kickazz

Frankgrimes would heavily disagree with this.

That's because we replaced Yzerman with two future elite hall of famers (Datsyuk and Zetterberg). We haven't been able to replace Brad Stuart or Rafalski let alone Nick Lidstrom.

I would have picked him over Lidstrom in the early to mid 90s. I don't even think most Red Wings fans considered Lidstrom to be as good as they do now until like 2000 ish when he started winning all those Norris Trophies.

I'm confused. You say if Sheahan "comes back and scores 10 goals and 12 assists" as if that would be a good thing, yet that's basically the production of Luke Glendening from the 2015-16 season (8 goals, 13 assists); someone you are comparing Nosek to. So are Sheahan, Nosek and Glendening one in the same? As in.. are they all 4th line players and nothing more? I think Kickazz alluded to that a few posts ago. For the record, it's not just one bad season, the last two full seasons Sheahan and Glendening have had similar productions. They're both at the same level. I would even argue that Glendening is more useful to us since he can actually win a lot of faceoffs, spend more time on the PK and actually throw hits and do aggressive checking (something Sheahan is allergic to for some reason even though he's a canadian boy). If Sheahan truly is regarded as a 3rd line center by the league then I would for sure trade him asap because statistically speaking he's producing about the rate of our 4th liner. So if the GM's are foolish enough and are willing to give up a pick, then Holland should pull the trigger before it's too late. I don't see a future for Sheahan on this roster, not with all the centers we currently have and are probably going to draft. Add in the fact that he's due for a contract soon. We have cheaper options. But even if we don't trade him and expose him, it's still not as big of a loss as you're making it out to be. I doubt he'll get us anything special.

Truthfully the major reason for their cup run is Pekka Rinne. But Subban has turned out to be a better fit for Nashville than Weber was. Now who is the REAL winner of this trade? It's P.K Subban.

I hope thug life wins.

Durant or Curry?

Nice speculations.

And what exactly is his value? Something worth hanging on to or not? That's what Holland is going to be thinking before he exposes him.

Most people are probably going to pick Lidstrom since he was part of the 25 years the longest. Both Fedorov/Yzerman were gone within 12-15 years and D and Z didn't even show up until the 10th year of the 25 years. If the question was changed to "the last 35 years" I would pick Yzerman. If changed to "between 92-97" I pick Fedorov. If changed to 2005-2008 I pick Zetterberg. If changed to 2009 - 2012 I pick Datsyuk. Everyone was an MVP in their own range. But a composite 25 year range tilts it towards Lidstrom just because of sheer number of games played are in his favor allowing him more games to prove himself in while the others weren't around for a large chunk of those 25 years. The better question would be, which MVP was more valuable than the other.

One could say the same about Sheahan. Which is basically my point. So exposing either won't really matter. Unless Sheahan really did have trade value at deadline. At which point I would trade him for whatever it was.

Nosek's production is better than Sheahan's was in the AHL. This season and playoffs particularly took it to another level is what I'm hearing. I went and looked up both their stats when they played for Griffins and Nosek has some very good numbers comparatively overall. If this projects into the NHL, he should have a higher ceiling than Sheahan. http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=102439 http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123527 He may end up being a cheaper option down the road. I would trade Sheahan if there's any interest for him but if there isn't I would expose him over Nosek. Then again, none of those two are going to put a dent in our chances of winning a cup down the road tbh so I doubt it matters who is exposed between the two; maybe only slightly.

When I saw the name of this thread I thought we were in the running for this guy

Crazy how this trade ended up. Weber and his team gets KO'd round 1 and Subban is officially in the Stanley cup playoffs with Nashville for the first time in franchise HISTORY. What Weber couldn't do in 11 years with Nashville, Subban helps do it in a year. 10 points in 16 playoff games too. Montreal got robbed big time.

Salajko comes into the NHL and Mrazek s***s the bed. I'm not sure if the AHL goalie coach knows how the NHL goalies need to be. Maybe Mrazek was better off with Bedard.

No. Would trade the #9 for an actual #1 D like Doughty (not a 2D that people think is as good as a 1D) along with Larkin and Tatar or something though. But realistically would trade the #9 with another player to trade up. Point is, if we're pulling trigger, at this point I'd rather do something big with a meaningful return and guaranteed results. Otherwise stack the picks. I'm starting to think long term is better for this team. Assuming we suck next year as well and get another high pick (a much better draft), the #9 this year plus next years pick can go a long way for us in 3-4 years time. Getting Fowler won't make us a competitor. But trading up this year and having another good pick next year, OR trading the #9 pick along in a package to get a crazy return would (and that scenario is near impossible because nobody wants to give up a Drew Doughty). So we're left with keeping the #9 pick or trading up. BTW I would trade trade Nyquist for Fowler. But not the pick. Not a chance. It's a game of poker and we have a decent hand.

But would they give up a first for an elite defenseman that helped his team to the Stanley Cup finals? Not a chump like Weber, I mean a guy like Subban? I would say yes. For Green and someone like Weber, no. I'd take the second rounder for Green.

And when Holland doesn't grant your wish and your hope, you're going to have a rant fest for days. Rinse and repeat.

Yes you can. Many have EKGs etc. I mean, if you're smart and have no issue with the $$ you go to ER, but if $50 is a problem the cheaper alternative is urgent care.

That would be due to our fine nations reimbursement structure. http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/blog/why-aspirin-taken-hospital-can-cost-upwards-25 Go to urgent care next time. You'll probably save yourself money and save the hospital money as well.

And that's how malpractice lawyers came to make millions of dollars.

More like $50 for the tests they ran to rule out anything severe and nurses, doctors who did a physical exam to monitor and read ur heart rate, BP and other vitals. Also cost of occupying a bed. Assuming this was the ER. If clinic then you just have s***ty insurance with a high co-pay. But you know, it's was obviously those darn aspirins.

He's lost it

Lol at this post. Most hospitals don't even profit off patient care. You are an uninformed individual.