Frozen-Man

1. GMR is intelligible - you are not. 2. That was supposed to be rational not rationale as you very well know (and thus destroy your argument in comment 5). Additionally, I do not think you want to get into calling out grammar or spelling since in just the post I am responding to you failed to note that: a) match ups is two words not one; b) tough guys is two words not one; c) "exagerations" is actually spelled exaggerations; d) "scoreers" is spelled scorers; "injurred" is spelled injured; e) cheap shots is two words not one. There are other grammatical mistakes but these basic ones that any 4th grader would know illustrate my point that when typing mistakes are made and with the rapid and constant mistakes that you make you would be well advised to not go down that path. 3. Yeah if Babcock is making sure he put May out on the ice every time Laraque is out there then it will have an impact on who he has on the ice including his stars. It is silly to suggest otherwise, any choice to have a player out on the ice every time a specific player for the other team is out on the ice will impact the entire rotation. 4. Apparently it doesn't matter, you said in another thread that Laraque yet he did cheap shot Kronner (I wouldn't call Kronner a weakling but again you can't help but trash the Wings) so what he would usually do doesn't matter much does it. Oh and as an aside and back to point two even if you turn cheap shot into an action it is still two words not one). 5. My proposal is that this is hockey and guys get hurt all the time on each team. It is ludicrous that while injuries are happening to all teams you argue that somehow Detroit's but not other teams are because there is no enforcer. In fact depending on the report used there are roughly 98 guys with reported injuries in the NHL or approximately 3.26 players per team. Detroit has 5 players injured and one of them was injured last year, so only 4 injured this year, hardly way above the league average. The whole league has seen a slew of injuries lately some due to dirty plays and other due to pure accident but you continue to argue if May was just in the game there would be ponies and rainbows and everything would have been wonderful. However, consider the Stars / Blue Jacket game, Boll didn't stop Neal from slamming Dorsett's head into the board did it? No, because this happens all the time to all teams throughout the league but somehow the Wings injuries are always chalked up to not being tough enough or not having an enforcer. FYI I wish May was in the game, and I love every time he fights and wish he would have been in the game and fought that night, I'm just not delusional enough to think it would have changed what happened to Kronner.

Of all the dumb things you have said, and there are mountains, your statement in bold is perhaps the pinnacle. First of lumping yourself in with guys like GMR is ridiculous, he is intelligible, rational, and reasonable. Second, your metered and reasonable argument is that is Babcock should have spent his time chasing a matchup with George Laraque rather than with Montreal's stars. Great idea. So Babs has now changed his game plan and made sure he has May out every time Laraque is out just in case. Then you assume if May had been out Laraque wouldn't have done anything to any of the Wings, or that after the first action (the highstick) May would have seen it (which he might not have), chased down Laraque and fought him so that he wouldn't intentionally take out Kronner's knee. Then you assume that after May had prevented the injury by fighting May Laraque would have been placated and would not have done anything to anyone the rest of the game. Very metered and rational.

The point is that you would never make the joke "Edge Ericcson" as it is in favor of the Red Wings instead of trashing them. It comes from a totality of the circumstances wherein you always bash the Wings. Yeah the joke remains the same, but the butt of the joke doesn't and that is where my comment was directed, toward your incessant and never ending bashing of the Wings.

The thing is ESAD whether kidding or not you always make Detroit's players, coaches, staff, management, and/or ownership the butt of your "jokes" or criticism. It's not a lack of sense of humor, its the fact that the joke would have been the same if you gave the "edge" to the Detroit player or to the opposition but you almost ALWAYS give the edge to the opposition and bash the Wings, that is why there is no humor it just gets old to scroll down and when you see your icon know it will inevitably somehow bash the Wings.

I never would have guessed you would be against the Red Wings player.

What gives with you wanting to dry hump any player who plays physical. That is the only demension of any player that you ever talk about or seem to think matters. The wings picked up May and play him but still you whine, we get the guy off waivers, on a two way contract, for table scraps and still all you can do is post a "I hate Holland" and "No other skill matters as long as they are physical." Pretty pathetic. But . . . But . . . But . . . all that matters in any player is that he is physical any other reason, rationale, ability, or skill is unimportant - and it must be true because ESAD said it and he has really impressive credentials he watches lots of hockey. But he is not physical enough for ESAD so it must be a bad deal. ESAD reminds be of a quote from a Ron White "he's one of those guys who likes to go home, watch Roadhouse, and beat off." Not to mention that Brad May, who ESAD lusts after, thought it was a pretty good idea and lobbied to bring the kid on - "(May and Bertuzzi) gave him strong endorsements and our video coach (Keith McKittrick) has been involved with him (at MSU)," Babcock said. "They all thought he was a player who was intelligent, could play all parts of the game and it would be a boost to our team. He can play the game offensively and defensively and he can skate, so he should help us."

I'm not sure they can show that move on network channels.

I agree with what your saying doc. I think Jimmy D may have been giving this interview more for the benefit of the team than of the fans. There has to be big difference between hearing pep rally speeches in the locker room and in hearing management basically denigrating the potential of you as a player and the team you play on. I could be wrong but I'll bet this eats on some of the Wings and I'm sure Jimmy knew it would when he said it, which makes these statements even more important:

Yeah that's right I get center Ice every year and you get basically every game for every team unless they are on VS, NBC, or local area black out. So almost every Wings game. FSN blacks out those games unless you are in their local area i.e. the Detroit area. You get pre and post game but not the game itself. Sorry, sucks I know but I tried that a few years ago and no dice.

NHL Hall of Famer and fan favourite Lanny McDonald, NHL Hall of Famer and six-time Stanley Cup-winner Glenn Anderson, legendary enforcers Tie Domi and Bob Probert, two-time Stanley Cup-winner and Hockey Night in Canada analyst Craig Simpson, and two-time Stanley Cup-winner Stéphane Richer will go head-to-head in this fierce competition. These hockey heavyweights will be paired with some of Canada’s top female figure skaters in a competitive and thrilling pairs showdown beginning this October. How hilarious will that be, to see Proby and Domi go at it again for the title belt. Too bad the title belt will be best figure skater. I never saw either one of these guys being on a show like this but I'll bet it is entertaining. Edit: I wonder which one will look the best in a sequined jumpsuit.

QFT

Yeah, but sadly not as much as I had pictured.

Excellent. I hope it will be great for the sport. I have always said that is one of the reasons that the NHL lags some in the USA, all the other major sports (well not baseball quite as much but still more than hockey) have close ties to the NCAA and people become fans of the players when they are in college (especially football and basketball) and that breads more excitement for when they move up to the pros.

I agree this team looks weaker than last year but we knew that it would before last year started. We had the perfect storm for the cap era and the team didn't manage to take full advantage of it. We knew last year Hossa likely wouldn't stay because of cap reasons, Mule and Z were due to get HUGE raises and to a lesser extent Sammy and Huds were too, there is simply no way not matter what that the Wings on paper could possibly look as strong this year as they did last year. They had the benefit of players that they signed as reclamation projects who panned out big (and I assume this is what they are hoping for with Eaves and to a lesser extent Williams) and players who were were playing with RFA contracts well below their value. This was inevitable (although it turned out a little worse than most expected what with Hudler and all). I agree, I think that the team would benefit from someone with some grit and great checking skills but the thing is we never know what Kenny and Co. offered other free agents or what they wanted, perhaps other free agents that were somewhere in our price range wanted too many years or NTCs or something else that the management thought made them unrealistic options.

I think that is a brilliant move on his part, there is no telling what will happen with the hard cap that the NHL has and the large dip the cap may take because of the economy. Holland may have tons of cash to spend next year and be able to lock up or trade (with a heavily cap pressed team) to get some good assets. I think that being well under the cap will be great for the Wings next year, much more than picking up a marginally better player this year but losing that cap space for the next few years. There are a few posters like that but then there are guys like Micah who seem to do nothing but trash the Wings about almost every thing, from management, to coaching, to players. Forums like this always have people on the extreme, but they are on both sides of this argument, and sometimes the "go cheer for another team" comments are because guys get tired of coming here and having their team, players, management, and owners trashed nonstop. That is where the frustration and "go cheer for another team" comes from, if we wanted to read posts of people dumping on the Wings all the time we would go to http://letsgopens.com/ or some other team's fan site (this is not directed toward rational fan's discussions or critiques of the Wings but rather guys who conically gripe and complain).

Yeah this is hilarious but kinda weird. I posted a thread about this a couple of weeks ago. Interesting update on the show.

Funny, you say that I can "juggle it" when you're the one saying you shouldn't talk trash without backing it up but then when called out for talking trash you say oh they are public figures so disregard what I said before because then its ok but just for me not for Maltby or Mule I can do it but they can't. Yeah I'm the one juggling.

Horrible and very twisted logic. One is a style of play that every team can and does control, and that any, all, or none of the NHL are capable of being at the same time. It is in no way mutually exclusive. The other is a position that is only capable of being held by any one team to the exclusion of all others. It is also something that is partially out of the team's own control, injuries, bounces, missed calls, seeding and hundreds of other factors affect that status. It is a ridiculous assertion on your part.

Wait . . . all the guys you constantly trash on the Wings for talking crap are talking it to other public figures so according to you that shouldn't have to back up what they say right. I mean you just told Egroen that it is ok for you to be hypocritical because public figures are fair game (apparently your moral compass allows actions to be ok depending upon who you are trashing) so those public figures ought to be fair game for guys like Mule and Maltby too, right? Or in another crazy twist of logic is it only ok to ridicule and trash public figures if you yourself are not a public figure?

I'm not sure how that works exactly though, in order to be in the NHL at 44 they had to be in the NHL at 42 as well (unless they were a 43 year old rookie or retired and then made a comeback). It seems like that almost all the 44 year old guys would have played at 42 as well so the number would have to be smaller. It is not certain that as the rule stands what the Hawks did was legitimate and they did enact provisions in the current CBA regard attempts to circumvent the cap (which is what they are investigating the Hawks for). Article 26 of the current CBA has the explicit purpose and is designed "to prohibit and prevent conduct that Circumvents the terms of [the CBA:]" If Hossa gets injured they put him on LTIR and are allowed to go over the cap by the amount of his salary while he is injured, if he doesn't play well they assign him to the minor leagues and his salary doesn't count against the cap, and if he retires (for any reason including injury or he doesn't play well any more) his salary doesn't count against the cap. The Hawks still have to pay his salary but there is no cap hit which is a team like Chicago's biggest concern.

I don't know if the two additional years tacked on to the contract had any role in triggering the investigation. I doubt that without other factors it would not have been enough, however, I there is a big difference between a contract until 40 and a contract until 42. As a tax attorney I was constantly told by my professors in law school and when I got my LLM "Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered." For example, if you have a small corporation and make sure all share holders have minority interests (less than 50% ownership) when you transfer shares to your children the valuation of your shares can be discounted for lack of control/lack of marketability thus reducing the value of the transfer. There is no set amount as to what the discount is it is up to the seller to get a valuation based upon these discounts but even that is at best an educated guess. Most of the time the attorney and the client decide on a discount somewhere in the 25-35% range but sometimes a client likes to gamble and will push it up into the 40-50% range. I have never seen a client get audited by the IRS over a discount of 25% and only heard of once that they audited at 35% but you get into the 40%+ range and audits become more and more likely increasing exponentially the greater the discount. This is a maxim that hold true with these contracts as well. At some point what is seen as creatively gaming the system comes to look egregious and without merit. At some point the scales tip in the favor of violating Article 26 of the CBA "Circumventing the Cap". There has to be a point where it goes from one to the other and the NHL may have decided that in it's opinion that point is over 40 years of age. If two years is insignificant and practically irrelevant so they allow long term contracts to the age of 42 then are the next two years practically irrelevant as well and long term contracts to 44? This cycle would continue to hold true, unless at some point those two years are significant and are seen as being a hog worthy of slaughter. Again, I am not sure that the NHL decided the difference between pig and hog is the two years between 40 and 42 but a long term contract to the age of 42 is much further along the trail of becoming a hog than a contract to 40 is and the line must be drawn somewhere.

You are all acting upon the assumption that they did not break the rules BUT there is a specific provision in the CBA which states that That is what the investigation is all about whether or not they violated the provisions of Article 26. Probably what they will cite if they find that they did is: The NHL found (or decided not to investigate because it was not as egregious or they had no proof) that the Wings did not violate Article 26 of the CBA when they signed Z and Mule. however, they are still looking into Hossa (probably either because they have a rat or because of the two extra years). Exactly, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

Best line of the week - It's funny because it's true!