Buppy

One: Abby has barely played in the playoffs, and hasn't really been a factor when he has. A bit early to say he "elevates his play magnificently". Bert also not someone I'd think of as a clutch playoff performer. Two: Top defensemen will be matched up against Pav and/or Hank as much as possible. Teams won't waste a top D-pair on a line centered by Abby. At least not on a team with so much other firepower. Three: Abby, right now, can't score for s***. You can't expect him to produce at a top-6 level in the playoffs. Four: Like every other 'phenomenal, unstoppable, can't-possibly-imagine-splitting-them-ever line' we've had in the past few years, they'll have one mediocre game and everyone will forget they ever even dreamt of keeping them intact.

He's in GR. He needs to clear waivers to move, so they haven't tried since he went down. He'll be up for the playoffs I'm sure, but won't play unless there's a few injuries.

For those annointing Franzen-Abby-Bert as the next big thing... Remember BFF? Abby-Modano-Cleary? Hudler-Datsyuk-Cleary? Hudler-Hank-Cleary? Flip-Hank-Bert from last year? Mule-Hank-Cleary from two years ago? ZDH? What looks good now may not stay that way. I'm not saying not to try it, just don't count on the magic lasting. That line will probably fade before we even get to the playoffs. Z-D-H Mule-Flip-Bert Happy-Mo-Cleary Abby-Helm-Eaves For a baseline, then juggle as appropriate for injuries, hot/cold streaks, matchups, etc. Probably split Pav and Hank on the road. The good thing about this team is there are a million combinations that could work. Our success rides on our work ethic and health more than anything. Maybe add Jimmy in there. Line combos aren't going to make or break us.

I think Nyquist will be one, just because he has a future here so they'll want to let him get a feel for the atmosphere. No chance he'll play though. It will take a lot of injuries before any forwards get a chance to play. They might go with 7 defensemen before even Mursak gets in, and maybe even throw Meech ahead of him.

I think even if Nick finishes with a minus rating he still has a good chance at winning. The competition isn't that great this year. Visnovsky leads in points but doesn't kill penalties. Yandle also doesn't do much PKing, and is currently behind in points and goals. His +/- isn't that much better either. Ehrhoff, Letang, Weber, and Chara would be the other serious candidates. Chara has a great +/- but ~20 fewer points. Letang has been mediocre since Crosby went out. Ehrhoff could suffer a lack of name recognition, but could also gain from Vancouver's PT and impressive defense stats. Weber could suffer a bit just for being in Nashville. In short, no one really stands out. Nick may not have the best stats, but he's maybe the most respected player in the game and could get a few votes for still being as good as he is at 40. I think it's his so long as he doesn't end up too far in the minus.

In defense of ESPN, this was a final four game. A team making it to their league championship game is bigger news than the Wings clinching yet another playoff spot. At least save your anger for June when meaningless regular-season baseball gets twice the airtime of the SC finals.

I agree. This is a dumb rule, it doesn't delay the game anymore than an icing. No reason the penalty should be worse.

If Atlanta moved to Winnipeg, the most logical move would then be Nashville to take Atlanta's spot, Minnesota moving to the Central, with the new Winnipeg going to the Northwest.

Brutal game for that line tonight. Really didn't even have any decent scoring chances 5v5, and hideous defensively. Hopefully it pisses them off and they all score hatties next game.

Always injured?

Personally, I think it's stupid to not wear a full cage, but I don't really care if players choose any facial protection or not. However, the choice should really be with the owners. Or at least there should be contractual stipulations forcing players to pay their own medical expenses and/or forfeit their salary for any reasonably preventable injuries. Safety regulations are as much about protecting businesses from unnecessary liability as they are about protecting workers. The NHL should be no different. You don't want to take perfectly reasonable measures to protect yourself; sign a waiver.

I think most players would probably get away with nothing or maybe a fine. I think Bert will get a couple though, just for his history, even if it was a while ago.

Not sure I'd agree with that. It's not like only bad teams get loser points. Almost every team has 8-12 loser points, and most have 3-6 SO wins. Those 'extra' points are pretty evenly distributed.

Maybe I should have completed that tought. The NBA has pretty much the worst parity of the major sports, and has pretty much the same cap structure as baseball. I'm not saying there's no parity in baseball, just that the lack of a cap can not be credited for that. However, 18 years is an awful big range. How many teams ever go that long without a playoff appearance? In the NHL, only Toronto and Florida have not made the playoffs since the lockout. It's a lot easier to make, sure, but it's also one third the duration. No one has gone more than 9 years without making the playoffs. In the NFL, the longest active droughts are 11 years. Cleveland is the only team to go 18 seasons without a division title. (Though the Lions will most likely hit 18 next season.) Only three other teams have gone more than 10 years without winning their division. No one in the NBA has gone more than 7 seasons without a playoff appearance. In baseball, only 4 teams have missed in the last 9 seasons. All that really shows is that you practically have to try to miss the playoffs for that long a span. There are a lot of factors needed to really measure parity. No one stat gives you a very good look. Then there are a lot of factors that contribute to parity, a salary cap being just one. Baseball does we without a cap. I think the NHL needs it both for the health of the league and for parity.

Cutting the number of playoffs teams could marginally increase the interest in the regular season, but it would make the playoffs much worse. First, a bye round for some teams would be terrible. It would have to be 4 or 8. Second, in the last 10 playoffs, teams seeded 7th or 8th have produced 13 first round upsets. Another 15 from teams seeded 5th or 6th. And that's only counting the first round. All things considered, having 4 competetive playoff rounds is much better than 3 with a slightly better regular season.

Since 2001, only one NHL team has won more than one Cup. Also, the NBA does not have a real cap. They have a luxury tax system that really isn't much different than baseball. Finally, championship wins is not the only factor determining parity. Did you know many players from Calgary, Vancouver, Anaheim, San Jose, Winnipeg, Florida, Pittsburgh, Carolina etc. in the 90s? Do you remember any of those playoff battles? The league has never been full of stars or great teams. The best teams to day are pretty much as star-studded as the best teams pre-cap. Of course two mediocre teams from today aren't as exciting to watch as two of the best teams from the 90s. But the Wings, Sharks, Pens, Hawks, Flyers, and Canucks in recent years are at least close.

You're right. NHL.com has it with a side view and it's not nearly as strange looking. Still pretty odd though.

The puck was out of the zone long enough for Kronner to shovel Eaves to the bench, there was no offensive threat beyond the indirect threat created by the injury itself. Failing to stop play when there was an obviously hurt player and the puck at the opposite end of the ice was by far the worst non-call of the game. And for that game that's really saying something.

Blew it on the 2 on 1. He's lazy and sucks.

6th Cup and 8th Norris. He can't resist that challenge!

He has 6 points in 12 games since he's been back. 7 in the 11 before he got hurt. He had a poor first 9 games and a major injury. Calling him a disappointment is a bit harsh. Suggests some unreasonable expectations. That said, we have 11 forwards already signed (counting Mursak), and Eaves should be a priority. Between Miller, Draper, Emmerton, Tatar and other potential UFAs on the market I wouldn't give priority to Mo. We just need to win the Cup so Mo, Draper, and Ozzie can all go out in style, and we free up some spots to reload.

We've overcome plenty of challenges in the past, I want an easy road this time. Give me Edmonton in the first round. Somehow draw Ottawa in the 2nd. Take out the Avs in the WCFs, setting up an epic Finals matchup with the Islanders. Winning!

Yeah, except for the part where that didn't actually happen, you have a point. Not even Homer gets pigeon-holed into the 'Homer role' all that often 5v5. We're not on the PP all game, and at even strength every player on the ice is expected to move around, pursue the puck, get open, shoot, make plays...that's exactly what has made us so good for so long is that we specifically don't try to limit our players. Leino was never asked to just park himself in front of the net. He had plenty of freedom offensively. And while that line didn't produce many points, they did earn a lot of praise pre-season and the first handful of games for all the chances and pressure they created. It was only after like 8-10 games that Babs started pointing out that you can't score if no one shoots, or shoots only from the perimeter with no traffic or net crashing for rebounds. Shortly after that Flip got hurt, then Willy. Leino had chances with better players and more minutes, PP time...but he kept getting worse and played himself off the team. Then he goes to Philly and eventually started doing all the things Babs said he needed to do, and surprise, he was successful. I suppose you could say the defensive responsibility all our players are expected to show was limiting, but it's not like he was asked to be a checker. He's a scorer that was put in a scoring role. Maybe he didn't fit Babcock's style, or didn't mesh on or off the ice with his teammates, or just lost confidence and got frustrated. Maybe needed more ice time with better/different linemates more suited to compensate for his weaknesses. Maybe couldn't take the pressuure of being expected to score when injuries started piling up. Maybe he was just lazy and sucked. But to suggest his talent wasn't recognized and he was mis-used is ridiculous. Flip and Willy maybe weren't the best linemates, but he was a rookie and it was a short period of games that looked promising at first. Without the injuries the lines would have been juggled eventually, and maybe we'd have found a combination with better results. With the injuries it was surely a tough situation for Leino, and I don't have any ill-will towards him. But you can't blame the team. Sorry for going way off-topic.

How exactly was he limited here? It's not like we tried to make him a goalie. Babcock wanted him to play hard, be willing to go to the tough areas, and shoot more. Which is exactly what he's done since he's come on in Philly.

Yeah, and she shouldn't have worn that dress... You don't want anyone keeping their heads up because you want people to get hurt. How about we make skating with your head down suspendable. Someone skates up the middle with their head down play is immediately blown dead and the offending player ejected. The dangerous hits still disappear; do you feel better since it's the player you want to blame being punished? Would you really even feel any better if there were no punishments and players just always kept their heads up, eliminating these hits by default? I bet not. Few big hits are truly north-south, especially near the boards. Regardless, the fact that a hip-check isn't always a viable option is why I mentioned the simple fact that you can hit a player without trying to knock him unconscious. A well placed rub-out, bump, or stand-up can often be the better hockey play as it is less likely to take the hitter out of play. And it is possible to lay a big open-ice hit without much head contact. Not always, but there are plenty of occasions where guys skate up ice without being doubled-over leading with their head, and in those cases you can get a shoulder in their chest without much head trauma. If a guy's too vulnerable there's nothing wrong with standing them up, shoving them on their ass, and laughing at them after your team capitalizes on the turnover. Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting we make a player with his head down untouchable. Not saying completely removing hitting, or suspend guys for incidental contact or accidental collisions. Just that it's not right to allow players to so aggressively go after a guys head or a guy who's too vulnerable. And remember, rules in the NHL don't just affect NHL players. There are hundreds of thousands of players, including kids as young as 11-12 in youth, junior, college, minors perhaps with NHL aspirations who are also at risk because that's the style you have to play in any advanced league. Force changes in the NHL, and all those feeder leagues also have to adapt. There are times when the safety of human beings needs to take precedence over our desire to be entertained, whether the participants are willing to take the risks or not. I don't believe that big hits to the head are at all integral to the sport. You can have a great, exciting, physical game while trying to minimize head contact. Not doing so is irresponsible. I'm just afraid we're going to have to wait until some NHL player drops dead from repeat brain trauma before anything major is done.