Matt

It sounds incredibly hokie, but this time of year "Stanley Cup OCD" kicks in, so I'm always looking for 'signs'... ... I walk out my front door this morning and there, in the bush right off the front porch sits this bright red male cardinal with his red wings, just a few feet away. Maybe that's a good sign? Anyway... the kiddies will be sporting their Red Wing garb tonight in hopes of some good karma.

The Flames will miss Regehr more than Detroit will Bertuzzi. I'll take the Game 1 tradeoff.

Agreed. I really wish we could get some news on the results of these "baseline tests". Is this something Bertuzzi has on a daily basis? Surely the "results" haven't taken this long. I wonder how bad the prognosis is?

He has? Over the last few months I think Bruce has been one of the best -- if not *the* best -- of the local media's Red Wings reporters. He's been getting info to us fans hours -- sometimes a day -- faster than some of the more prominent names out there. Besides, he's not speculating -- he's reiterating what Babcock said after practice himself. Don't shoot the messenger. Before spouting off, you need to revisit the DiPietro situation out on Long Island. The human brain is a finicky thing when it comes to concussions.

Since this is the first concrete declaration of Bertuzzi's status, no. I'd like to think I've got a good handle on when stories developing over the course of several days hit a "benchmark" moment where it would be in the best interest of everyone if they didn't have to sift through 12 pages of speculation to find exactly what they were looking for. Hence the new, pinned thread.

Continue the discussion in the new, updated thread regarding Bertuzzi's "OUT" status for Game 1 here: http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41865

Bruce MacLeod confirms: http://redwingscorner.blogspot.com/2007/04...for-game-1.html

You go Dave Lowry style or you don't go at all. (FWIW, I've been sporting a trimmed down beard since the holidays... I've done that the last few years and it just gets trimmed up in a week or so again anyway... So maybe it's bad luck?)

The NHL knows where the $$$ comes from. It may not be in this TV deal, but the NHL is dead without the US -- even with the lukewarm (if that) interest. The NHL has every right to choose what network broadcasts that game when it's intended for the long-term good of the league. The CBC *has* its audience, NBC is trying to *build* one.

Hell, I still have my ticket stubs for Game 1 of the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals ON THE GLASS... ...and they were $100 a seat. Makes you wonder if it's just because of revenue sharing or we're already subsidizing part of the cost of the new arena, eh? Either that or it's plain SCARY to think what season tickets are going to cost in 2010 in a likely new arena...

800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1280x800 | 1440x900 Enjoy!

A little easier for the Flames to take that flight *home* as opposed to a road barn, wouldn't you say? I'm not saying that the Red Wings can't win that game -- they obviously can -- but the question was if it was an advantage for Calgary and I'd say it's hard to deny that it isn't.

Thanks for the comments, everyone. The font used in the graphic is called "Scriptina", a pretty common one as far as I know.

Agreed -- big advantage for Calgary. Pressure is heavily on the Wings' shoulders in Game 5, regardless for how the series stands (outside of a sweep, of course).

Red Wings in 7.

800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1280x800 | 1440x900 Enjoy!

Could always waive him.

Valenti, again, is a moron. $8M player that got a nice payday because of playoff performance? Brad Richards? Hello!

Valenti's a moron. He was going on and on that it was a "four-year" deal after it was announced hours ago. Foster had to correct him. Plus, he said "what if he feels he's underpaid after four years and wants to hold out?" ... Ugh... New CBA, you're locked in, no re-negotiation. I think this deal plays well to how the club will approach Zetterberg in two years, too. The Wings got a fantastic deal on his contract two years ago, and it has freed up money (in terms of value) on the cap. I would expect a leapfrog in two years, where Zetterberg (if the cap rises) makes around $8M/year (theoreticall speaking) and it makes it possible because -- again, in terms of value -- Datsyuk would be *underpaid* with his long-term contract.

Read the CBA. He can't re-negotiate the contract. It's not allowed. Datsyuk, his agent and the Red Wings know the bed they've made with this contract and all parties were content enough to sleep in it. (In a non-sleazy way, of course.) The playoffs *are* a factor -- but I don't think for a second that because Datsyuk has his contract he'll go through the motions. There's a stigma attached to his playoff performance, and while I think the heavy bashing on him for last season (he was hurt, after all) is unwarranted, he has been underwhelming. The injury derailed his attempt to bust that stigma and, if I'm a betting man, I think he'll do just fine in the postseason this year.

At this point it appears that blasting the deal is the quick knee-jerk reaction when you see the numbers involved in it. But, looking at the bigger picture I think it's solid deal. As Terry Foster (I think) pointed out, it's very likely the "dark days" of the NHL could very well be behind us... The cap is going up again and that makes the ceiling for the max-contract higher and higher... It's not out of the realm of possibility that max contract will, again, top $10M two or three years down the road. So, just 2-3 years in the contract the potential is there for the Wings to have a 100pt. player for just over HALF the max-contract amount. If the Wings signed him to a shorter deal, say 2-3 years, and he performs as expected you're looking at a $10M contract or he walks. He can't even re-negotiate his deal if he feels he's "underpaid" -- the new CBA doesn't even allow it.

Actually, it was amusing how he sidestepped the question but I REALLY wanted to hear something about that.

Ilitch on a new arena: "I got to talk to my boys about that. It's an ongoing subject. I'd rather not comment on it right now. It's Pavel's day" DAMN!

Holland (Why now?): When the RSL playoffs were going on Gary (Greenstein) and I were talking and were going to talk again before the playoffs... I talked to Gary earlier this week, talked to Mr. Illitch and over the last 4-5 days this week we worked out a deal. You could work it out after the playoffs but I think we wanted to get it done now." (On re-signing Zetterberg) "I would say anytime you're doing a contract, we strategize what direction to go because every contract effects another. Hanks got 2-more years, under the CBA we can't talk to him until after July 1st, 2008. When we get an opportunity to talk to Henrik our goal is to keep him as a Red Wing for the long time. We see him and Pavel as our cornerstones... How much of the cap should one player take up? If you don't sign the player you've got to figure out how to replace him. Henrik is certainly a player we want to tie up."

Yzerman (on playoff performances of Datsyuk): "It's not the effort, the statistics haven't been reflective of his effort. I know him as a player as well as anyone and I see the playoff stats as an abberation... Everyone forgets that Pavel wasn't expected to play last year, it was his decision to come back and he was getting more and more dominant as the series wore on... We signed him to this contract, we're expecting production and we believe we will. It's an abberation and I'm not concerned at all. The majority players go through this at some point -- producing in the playoffs -- and I have no doubt he'll quiet his doubters..." Holland: "Back in October we made an offer shorter than seven years. In talking to everyone in the organization, we felt comfortable in a long-term deal. He competes hard, he brings it every night. He gives you everything he's got.7-years, the longest contract any Red Wing has received. Pavel's 28, you're going to see more long-term deals because the free agency age gets lower in the CBA. Players want a commitment. We figured out a number we thought was fair. The negotation was long because we were talking about the term."