Buppy

It doesn't work that way. It's the daily cap hit that matters. The full season number is just easier to use in discussion. Rolston has about $3.1M left in cap hit, but there's only ~62% of the season left to pay it. Daily hit is $27,218, exactly the same as paying the full salary for the full season.

Stats for last 4 starts. Howard: 1-3-0, 15 GA, 3.79 GAA, 123 shots/108 saves, .878 save% Osgood: 2-1-1, 9 GA, 2.22 GAA, 119 shots/110 saves, .924 save%

A little breakdown on the top teams. (I didn't include Washington, they're playing like garbage and have dropped to 9th in point%) There are 9 teams currently .500 or under in point%. 12 teams at .600 or over. The other 9 in between. Philly (19-7-5, 43 pts, 3rd, 69.4%) > .500: 11-0-2 (92.3%) < .600: 5-5-1 (50%) Middle: 3-2-2 (57.1%) Pitt (21-8-2, 44 pts, 2nd, 71%) > .500: 12-1-0 (92.3%) < .600: 5-6-0 (45.5%) Middle: 4-1-2 (71.4%) Detroit (19-6-3, 41 pts, 1st, 73.2%) > .500: 6-0-0 (100%) < .600: 4-4-1 (50%) Middle: 9-2-2 (76.9%) All three are dominating the teams they should be, and playing about even against the other top teams. Philly drops off much more against the middle teams. Philly and Pittsburgh have played a lot more bad teams, but also a couple more against the better teams. Detroit has played fewer road games (12 vs 14 for Philly, 15 for Pitt). Philly has played one more home game than both Pitt and Detroit. All three teams are playing well home and away, though Pitt and Philly have been significantly better on the road than at home. (Both around 65% home, 75% away. Wings are about 75% at home, 71% away.) Take it for what you will.

Don we now our *** apparel... I don't mind a little Christmas spirit, but that's going a bit too far. Seriously, did they not think the team name and logo were bad enough? Makes me want to punch a kitten.

Mismanagement of the cap is what cost Chicago. Had they been a little smarter with some of their moves, they could have retained Buffy and Ladd, maybe a couple other guys too. Also, you can't just look at one case in isolation, nor one element of the CBA. Without the current cap rules, players like Kane, Toews, Keith, and possibly others would have cost more, and maybe Chicago is never in a financial position to build the team in the first place. The situation in Toronto is similar. It's their poor management rather than spending restrictions keeping them down.

Not really. Larsson was hot for his first 20 games or so in the AHL. Then he cooled off and never got back to that level in the next season and a half. Howard had better stats for the year (except W/L record) and started for GR in the playoffs. Ozzie has been solid in 5 of 6 starts this year. He was good at the start of last year with a couple exceptions. Even after Howard took the starting job, Ozzie wasn't as bad as most think. Larsson's a ******.

Wasn't impressive at all, especially for the hype. The fake and the shot were alright, but nothing anyone would get excited about without the spin. I'm fairly confident that any player in the NHL could do that spin. I can do that spin. A backflip might have impressed me, or adding the spin to his shot/deke as we've seen Bert do a couple times. That just seemed pointless and silly. I guess I'd give him a point for his willingness to risk looking like a fool for no good reason, but I'd also take away two points for him actually doing it.

There is no year NAMED 'Year 0', just like there was no year named 'Year 1' until more than 500 years after the fact, when someone decided to call it that.

But that's wrong. As I said, a decade is just a period of ten years. But if you specify a certain decade with a qualifier such as 'the 90s', you are implicitly defining it as the ten years with the single common '9' in that tens position, ergo, 90-99. 1990 is a part of the 90s. If you were to say the 200th decade, then you could say it means 91-00, but no one says '200th decade' because it's stupid. Similarly, when referencing centuries, 'the 1900s' is from 1900-1999 and 'the 20th century' is 1901-2000 (if you subscribe to the accuracy of AD numbering). It makes no sense to exclude the number after which you are naming your range. And once again, the entire 'no year zero' argument is predicated on the assumption that the period of time described in AD numeration as AD 1 - AD 525 was actually 525 years. Contemporary knowledge suggests that that almost assuredly not the case. And if you 'retro-fit' the numbering to make it the correct length (modern historians typically put the birth of Christ between 7 BC and AD 6, hilarious bit of irony by itself) then you tacitly admit that the origin point is not important. If the origin is unimportant, then why can't we just say that the first year of the first decade/century/millennia was the year 1 BC. Or, once again, if modifying the number of days in a month or year to correct errors in the calendar isn't a problem, why is it a big deal to alter the number of years in the first decade/century/millennium?

My point was that it doesn't matter. Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one. Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 200th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent. [edit: decades did start at 0]

A decade is just a period of 10 years. It doesn't matter when it starts. Doesn't even have to start on the 1st of the year. Typically, when speaking of a named decade, like 'the '90s', you're referring to numbers in the '90s. '90-'99. That is still 10 years, so it is a decade. Technically speaking, there was no year 1 either. The current year numbering system wasn't adopted until the 6th century. It's based on a guess that is almost certainly wrong. There have been many adjustments to calendars in the course of human history. Furthermore, whether or not there was a year 'numbered' zero, there were plenty of years prior to year 1. Many, many millions of them in fact. Zero is a much more logical 'beginning'. And even if you want to be pedantic, calendar adjustment is hardly unprecedented.

Not giving a damn is an even better solution. It's a completely meaningless hockey game.

Forwards Abdelkader: A+ (Everything you want from a checker and a 40+ point pace) Bertuzzi: A+ (Still don't like him, but have to give props) Cleary: A (He can probably blame Mo and Huds for losing the plus, wasn't great early on) Datsyuk: B+ (Maybe a little harsh. He's amazing, but occasionally seems to play a little too casually) Eaves: C+ (Solid, but not really impressing. PK should be better) Filppula: C+ (A for defense, otherwise he'd be lower overall. Needs to be more agressive on offense) Franzen: B (Should be more consistent. Maybe it's the injury) Helm: B- (Where'd the hits go? Speed isn't everything) Holmstrom: B+ (On pace for another 20+ goal season. Can't expect much better) Hudler: F (Not showing much effort. 2 ES points. Poor defense. Just disappointing in every way) Miller: C (Deja Eaves) Modano: C- (Was starting to come around. Bad luck on the injury. Terrible early, and ineffective on the point) Zetterberg: B- (No good reason for him to be under a point per game. Like Pav, needs more effort. Talent isn't everything) Defensemen Ericsson: B+ (Redeeming himself nicely so far) Janik: Inc (Adequate fill-in, not much else to say) Kindl: B (Not bad for a rookie with a lot of question marks. Not all that good either) Kronwall: B+ (A for offense, defense has been off at times) Lidstrom: A+ (40 and arguably still the best in the game) Rafalski: B- (Could be an A+ if not for costly turnovers and horribly timed defensive lapses) Salei: B- (Needs to hit more. But not much to complain about so far) Stuart: A- (His mistakes always seem to mean goals against, other than that he's been fantastic, and on a 40 point pace) Goaltenders Howard: A- (No sophmore slump, but has let in a few weak ones here and there) Osgood: Inc (Solid in 3 of 4 games, but not enough action to grade)

The cap is calculated on a day by day basis. There's 96 days until the trade deadline. Hudler's daily hit is $15,457. That's $1,483,872 in cap space we could bank for later use. Assuming no other roster changes, that money plus the $618,280 for the last 40 days after the deadline would be worth the equivalent of $9.775M in yearly salary. More than three times the space we would have if we waited.

There's a lot of use. We could bank that cap space and use it on a player/players we couldn't afford if we wait. I believe it would be around $1.4M in extra cap space trading him now as opposed to at the deadline. That said, I still wouldn't do it. We can only stay injury-free for so long and we don't really have much to trade for anyone decent anyway.

Stop over-dramatizing. It is not a complete change to anything. Not even a complete change to hitting, which is itself only one aspect of the game. It's easy enough to tell your intent with the Stevens thing. You're trying to criticize headshot/hitting rules by suggesting that this or that great player relied on those hits for their greatness. It simply isn't true. There isn't a single great player in any sport who was great because of their ability to injure someone. You're tacitly trying to suggest that regulating the brutality of the sport is somehow hamstringing potential greatness. Again, it simply isn't true.

Not even close. Stajan was skating with the puck through the neutral zone with his head down. That's just dumb, and there's never any reason for it. Furthermore, Staal (and others) were in front of him the whole time. (Admiring the pass was incidental, he couldn't have avoided the hit even without doing that.) Perron HAD to look down to receive the pass. Granted, it was a suicide pass, but that's the fault of the passer, not Perron. Also, Thornton had just come out of the penalty box and hit him laterally. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see people play hockey than spend all game protecting themselves. Ironic that the biggest fans of these kind of hits always say 'keep your head up', when that's the last thing they really want to see.

You are pigeonholing him. He would certainly still be a HOFer, and still be considered one of the best defenseman of his era. First, let's not pretend that the game is that much different now. Two, don't assume he wouldn't adjust his game to better conform to existing rules. He would still be one of (if not the) most feared hitter in the game today. Suggesting that he would be anything less than what he was because there's a rule against blindside hits to the head is foolish. I'd say most of his hits would still be legal under current rules. He was a great player because he played great, not because he hit people in the head, regardless of what he's best known for. As for your curiosity; I'd say better late than never. Hard to believe you're questioning the importance of trying to minimize career-ending injuries. Better question would be why it took so long. It is just a game. Preventing injuriy should always be among the highest priorities. Preventing intentional injuries even higher. If you have to hurt someone to win, you shouldn't win.

Perron was paying attention to the pass he was about to receive, Stajan was carrying the puck with his head down. Huge difference. This hit looks pretty clean by the rules. Still, Staal could have easily aimed for the near shoulder instead of the chest and the hit would have been just as effective, but less injurious.

Defining Stevens from a handful of hits that would be suspendable today is doing the man an enormous disservice. He was a remarkably talented player, very solid with and without the puck in all three zones. He would still be an upper-echelon player today, just with fewer blindside hits. And are you suggesting that it's a bad thing that the league is trying to reduce career-threatening head injuries?

The way Miller and Eaves have been hustling, someone else needs to join that rotation. Hudler would be one, plus maybe the old guys like Modano and Homer.

It's still too small of a sample size to make any comparison. Those top 30 from last year averaged 52 games. This year the top 30 have averaged 12. Two of the top three only have five starts. It's still early enough in the season that one good or bad game could move a goalie's save% by half a point or more. You also can't compare it on a 'slot by slot' basis, as the guys at the top will skew the results for everyone below them. 22 of 30 are within a half-percentage point. Only the top six are more than one percentage point higher. If even half of those six fall off a bit, and a few of the others in the top 30 have a few bad games, then suddenly the comparison looks pretty even. Think about it, you're comparing to last season. What do you really think could have changed over the summer?

That's stupid. Moulson skated toward the boards to play the puck, he didn't turn his back to avoid anything. It's like some people are so worried about hitting being taken out of the game, they would rather see hockey taken out of the game. Every hit seems to get some variant of 'keep your head up' response, as if protecting themselves from illegal hits should be the highest priority for players. Personally, I like hockey more than demolition derby. Making a play sometimes leaves a player vulnerable. Players should be allowed to do things like play the puck, receive a pass, or take a shot without fear of someone taking their head off because of it.

Nothing's changed. It's early in the season. Few goalies have played even 15 games. Six goalies have a save% .930 or higher, and four have a GAA under two. One or two bad games from those guys would pull their stats down to normal levels. There's nothing to suggest that goaltending this year (or the last few years) is significantly different than it has been for a long time.

His son is an undead creature of the night, that's all the reason I need.