kipwinger

Maybe Datsyuk circa 2008. If you haven't noticed, he's looking pretty old these days.

3-0 Wings. Stephen Weiss with 2 and Kindl gets the other. Toronto doesn't score because A) Babcock, and B) Phil Kessel had a few too many hot pockets during the off season.

And next year's Norris Trophy goes to...Erik Karlsson, who scored 1 zillion points for the first time in NHL history.

Tool? A little too high brow and emotive for my taste. I prefer my metal a tad more...brutal?

I don't know. It's reasonable to assume that you'd have more viewership if the channel carrying your sport was on basic cable, reached more people, and didn't have to be part of some extras package. In that sense you're right, but in effect you're comparing apples to oranges. Comparing NHL games on ESPN to NHL games on NBC sports doesn't tell you about the popularity of the sport as much as it tells you something about the popularity of the network carrying the sport. Such is the case with the NBA, whose viewership is high but who's attendance is low. People don't go out of their way to be fans of the NBA, but they'll watch if (one of) the most popular network in America is carrying the games. Which is why year to year comparisons on the same network or more telling IMO. If everything about is exactly the same from one year to the next, and you see an increase in viewership, it's more reasonable to assume that more people are interested in the sport. If the NHL got picked up by ESPN next season, you'd likely see an increase in viewership. But that would be the result of that network's coverage and market share, and not because of some explosion in the league's popularity.

Thank god they're replacing the skills competitions with...a skills competition. Sooooo stupid.

Here's an article about viewership from 2014. The article only talks about viewership from NBC and NBC Sports. So you can assume it's higher when you factor in ratings for local coverage like Fox Sports. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/04/15/nhl-regular-season-sets-viewership-records-across-nbc-nbcsn/254504/ Edit: They set ratings records in 2013, 2014, and saw a modest decline (from 2014 numbers) in 2015, though the 2015 ratings were still higher than the 2013 ratings. All in all the ratings are trending up.

There is less fighting, there is not less "big hitting". There's just less reckless hitting. I just provided a 15 minute long video of "big hitting" from this season alone. It's still there, regardless of how many times people say otherwise. Again, I agree that there is less "star power" than in the 90's. But in saying that, you're arguing against the original point that others were making. Namely, that the old game was more exciting because it was "tougher". You're saying it's less exciting because there's not as much scoring, and because the goalies are too good. That has nothing to do with toughness. As far as the popularity goes, the NHL keeps setting records for attendance, revenue, and TV ratings (despite not being on ESPN). If you accept those measures as proxies for "popularity" then I'd say it's MORE popular than it was, not less.

You just don't get it. Because you're part of the PC police and also because you want hockey to become the same thing as women's soccer (which is significantly tougher than Men's soccer BTW). Admit it.

I wasn't trying to. I think the old game was incredibly exciting, almost entirely because I loved their skill. But I don't think the modern game is as boring and unwatchable as some folks make it out to be. First, it's faster. Much faster. The skill is still excellent (though I agree that the talent isn't as once-in-a-lifetime as it was), and many of the boring systemic issues have been removed from the game (center line, two line passing, clutch and grab). And none of that came at the expense of hitting. I liked the old game. I like the new game. I just think that many folks who bemoan the modern game are being disingenuous. They liked all the viciousness of the old game, but realize that it's getting less and less acceptable to say so. So they say the old game was tougher, grittier, etc. It wasn't.

The game has all the hitting it ever had, AND it has all the speed and skill that it lacked during the clutch and grab era. Those who romanticize the "good old days" are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They say they want hitting and aggression, but they willfully ignore all the hitting and aggression in the modern game? Why? Because they don't JUST want hitting, they want a PARTICULAR KIND of hitting. The violent kind. The dangerous kind. The kind they hurts people. Many people say they want the reckless hits out of the game, but they don't actually mean it. They all secretly long to see Scott Stevens out there blindside hitting guys in the head, because that was AWSOME! Except it wasn't...at all. Here's a "best of" video for the season, showing many of the big hits. Nobody took toughness out of the game, they just took recklessness out of the game. And lots of folks, contrary to what they say, don't actually like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR93uEtbYE0

Nah. The game is boring and stupid if there aren't a bunch of pituitary mutants out there banging their skulls together. That's real sport. Flower Power!!!!

I'm a betting man if you are? $50 to a charity of your choice if he gets 6 or more, or less than 5.5?

Well then your judgement is suspect anyway lol.

Franson scores more than Petry, he isn't "better". Which is why they'll get similar money. Boychuk and Leddy got paid because their GM was desperate to keep them from hitting free agency so he had to overpay them to stay.

I know. Which is why he won't make 6 million +. That's my point. He scores more than a defensive d-man, and less than a pure offensive d-man.

I'm sure he'll try, but just like Niskanen, the decision will come down to intangibles (i.e. where's his wife from, where's his favorite defensive coach working now, where's his best friend live, etc.).

He'll make around 5.75 on a 6 or 7 year deal. Which is not an overpayment for a guy that plays as many minutes, and scores as many points as he does.

Cody Franson won't make 6 million dollars. His contract will be similar to Matt Niskanen's. Every single summer we hear "Defenseman X will make a zillion dollars". And they don't. People were seriously saying Niskanen would make 7 million. Lol.

How's that worse? Winger rulez! edit: To tell the truth, he has probably had syphilis once or twice himself.

Jeff Backus? That guy's terrible.

There have got to be better icons for your school of thought than those two. Maybe David Hume? Regardless of their views on skepticism, I'd be disinclined to associate myself with a syphilitic nihilist and a whiny, self serving, New Yorker.

You could probably keep the 4th. Wiz and Anaheim's first for Detroit's first plus a quality prospect would probably do it. Let them pick the prospect (within reason). But I'd probably try to structure something around a roster defenseman. Bringing Wiz in would necessitate moving someone out anyway.

Callahan's not that big. He's tough and gritty no doubt. But not that big.

Nyquist and Tatar's numbers are very comparable to Dats and Zetterberg's at their respective ages, but given that neither of them are centers they're never going to have the kind of positive impact on a team that Dats and Z could have. It's the same reason Kane can score WAY more than Toews, and still be the less valuable player. There's every reason to believe that Nyquist and Tatar will be game changing wingers in the NHL when they reach their individual peaks. But there's no reason to believe that will be enough to win Cups. If your best players are wingers (Winnipeg, Rangers, Montreal, Washington, Toronto, Ottawa, etc.) you're probably in trouble.