Frozen-Man

It doesn't matter just as long as there is a trade so that posters on this forum don't get bored.

I'm kind of indifferent on walker but think Afinegenov would be a good pick up if the price is right.

Way to convieniently leave out the word that refutes your comment.

Yeah Babcock did all that not the "Superstars" actually in the game. The guys resume is freaking incredible but it must all be just lucky that every team he has coached has succeeded in spite of him.

Um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I guess Babcock is a great coach again.

I'm not too big on overcelebration but I think some of this is just sour grapes over losing. The USA kids were constantly told that it is Canada's sport and that Canada was going to win so yeah it is a much bigger deal to them when they win. QFT You also have the longest confirmed sniper kill at 2,430 meters (or 1.51 miles) that is incredible and something I would brag about if I were Canadian. Absolutely true. I can't think of anything that is more showboat, arrogant, condescending, in your face, and yet more beloved and revered by Canada than Don Cherry.

My "ee my comments above" statement was in reference to my comment above in the same post, sorry if that wasn't clear. The point I am making is that Babcock has said enforcers are important and helpful when we had one signed and planned on playing him a fair bit, however, the point you never talk about is that he said roughly the opposite in previous years when he was not dressing an enforcer. For you to act as if you and Babcock are simpatico because you chose to ignore some of his statements and only acknowledge other comments that happen to fit your predetermined stance is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Oh I would definitely agree with that. I think that Babs likes having an enforcer much more than Kenny does (I don't think Kenny is against them I think he just wants them to be well rounded players as well). My point is that there is no way that Babs didn't have a very large say in who got waived and if he had not wanted May to have been waived I don't think that he would have been. I think Babcock probably has a lot of sway, once players are under contract and on the team, as to what happens with them. The point is that Babcock like all good coaches, GMs, players, and team specific analysts always looks at the positives of the players currently on their team. That is why when the Wings don't have an enforcer Babcock and Kenny talk about how the power play is the most important deterrent or that a player's skill is the most important. However, when the Wings have an enforcer dressed for most of the season (or right after they sign a guy almost exclusively for the purpose of being an enforcer) they talk about how important it is that a team have an enforcer to help limit cheap shots and brush the flies away. All teams and all coaches do this, it is part of playing the game and selling the product you are putting on the ice. The purpose of my comment was Micah's insistence that he is a hockey expert and that Mike Babcock and he are of the same mind because when the team signed and dressed an enforcer he made comments similar to what Micah always espouses but Micah just glosses over the fact that he is the player waived by Kenny, Babs, and Co. (and I do think that Babcock could have kept it from happening if he thought it was best to keep May) and that last year when the team had Downey down in GR rather than up with the Wings (for the most part) Babs talked as if having an enforcer was not that big of a deal. It is the cherry picking and contradiction that Micah glosses over that I was pointing out. See my comments above.

I don't mind them too much but I agree I wish that they would make them less bright.

First off let me say I honestly can't believe you called yourself a hockey expert. Second, to build off Doc's statement Exactly, the only real hockey expert you referenced just sent May through waivers (over guys like Meech and Lebda) and no team took him. Babs obviously didn't think that it was near as important as you keep insisting he does. Exactly, I liked having May on the team. I liked what he brought and thought that he did a great job for what he was paid and the role that he was given. This is not an anti-enforcer post just an anti-dumb statement post.

Touché sir. I guess that wasn't much of a proclamation I made.

I guess that finally puts an end to E_S_A_D's claim that the Shark's success is due to Shelly. LOL. I would think that you would get more for a guy who was responsible for your teams success.

I can't imagine the Hawks doing this, it doesn't really help their cap space a lot unless they don't intend on signing Wiz next year and just getting the benefit of of the picks that they would get from him being a RFA. The problem would be that in order to retain his RFA status the Hawks would have to offer Wiz 2.75M to keep him from becoming an UFA, that is a big gamble for a cap strapped team. If they don't make the offer Wiz walks away and any team can pick him up with no compensation at all to the Hawks. If they keep Barker his salary is only 3.083 and has 2 more years left on his contract and then is still a RFA. I think it is much better to trade him for picks and such after the season as this may be their best shot at the Cup. Plus according to McKenzie IF Chi-Min deal goes down, I believe Kim Johnsson ends up in Chicago and Cam Barker goes to Minny but it may be bigger and it isn't done yet

I guess that is just one of those things we will have to disagree on, I think that there is much more disparity between the best and the worst forwards than there is between the best and worst goalies. No real way to prove who is right.

I am not saying that Ovechkin and Crosby are not two of the best players, what I am saying is that there is much more disparity between the top twenty and the bottom twenty forwards than there is between the top five and the bottom 6 goalies in the NHL. The much larger pool of forwards allows for much less talented players to be included in that pool. Compare the very best NHL forward and the very worst NHL forward, there is much more disparity in their play than the best NHL goalie and the worst NHL goalie. I agree that you don't have to compete with as many people once you are in the group of 60 but that group is much harder to get into because only 60 are allowed in. That usually means that the overall quality is better because the group is much harder to get into. Again, That doesn't mean that Ovechkin is not the best player in the NHL but merely that the overall quality of NHL goaltenders is better than the overall quality of forwards.

Your argument here is also its own downfall. Why are their many less goalies than there are forwards? One of the main reasons is that they are a cream of the crop position and it is much harder to crack into the circuit of professional goalies at all. The point is that the pool of goalies in the NHL are almost all incredible players, while the pool of forwards or defensemen are not collectively as impressive. Take Lebda for example, compare his play to that of most other defensemen, if he was a goalie in the NHL and his play was relatively as bad among his peers he would not be employed as an NHL goalie. There is incredibly hard to find a really bad goalie (not saying that a goalie might not have an off slump or even an off year but if it is longer that that if there is any way a team can get rid of him they will) starter or backup in the NHL but it is relitavely easy to find several pretty bad (comparatively) forwards and Dmen per team. Put another way you may be the worst Navy Seal in your unit but you are still a heck of a lot better than almost any normal Naval corpsman. Again it is not a statistical fact because the pools that you are drawing from are not all homogeneous.

Ah gotcha. My mistake I thought you meant that as a response to me. I would actually agree with you, at least partially, while I don't think it is the most interesting I will be extremely pissed if they ever take fighting out of the game. One of the best things about hockey is that where other North American pro sports have athletes sitting out with turf toe and other such injuries hockey players seem to be of a different breed and I think that playing in a game where there is fighting is a large part of the reason why. Additionally, I think it helps keep egos and attitudes in check. I can't hardly stand the NBA because after every play some guy is strutting around, pulling on his jersey, and acting cocky and condescending. If that guy knew he would likely get punched in the face for such actions I think there would be a lot less of it. I think that is one of the main reason you see so many hockey players who are more grounded and down to earth.

That is great news. Hope he can help spark the team for a few games and then get some good rest!

I don't recall ever arguing that a fight like that did anything to distrupt the flow of the game. I wasn't discussing that at all. Nice try attempting to pin me to an argument that I never made. My general point is that I see no need to go around verbally dry humping any player who ever drops the gloves for any reason at all. You almost never discuss any other aspect of the game but rather instead had infatuation with only the fighting aspect of the game. 95% of your posts are about how fighting in hockey is the greatest thing ever (with most of those also bashing everything about the Wings).

Wow talk about terrorism! Raise the threat level to red.

Lol, yeah that's what I figured (and I agree Clark would have gone after him anyway), it just made me chuckle after I watched the whole thing so I thought I'd harass you about it. Great video though either way!

Well done! That was hilarious.

I think Tommy Callahan You know big Tom Callahan's son - The heir to Callahan Auto Parts Isn't that the truth - that would have been pure entertainment. UM. . . . . . . . . . . . . Did you watch the whole video and listen to the commentary at the end "It might have been an elbow . . . It might have been an elbow, no doubt about that." I'm not sure but I think Rule 46 says: So your example while entertaining and a great fight to watch doesn't really do much in the way of proving that there was retaliation in the past for clean hits . . . as there was no clean hit in the video. (I do however agree that it has always been part of the game but think in the past it was a minor part of the game and has been occuring with more and more frequency all the time).