, more power to them.

fair enough to respond in kind. i am not usually a combative poster; will you at least acknowledge the fact that stating that you are not going to watch a game because you assume your team is going to lose is a little...weak, at least. by the way: i at least gave reasons for my combativeness. you gave none.

you, sir, are a dick. the rest of your post actually makes logical sense, but f*** you if you're not willing to stay up and watch the game because you assume we're going to lose. fans watch every last minute of a 7-0 loss. enjoy your bandwagon victories; the wings will give you plenty.

having not heard babs's statements in context, i can't necessarily judge them. in once sense, it WAS the game: if dats scores and clearly scores in front of the net (all he had to do was elevate the puck), it's a 7-6 game instead of a 5-6 game. i think that's the point he was making. i don't think he was excusing the 5 GA, especially the last two breakaway goals. he could have also equally said, "if ozzie makes those two saves, we win. that's the game." or, he could have said, "if our D didn't allow two breakaways in the third, that's the game." all are true. we needed a) a couple more timely goals; b) better D in the third c) a couple of great saves from out goaltender. one of three would have won us the game. we didn't get any. you can pin the loss on any one of those three things, but it's not just ONE of them that was the problem. if d fails, goalie has to bail them out. if d and goalie fail, offense has to bail them out. if offense fails, d and/or goalie has to bail them out. no one did. that's why we lost.

although i'm slightly frustrated by your list of numbers with no denotations (i'm assuming that the 616/658 stats are saves made this season? 48 and 77 are goals against?) i get your point. there were probably few here who would have put ozzie in net tonight...though most of us still love him (i certainly do). conks is clearly playing better right now. why they chose to play ozzie will probably be a mystery that will never be solved.

me. too. and that's why we're wings fans. cheers.

i acknowledge your sarcasm but just am building on the point. datsyuk's wasn't that much of a breakaway. we gave them two pristine breakaways in the 3rd period of a tight game. yeah, we could hope that ozzie makes the save on at least one of two. but our philosophy has never been to have a game-stealing goalie. we need to be way more responsible and not give breakaways like that. those two plays were the reason we lost the game. stuart should have played the ******* body. oh, and losing one of our most clutch scorers for the third period didn't help, either.

we'd probably have to give more than trade value for backstrom to clear capspace. i'm not even sure i'd want to trade in position players/picks what backstrom would be worth, much less additional players just to clear room. do not want.

am i the only one who's a little surprised that is was the jackets that claimed him? is leclaire still injured? 'cause if not they've got a great starter and a backup who has struggled this year, but does have a lot of potential. sorry about it, new york junior.

while i agree that the NHL needs a better TV deal, every person employed by ESPN mocks the NHL whenever they have a chance. if it's not football, baseball, and often basketball, no one gives a s*** on that network. and the thing is, it's about supply and demand. most american sports fans watch ESPN; most of them don't want to hear about hockey. football players' off-season, off-the-field antics get more coverage than the SCF when it's going on. ESPN will pay attention to hockey when paying attention to hockey generates revenue for them. while i agree that bettman and others need to do more to promote the game, you realistically can't except any kind of ESPN coverage at this point. i know you weren't blaming ESPN for not covering hockey, necessarily, but it's the reality of the league and the market right now. one of my points in an earlier post was that, yes, some fans might be unhappy about it...but if it grows the game, that means better tv deals which means more viewers -> more fans -> more league revenues -> higher cap...which also, incidentally, means the wings will be even better. just a thought.

i know this has been explained in previous threads, but i suck at CBA rules. let's say that he gets signed for 10 years and 75 million. obviously, he's going to get paid more next year than in the tenth year of the deal, but is the total cap hit distributed evenly throughout the contract? meaning z's cap hit would be 7.5 million each year even though the wings will actually be paying him maybe 9 million next season and 3 or 4 a season by the end of the deal? it seems to me that z might be a 7.5 million dollar player over the next few years, but isn't going to be a 7.5 million dollar player for the next ten. that means that he'll be getting paid well over 7.5 in the next few years...which seams high to me, especially since he's having an off year (points-wise) in a contract year...but being the reigning MVP, maybe that doesn't factor in much at this point.

i didn't realize the standings were that close. s***. we could take over 1st in the conference with this win (though the sharks will have a game in hand). we could also tie for first in the league if boston loses in regulation and we win tomorrow night. not that "top spot" matters for anything other than bragging rights right now, but it's an exciting night...!

OP: congrats on starting a thread that actually inspired discourse and not flame wars. i'm inclined to agree with those who have said that a) the money would be better spent on upgrading the D, and b) we have gotten a lot of pretty good play out of cheap goalies these last few years. unless our system changes, money is better spent on D men and 2-way forwards that can keep number of shots low and to the outside. if we spend $5 million less on a goalie, that's either one pretty good d-man or a couple of defensive, checking forwards, or an upgrade from a goal-scorer to a goal-scorer that can play on both ends of the rink. unless our system changes, i wouldn't see holland going after a big-name goalie. and it's not like we don't have goalie prospects. yeah, even if none of them are absolutely lights out, they can be ozzie-quality and still be serviceable. plus, holland, it seems, has a way of snagging good goalies for cheap, conks being the obvious example.

s***. qft. i mean, i love ozzie, and i do have confidence in him (i thought he actually played well in dallas--it was the absolute defensive collapse that lost us the game), but like others have said, why not ride the hot goalie? i love conks, too. ozzie has posted a 3.30-ish GAA over his last seven; conks is at about 1.58 GAA over that span. why not go with the guy whose season GAA is almost a full goal lower, whose save percentage is almost .040 higher, and who dominated the sharks last game. but maybe babs has a good feeling and wants ozzie to get a win over a good team. let's hope to hell he's right. god, i start getting nervous about 24 hours before every sharks game.

i think he was saying new york and some other western conference team, which had the better of the records. thus new york, given that the finals are IN the "neutral" site of new york city, gets effectively home games despite having the worse record.. edit: this is a concern of mine as well, but i think if you look at football history it has rarely occurred that one team got a vast advantage from the stadium being very near their home city. i don't *think* it's ever happened that the team from the super bowl city has played in the super bowl, but my history could be wrong here (not a huge NFL fan). i say that just to point out that statistically, it's not very likely that that scenario would occur... also, perhaps they could write a clause into the "agreement" or whatever that has a back-up city in the rare event that one of the two finals teams is FROM the city where the final games are to be staged. the original city, then, would become the host for next season (so they don't get screwed on revenue).