Datsyerberger

Whose f***ed up idea was it to show Minnesota 9 times over some of those other teams?-

Er, was still thinking about that Hawks selection when I wrote that, meant Lindsay.

My 4 for Chicago would be $Bill, Mikita, Hull, and Espo Sadly, $Bill was probably more influential on that franchise then the other 3 combined. For all the wrong reasons. My Detroit would either be theirs or: Illitch, Yzerman, Howe, Espo/Lidstrom

Contraction would have this effect: Because there's an overall raise in talent per team, average salary per team rises as players seek to be paid what they're worth. Either the cap rises to accomodate this, or more (and more talented) players leave the NHL to seek what they're worth elsewhere. Likely, some combination of both. If the cap rises to accomodate this (more than just to accomodate the rate of inflation), the gap between the teams that can afford higher salaries and those who can't afford quite as much increases. This results in more teams becoming revenue losing bottom dwellers, owners eventually becoming disenfranchised (terrible pun, I know), and eventually this whittles down to the remaining relative handful of teams that can afford to invest within a reasonable range of eachother to become competitive. While this might be cute to some people, it would be a terrible degradation in terms of business and oodles of lost revenue for the league as a whole, which ultimately makes it harder to market and grow the game... On the other hand, there are a plethora of willing investors in a number of aforementioned locations. In fact, investor 'demand' is high enough at the moment that there were a normal solid investors willing to go for a failing team in the desert, with a number of them prepared to try keeping the team there for a reasonable period. This is indicator that, business-wise, the business is ready to expand. Competitiveness is still an issue, but it has improved on the whole, and I think that soon it will be close enough that the league considers a 2 team expansion. Expecting every team in the league to be financially strong at every moment is simply unrealistic. Like every other major sport, or for that matter, every other major business, the NHL and its teams are going to experience states of economic flux. Sometimes a franchise is simply badly managed for an extended period, sometimes it was never placed in a good location to begin with, sometimes the state of the economy in a particular area changes. The Wal-Mart serving the upper middle class burbs always outsells the one servicing the lower end neighborhoods even though both remain a viable business. Or a Wal-Mart moves from one part of a metro area to another in response to changing economic situations and population concentrations. This is simply the state of business. Franchises grow, shrink, change, move. Every major sport in North America goes through the same situation, and to mistake such as a sign of unhealthiness and to prevent growth on that false assumption is damaging over the long term. That said, I think there is an upper limit on how many teams there should be in terms of ability of fans to follow the game, among other limitations. 30 works (NBA, MLB), but 32 works as well (NFL) and makes for much better playoff bracketing. Considering which one of those is the current leader in North American sports, I think I know which example I'd go with.

The league is due for an expansion of two more teams. Aside from 32 teams being a much more desirable number for a number of scheduling and divisional reasons, the talent pool of developing youth, both in Europe and North America, has greatly expanded. There's investment opportunity out there (see: number of investors that were at one point in line for a hockey team even in a crappy location, aka Phoenix), and there's certainly talent. In fact, I'd imagine you'd see less skilled players, Russians included, going to the KHL and other leagues; the addition of two extra teams would allow them to get paid more. On top of that, if both teams were in the West (Pick 2 of: Seattle, Winnipeg, Vegas, Kansas City, Houston), then the Wings could finally be moved to the East where they belong Edit: I know some people are going to ask "Why did you mention 'x' city?" Here's why: Kansas City: Preexisting arena; rivalry potential with Blues; close to relocation there before Vegas: Feed off tourism Seattle: Northwest seems a logical destination for expanding the game both business-wise and in popularity/player development. It gets, you know, cold there. Winnipeg: No explanation needed, I hope Houston: Largest hockey market (AHL) without an NHL team. Old and longstanding tradition of having an AHL team there and a hockey following.. oddly enough. I look at Houston's AHL success as an example of what can happen in the south if given both enough time AND competent management (something many of the southern expansion teams have not had).

One thing to keep in mind is the progression of the salary cap. $6m of cap space now is worth a lot more than $6m of cap space later. Just as an example, the salary cap in 2005 was $39m. Now, 5 years later, it's $59m. If that rate of progression continues, the salary cap will be $100m 10 years from now. Even if it only continues to progress at half rate, it'll be 79-80m dollars. A 6m cap hit for a 39 year old in that range is equivalent to, say, the 3m we're playing Flip now. If you think Zetterberg can play at Flip's current level in the last, say, 2 years of his contract, at roughly the same (or slightly greater) the equivalent salary, do you think it's worth it for us getting a $1-1.5m discount for the other 8 years of his contract? I certainly think so. Franzen's contract progresses even better, if the cap were, say, 85m 10 years from now, he'd only be getting paid about equal to the money Draper is now. Considering that Franzen is a better player than Draper ever was, and that Franzen could probably put up 3rd line play at 39, do you think paying Draper-equivalent money at that stage in his career is worth it for the huge discount we're getting for a 35g/clutch playoff guy?

I'm hoping this signing will come as a good surprise to many here (self included). Salei's a decent physical dman, not a huge hitter, but plays the body well along the boards and is willing to block shots. He's also got a bit of a mean edge to him, and let's face it, we could use a decent pair of balls on defense. Aside from that, his offense is imo an improvement to Lilja's. As others here have pointed out, the primary concern is age/injury.. however, he's had damned near a year to heal up and a good summer of training. He should make a decent #5-7 to compete with Ericsson and Kindl (and Meech?) for a roster spot. He could also be good for a playoff run.. and hey, Babs has experience with him.

Rather than try to cram as many young superstar players on short term bargain contracts as possible on here, I'm going to try to put together a team that's both long term realistic and built for winning a cup now. This means a mix of players both young and seasoned on solid contracts, maybe a couple more aging veterans, a couple young stars on short term contracts that'll be ready for payday once the current high paid vets retire.. you know, the way a real team could look. Screw the $52m cap by the way, that just encourages said single year bunch o' superstars on ELCs teams. Henrik Zetterberg - Pavel Datsyuk - Alexandre Burrows Johan Franzen - Ryan Getzlaf - Dustin Brown Nikolai Kulemin - Jay McClement - Mark Recchi Taylor Pyatt - Darren Helm - Cal Clutterbuck Rick Rypien Nicklas Lidstrom - Drew Doughty Niklas Kronwall - Anton Volchenkov Mike Weaver - PK Subban Jonathan Ericsson Jaroslav Halak Martin Biron Comes in at 58.675 @ a 22 man roster Built to be usable both for a cup run and a good future build. For example, the following year Lidstrom and Recchi come off the books and Doughty gets a payday Z - Dats - Burrows Mule - Getzlaf - Brown Kulemin - McClement - Pyatt - Helm - Clutterbuck Rypien Kronwall - Doughty Volchenkov - Subban Weaver - Ericsson Halak ~$1m backup goalie Assuming Rypien gets about 1m/yr and Doughty gets ~6, that still leaves about 3.5 to sign a backup dman or two and a solid 1 year rental for the 3rd line (or better, you move Clutterbuck up a line, play youngins on the 4th line and make a good deadline move with the spare capspace). The year after that isn't much different. Then one after that one a handful of big names get some pay upgrades, but by that point you have people ready to advance lines and prospects moving up. Still have the same core. Those top 2 lines would roll people, great roleplayers in the bottom 6, and the defense is beastly.

An alien can't be superhuman. Superalien? Maybe.

As someone who grew up in Florida and enjoyed watching the Bolts (when they didn't suck), I'm glad to see Stevie Y go there. Hopefully he'll straighten that org out, and get some good GM experience in the process. Why would we want to keep him here when he can get better experience elsewhere, anyhow?

Sorry, the curse is Conklin's, not Hossa's. Hossa's only been in 2 lost SCF (where Conklin was present in both). On the other hand, in the past 4 years, Conklin has been involved in: SCF loss SCF loss ECF loss SCF loss No Conklin... Hawks take this, imo.

Well, here's basically what the lines look like after the UFAs are gone (and Kaberle is assumedly traded): - Bozak - Kessel Kulemin - Grabovski - Caputi - Mitchell - Stalberg? Sjostrom - Hanson - Orr Obviously, while the players themselves aren't bad, that's a pretty pitiful group of forwards Phaneuf - Komisarek Beauchemin - Schenn Gunnarsson - Finger That's a pretty serviceable group of defensemen with several potent young players. 3-4 of them have the potential to be question marks, Finger is overpaid but serviceable Giguere Gustavsson Goaltending is better than what a lot of teams have, though not great either. Worst thing is both have health issues Anyhow, the obvious major problem is at the forward position. Ideally, they need a top 6, preferably top line winger, a center in the #1-2 range, and preferably a 2nd line winger or at least a 2nd/3rd tweener. Also, Burke wants more meat in the bottom 6, cause he's, well, Burke. On the other hand, there's no reason to change the D except to pick up a #7 and 8 (one of which could possibly come from within the org?). I don't think they should touch any of the expiring UFAs if they can manage it. Ideally, here's what the roster looks like post signings/callups: 1st line LW - Bozak/Tweener - Kessel Kulemin - Tweener/Bozak - Grabovski Caputi - Mitchell - 2nd/3rd RW (Burke-type) Sjostrom - Hanson - Orr/Burke-type Burke-type/Orr Phaneuf - Komisarek Beauchemin - Schenn Gunnarsson - Finger/7/8 #7 #8 Giguere Gustavsson While not spectacular, that would certainly look serviceable and at least competitive enough to give their plethora of young players a decent chance to develop.

And the same couldn't be said of Holmstrom? Besides, Eklund and the words 'he knows' don't go together until he's already read the TSN article he's getting ready to rip off. We don't need more secondary scoring, nor do we need defense. What we do need is bottom 6 grit with a light scoring touch. a 15g/10-15a sort of guy that hits a lot and hard.

Why does this clown not have Lidstrom on his top 50 UFA list while having Holmstrom there, even though the chances of either signing elsewhere in the NHL is 0?

Pigs, and more especially wild pigs, and wild hogs as well, are dangerous motherf***ers. I'd be more afraid of them than many primarily predatory animals.

I'd rather see Toews, Hossa (poor guy), Keith, and an O6 franchise (especially one with a long drought) win the Cup than the Olympic dive team. And I'd rather see Mr. 'Beat up a cabbie over 20 cents' win a cup than Mr. 'Killed my teammate with my crazy driving'.

Roughly 75/25 is fine by me. 60 for Howard and 22 for Osgood, or thereabouts. As far as stats, as long as Howard puts up around a .915 and Osgood can manage .900-905 as the backup, I'm content with that. Anything better from either of them would be a bonus in my book.

MacLean, I believe; he took over as the offensive coach after McLellan got hired by the Fish.

Disagree, especially on the Lightning. The modern plural for Lightning is Lightning. 'Lightnings' is an archaic plural that only shows up in old poetry. Avalanche is a good name, and 'Avalanches' would just sound terrible. The Wild, on the other hand, I agree with. Wtf is a Wild? Some sort of Bear-Tiger-Weasel-Cat-Wolf-Thing, apparently. For me, personally, it's the Ducks. The Mighty Ducks was horrible, but hey, it was a Disney franchise. On the other hand, the Ducks? Why the hell did they keep the name Ducks? WTF kind of team name is Ducks? That's even less terrifying than Penguins. At least Penguins have an association with ice. Ducks migrate away from ice in Winter (hey, maybe they should be in Phoenix).

You're jokin, right? That's a midwestern thing, most particularly Iowa and that area.

I'm of the belief that Hudler's whole thing was either planned or at least agreed to; it saved the Wings cap space in a year they needed it and made Hudler $5m low tax dollars. Win for both parties. I consider it a rather successful offseason, really. Noone expected to come too strong out after last year, the org included, and they met their stated goal of reaching the 2nd round in the playoffs. Bert was a good risky pickup who turned out to be someone worth keeping around for the contract. Williams sorta blew up in the POs, but he did what he needed in the season.. I won't miss him, but he was a decent stopgap measure. And two things being in a rough spot helped us with for a change: 1. We finally got some of our young guys plenty of playing time in the big league, and 2: we went out and took a risk on picking up a coupla young grinders for a change (Miller and Eaves). Both of those acquisitions panned out quite well. Yea, a cup win would've been nice and worthy of an A+, but A+s are for unrealistic goals being met anyhow.. I'll give this an A-.

Look at where the final 4(5) are spending their money. Sure, a couple are paying big bucks for goalies and sure, they all have some salary at forward, but..: Sharks Boyle - 6.667 Blake - 3.5 Vlasic - 3.1 Murray - 2.5 Huskins - 1.7 Wallin - .543 Hawks Campbell - 7.1 Seabrook - 3.5 Sopel - 2.333 Johnsson - 1.483 (on a 4.8 cap hit contract) Keith - 1.475 (6ish next year) Hjarlmarsson - .643 Philly Timonen - 6.333 Pronger - 6.25 Carle - 3.438 Coburn - 1.3 Parent - .855 Krajicek - .7 Baaaahstin Chara - 7.5 Wideman - 3.875 Hunwick - 1.45 Ference - 1.4 Stuart - 1.3 Boychuk - .5 Montreal Markov - 5.75 Hamrlik - 5.5 Spacek - 3.833 Gill - 2.25 Mara - 1.675 Gorges - 1.1 The only case there where a team with lower quality/salary than their defeated 2nd round opponent is the Sharks, and they're the beneficiaries of several 2nd/1st line quality players on ELCs (as has been the case for every cup winner since the lockout). And they're still paying more than the other defeated 2nd rounders (MTL more than PIT, CHI more than VAN)... Philly over Boston?

I'm certain that 'stuff' is going on behind the scenes. I would say the same for every other major sport. As for the extent and severity of that 'stuff', I honestly I have no idea. As far as the NHL goes, if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's a slow tailoring of the game to engineer penalty calls, the pace of play and the like to benefit certain styles of play, and thusly also (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) certain teams and certain players. A business wants to expand and grow, and it's silly to think they won't do everything they feel they can get away to maximize revenue and sustain growth in a variety of areas. For example, the league can change the standards and rules for certain types of penalty calls and certain types of play, and say it's to boost offense and provide for a more exciting products, with perhaps a dash of player protection on the side. Perfectly legal and likely to garner fan support. Now, if that just happens to benefit a star player and/or his team and their style of play in a formerly struggling market, well hey, lucky for the team that drafted him and lucky for the league. Coincidence? Who knows. The NHL was boosting offense and protecting their players. That's the kind of stuff you should look for in a 'conspiracy', very realistic and hard to pinpoint scenarios as such. Not some of the wild, more overt stuff people come up with.

I thought he was implying that the offensive threat of Hudler's return will result in a net gain of 70 points, not necessarily 70 for Hudler himself.

The O6 teams.