kickazz

Silver Booster
  • Content count

    5,685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    89

kickazz last won the day on April 15

kickazz had the most liked content!

About kickazz

  • Rank
    Troll Hunter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,215 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. When I saw the name of this thread I thought we were in the running for this guy
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. And when Holland doesn't grant your wish and your hope, you're going to have a rant fest for days. Rinse and repeat.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. And that's how malpractice lawyers came to make millions of dollars.
  13. 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.
  14. He's lost it
  15. Lol at this post. Most hospitals don't even profit off patient care. You are an uninformed individual.