eva unit zero

For a player to win the trophy, and for a player to deserve to win the trophy are not necessarily the same thing. For example, Yzerman won the Pearson Award, which is given to the Most Outstanding Player by the NHLPA, in 1989. He played on a very weak Wings team. Gretzky won the Hart, Lemieux won the scoring title, and Yzerman was left off the postseason All-Star teams. Yzerman scored 65 goals, 90 assists, and 155 points without a single teammate scoring 40 goals, 70 assists, or 100 points. Yzerman is also the only player in history to score 150+ points and receive first place Selke votes in the same season. So the voters don't always get it right. But at the same time, Zetterberg was called the best player in the league by several media outlets in the offseason in their 'official' rankings. Datsyuk was mentioned as 'maybe the best player' on a Red Wings program. If any Wings forward is a Hart candidate, it's Z.

The 10 largest metro areas in Canada are listed below. In bold are areas that already have one or more teams within 50 miles driving distance of the city center. 1) Toronto 2) Montreal 3) Vancouver 4) Ottawa 5) Calgary 6) Edmonton 7) Quebec City 8) Winnipeg 9) Hamilton 10) London As you can see, London is the third most populous metro area that does not currently have a local NHL team. The other two have both lost theirs within the past fifteen years due. Winnipeg had low fan turnout and no corporate support, so I would not support attempting to return there. Quebec had strong fan support but poor corporate support due to the Montreal Canadiens culture, so a return might be difficult. This makes London the top choice for adding a team to Canada unless we are choosing to oversaturate a market. It is in an area that should provide strong attendance, and the corporate support should not be an issue. I would, however, not have included London or Hamilton had the topic not been about expansion into the Toronto area.

The Hart is awarded for the Most Valuable Player to his team, not the best player. There is a big difference. For players like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Lidstrom, who all play with two other elite-level players...it is difficult to consider them valuable than a guy like Ovechkin who is in the same range of talent but does not have anyone else on his team near his talent level. You could argue one of Z, D, or Lids as better than Ovechkin. But none are more valuable than Ovechkin at this point. The Wings can lose one of them and still have two elite level players that can singlehandedly carry the team. The Caps win and lose most of their games based on Ovechkin's performance that night.

Nabokov is a mid-level starter. Winning 46 games with an average save percentage and decent GAA when you play 77 games doesn't make you the best goalie in the league; it just makes you a guy who played a lot of games behind a contender. If the Sharks are playing poorly, and Nabokov isn't in top form, he is going to look like s***. It's a fact.

DISCLAIMER: Normally, I don't argue for moving teams that have tradition and history in their current location. But for this post, I'm going to throw that out the window for the sake of argument. Before the greater Toronto area gets another team, the League and its owners need to consider the similar large markets that have multiple teams. New York/New Jersey and Los Angeles/Anaheim in particular. Both markets could stand to lose a team. NY/NJ has one team that consistently draws high attendance; the Rangers, and two teams that usually draw enough to get by. The Islanders and Devils fighting each other for the 'leftover' fans doesn't help either franchise. The Islanders would be the team I would choose from this market to relocate; they get the least fan support, and compete the most directly with the Rangers for fans so it would be the most difficult for them to build it up. LA/ANH includes two teams, both with fairly weak tradition or history, and one team that is clearly favored by the locals as far as attendance. The Kings get much more local support despite the fact they have had significantly less success for their time in the league. Anaheim is the clear choice to relocate from this market, especially considering that their location and team name were a marketing gimmick by their original owner, who no longer owns them. Beyond that, there are other teams which are in a middling state financially but might be better off elsewhere. Teams that are solo in their market that are in the league's bottom 10 in attendance and having potential financial issues: Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, Atlanta. So we have six potential 'relocation' teams. Beyond that, as myself and others have stated on here before, 32 would be a good, solid number of teams for the league to expand to and REMAIN AT, because it allows for division and playoff systems that work extremely well. Getting back to the point at hand; Tor/Buf includes one of the league's "given" reliable draws in the Maple Leafs, who will sell out no matter what they put on the ice. Buffalo generally has a little bit more trouble with attendance but manages respectable numbers. Adding another team to the area would likely result in serious troubles for Buffalo. Of the 'move' teams I mentioned, from most viable to least viable situation I consider the order to be as such based on factors such as ownership/management, fan interest, and long term stability. 1) NY Islanders 2) Atlanta 3) Phoenix 4) Nashville 5) Anaheim 6) Florida So we have to consider what the best markets to add teams in are for team viability. Markets I have thought in the past would work well are Portland, Houston, Salt Lake City. Other markets that have been mentioned include Kansas City, London. I would rank those five, according to viability: 1) Portland 2) Houston 3) Salt Lake City 4) London 5) Kansas City The only remaining matter, of course, is how to solve the matter of adding two teams and moving up to six. There are, of course, a few ways to do this. One would be straight expansion into two markets, and three standard moves. This is probably the simplest. But the method I favor would function as follows: The teams on the list are given an opt-in, starting with the least viable team and working towards the most viable team. Once we get to three teams opting-in, the opting-in is closed. Expansion draft, phase one: "Opt-in teams" submit a list of 15 skaters and one goaltender who are 'protected' while "Expansion" teams pick six players with no more than one goaltender each in a snaking draft format from the remaining pool of players off of those teams. Players who are waiver-exempt are not eligible to be selected and need not be protected. No team may lose more than two players, and no team may lose a goaltender and a defenseman. All teams must expose at least one forward, defenseman, and goaltender. Expansion draft, phase two: All remaining teams submit similar protected lists (15 skaters, one goaltender) and "Expansion" teams pick from the exposed players until they each have 15 skaters and one goaltender. Players who are waiver-exempt are not eligible to be selected and need not be protected. No team may lose more than two players, and no team may lose a goaltender and a defenseman. All teams must expose at least one forward, defenseman, and goaltender. Expansion draft, phase three. All "Expansion" and "Opt-in" teams pick eight players from the available players. No team may lose more than two players, and no team may lose a goaltender and a defenseman. All teams must expose at least one forward, defenseman, and goaltender. NOTE: I included London over Hamilton because Hamilton is halfway between Toronto and Buffalo, and the discussion was about a possible expansion team in the Toronto area. London>>>Hamilton for that purpose. Realistically, neither should have one as the area already supports two teams and New York/New Jersey shows what happens when you try and shoehorn a third into an area like that.

EXCUSE THE f*** OUT OF ME?

Z should have won. Z is the first guy Babcock looks to on the PK, Z is the guy Babcock looks to when he needs to shut down an opposing offensive player. Datsyuk is really good at taking the puck off of an opposing player's stick, but Z is better defensively overall and he is the team's go-to forward when it comes to defensive situations. Z should have won the Selke.

I applaud the effort to apply an objective statistical analysis to defense. As someone who appreciates objectivity and statistics, though, I also have a few comments. That said, hits and takeaways, while both are viewed in a defensive light, cannot be used as you have used them here. Some players see most of their hits come in the offensive zone, and many players are credited with takeaways due to turnovers by the opposing team. Also, both statistics have been shown to be recorded inconsistently across the league, which means that they cannot be taken as an accurate representation of a player's ability. Some suggestions for your rankings though, as far as improving your methods while using the same basic method. Instead of awarding the 'best' Wings forward a 12 and the worst a 1, regardless of the difference between them, you should compare them based on the difference between them. This can be done as follows; For example, let's use takeaways as an example. We cannot simply use raw takeaway statistics either, as forwards played greatly inconsistent amounts of time. So takeaways per minute (and other similar stats) shall be used to rank the top 12 forwards in ice time from each team. 10- Very good, 5%, 18 forwards. 9- Good, 7.5%, 27 forwards. 8- Above average, 12.5%, 45 forwards 7- Average (high), 25%, 90 forwards 6- Average (low), 25%, 90 forwards 5- Below average, 12.5%, 45 forwards 4- Bad, 7.5%, 27 forwards 3- Very bad, 5%, 18 forwards 1/2- Minor League. There is nobody this bad in the NHL. Anyone in the NHL bad on D and good on O is at least 3 on raw skill. If you rank based on the raw stats without adjusting for the time as I suggested, but use my ranking format, then the Wings' forwards receive the following scores based on last year's stats. Maximum possible score is 50. Hits: Kopecky, 8 Maltby, 7 Draper, 7 Franzen, 7 Cleary, 7 Hossa, 7 Samuelsson, 7 Holmstrom, 6 Datsyuk, 5 Filppula, 5 Zetterberg, 4 Hudler, 3 Takeaways (x2): Datsyuk, 10 Hossa, 10 Zetterberg, 9 Franzen, 7 Filppula, 7 Cleary, 6 Hudler, 6 Samuelsson, 6 Draper, 6 Maltby, 5 Holmstrom, 3 Kopecky, 3 Blocked Shots (x2): Datsyuk, 8 Filppula, 7 Draper, 7 Franzen, 7 Samuelsson, 6 Hossa, 6 Kopecky, 6 Maltby, 6 Zetterberg, 5 Cleary, 5 Hudler, 3 Holmstrom, 3 Total scores: Datsyuk, 41 Hossa, 39 Franzen, 35 Draper, 33 Filppula, 33 Zetterberg, 32 Samuelsson, 31 Maltby, 29 Cleary, 29 Kopecky, 26 Hudler, 21 Holmstrom, 18 Of note: The bottom four players all had their overall ice time significantly limited in some way that would affect their total stats. Zetterberg also saw his ice time limited due to injury. So, while this does not give a complete picture of defensive ability, I do think that if you take the 'NHL rank' model I have put forth, but use a 'per minute' or 'per-game' model rather than a 'total numbers' model you would get a much more accurate reflection of defensive ability. A reason to favor per-minute or per game: Say Zetterberg plays five games and throws one hit, has two takeaways, and blocks two shots. In those five games his total score would be 9. Say he is injured in the fifth game by blocking the 2nd shot. Well, say Tomas Holmstrom plays 10 games, and throws two hits, blocks two shots, and has two takeaways. by your initial post, Holmstrom is the better defensive player by his score of 10; even though his average score per game is 1.00 to Zetterberg's 1.80.

Well, if it were me I would sign until the age of 45 for the league minimum...but that might be because it's still way more than I make now and I know I would live quite comfortably on that kind of money. I'd be happy with Hank at anything under 8.5m per year...I expect him to sign for between 7 and 8.

Kopecky makes a million less than Laraque, who also makes more than Hudler, Franzen or Samuelsson. Laraque might be better than Kopecky...but he's not a million dollars better. He's MARGINALLY better if at all. Kopecky is a better skater and a better defensive player, and fits the Wings' system better.

For Toronto to get a second NHL team... Wouldn't they have to have a first one?

I guess I just interpret it differently. First off, I don't hate Shanny. But secondly, Fedorov WANTED to stay, and was shoved out the door by management with continually reducing offers. That said, Fedorov has said that he would have accepted the total value offered him in the final offer if it included a fifth year; meaning $38m over 5 years instead of $38m over 4 years. Fedorov kept negotiating with the Wings but the Wings were never willing to pony up the 5th year and said as much. It was not about money; it was about how long he could stay. Shanahan rejected all attempts by the Wings to retain him and left for an identical deal with another team. It was about leaving. People seem to get the two players' motivations mixed up due to personal hatred, national bias, etc. The facts are the Shanny is the one who left and never made any attempt to stay. Fedorov is the one who really tried to stay, and only left when it was painfully obvious the team didn't want him. Shanny just played the media and the fans better.

If Fedorov had returned and was making the same money he did in Anaheim, that means no Lang, Schneider probably doesn't return after the lockout, and Fedorov probably plays the point on the PP instead. Completely feasible.

It amazes me how many people are willing to go nuts on Fedorov for the way he left but give a free pass to Shanahan and others. Fedorov never made his market value in Detroit. For the average salary of his contract in a given year, he never once was paid even close to what he was worth at the time. For all of you people who are so upset about his holdout in 1998...you realize that he was holding out for LESS THAN MARKET VALUE and the Wings wouldn't give it to him? He wanted a deal worth $5.5m per season, the Wings were offering $4.5m per season. The most comparable recent player signed was Joe Sakic, who had just signed a three year offer sheet with New York worth an average of $7m per season, all in guaranteed money. Fedorov ended up with a six year deal that was about $4.2m per season in guaranteed money, and $6.3m per year if he made all his performance bonuses, which he did. In other words; when Fedorov held out, it's not that the Wings didn't feel he was worth that much money; they just didn't want to pay him. Fedorov agreed to a contract with the Wings of 5 years, $50m. When he showed up to sign, the deal presented was 4yr, $40m. Later, it was re-offered to 4yr, $38m. Fedorov stated that he wanted a 5 year deal, and that the money was not the big deal. Had the Wings offered him 5 years, $38m he likely would have signed. Instead, they chose to push one of the best Red Wings ever out the door.

Loo, you are proving you have blinders on, and here's why: Hasek played one game all season, playoffs included, where the Wings gave up 30 or more shots. This was a 3-2 loss to Ottawa on January 12th. Osgood has been playing behind a Wings team that has been playing, to put it bluntly, much worse defensively. No, Osgood hasn't played as well as he did last season, and yes, he can play better. But Hasek last season wasn't playing behind a team that was playing very poorly; the team was playing quite well defensively and limiting and Hasek was still doing poorly much of the time. The reason Osgood and Hasek weren't treated the same last season? Hasek played like crap much of the time and Osgood was awesome 98% of the time. If two guys are in the same situation (goaltenders behind a defense, quarterbacks behind an O-line, etc.) and one performs much better than the other does, he'll probably get much better treatment by most fans. Not hard to fathom. Hasek was a great goalie, and his decline in performance last year likely had to do mainly with age combined with some nagging injuries. It doesn't diminish his status as one of the greatest goaltenders ever; you shouldn't let bitterness over the fact that other fans preferred a younger Osgood who outplayed him last season turn you off to another one of the game's great goaltenders. It would be like an Yzerman fan deciding he didn't like Fedorov because of all the media attention in 1994.

Hudler is an excellent playmaker with a good shot. He can play all three forward positions. Babs obviously didn't like the way the second line was working, because he wanted Zetterberg to be the playmaker and Hudler was serving in that role. There are two primary solutions: Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Franzen/Hudler/Hossa OR: Holmstrom/Zetterberg/Hossa Franzen/Datsyuk/Hudler With Z out, Filppula or Cleary would fill Z's spot.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A961958260 Colorado obviously matched, but Sakic's deal was worth more per season, and all of it guaranteed money, for a player who was considered to be a lesser player than Fedorov. Fedorov averaged slightly less per season over twice as many years as Sakic on their respective offer sheet deal. The breakdown: Sakic's deal had a $15m signing bonus and a $2m base salary over three seasons, for a total of $21m guaranteed money. Fedorov's deal had a $14m signing bonus and a $2m base salary over six seasons, plus a $14m bonus if the team were to make the conference finals in the first year. This made Fedorov's guaranteed salary approximately $4.3m per year, and his total average salary including the bonus was $6.3m per year. By comparison, the Wings had been offering Fedorov a long-term deal with an average salary of $4.5m and Fedorov had been asking for a long-term deal with an average salary of $5.5m. Now tell me...would you have signed Sergei Fedorov in the summer of 1997 to a $5.5m per year, long term deal? I would have.

The difference is Z is the better player and just isn't playing his best, so he should be even FURTHER ahead of Datsyuk in scoring. Datsyuk, meanwhile, has been performing his best so obviously 2 points is all we should have expected from him at this point.

I don't know about an ass beating. Roberts was always a pretty good fighter, even though he tended to let his enforcers do the work for him with guys like Probert. Eager has a reputation as a pretty good fighter...and he got just schooled. Kimbo Sliced if you will.

So let's break this down. Teams that are among the league's best for an extended period and win multiple championships should see significant representation. The 50s Cup teams are part of a greater era of Wings teams that won 5 Cups and made 15 Finals appearances in 21 seasons from 1940-41 to 1965-66. Extending back further by seven years, we have 18 Finals appearances and 7 Cup wins in 28 seasons spanning three separate Cup era teams. Longevity counts. Obviously, with Detroit, starting with the franchise counts. Being a good player as a Wing counts. Championship wins also apparently count. So we'll start by saying that the best homegrown player from a championship-era team is a candidate for retirement. After that, each 'additional' championship won by the same era team (comprised primarily of the same core players and/or won within a couple seasons of the previous championship) allows consideration of an additional number of players from that era team equal to Cups won as a maximum number. We'll consider extended 'non-Cup' greatness later, but this would mean that the Wings would be able to retire up to 11 numbers from the respective teams. We'll break it down into the eras and who the most deserving homegrown players on the teams are. I'll list, in numerical order, deserving players (up to the "Cup wins" maximum) from the Cup era teams. 1936-37: #5 Ebbie Goodfellow, #6 Larry Aurie 1943: #12 Sid Abel 1950-52-54-55: #1 Terry Sawchuk, #7 Ted Lindsay, #9 Gordie Howe, #10 Alex Delvecchio The 2008 Cup team is pretty clearly defined as a separate era. The 2002 team was still comprised primarily of core players from the 97 and 98 teams, with a couple of high profile additions tacked on to the existing core of the team, rather than replacing the core or rebuilding the team around them. However, I am going to refrain from rating who would earn the 'current' spots as players from all four recent Cup teams are still on the roster and many have potential to alter such a list. I will say that Yzerman and Lidstrom are locked in for the first two spots, with #30 Osgood, #91 Fedorov, #13 Kozlov, #13 Datsyuk, #40 Zetterberg, #96 Holmstrom, #33 Draper, and #55 Kronwall the active players I can think of offhand who are potentially capable of shifting into or out of the discussion. #2 Jack Stewart, #4 Red Kelly, and other great players mentioned here would have to rely on allowing further numbers due to the team's extended periods of greatness between championships which I alluded to earlier.

Fedorov was a Selke nominee his second season in the league. Fedorov was ahead of Draper in Selke votes his last year with the team. I don't think there is a year in history that Draper received more Selke votes than Fedorov when the two played on the same team. Draper has been a very good defensive forward for a long time. But he didn't get serious Selke consideration until Yzerman's knee was really causing him trouble skating and Fedorov had left. Fedorov in 1997 was the league's best player. He signed an offer sheet when it was put to him more than halfway through the season. And you know what? The offer was for less than his market value. Fedorov signed a contract for LESS THAN HIS MARKET VALUE. And this was AFTER HOLDING OUT ALL SEASON because the Wings wouldn't offer him a reasonable contract. I am all for cheering on the crest on the front over the name on the back...but realistically, what the hell was going on there? Honestly, I don't care if Fedorov's number gets retired. I think he deserves it, but will it break my heart if it doesn't happen? No. I guess I'm not that emotionally invested in the fate of whether a player's number is retired, especially when that player is still playing in the NHL and could therefore potentially change the argument. Oh, and btw...no Wings player has ever had their jersey retired who didn't start their career with the Wings. This knocks off Draper and Shanahan, as well as Chelios.

Ok, I'll rephrase for clarity. He did not play D outside of Detroit.

Ilitch has retired Sawchuk, Lindsay, Abel, Yzerman, as well as re-retiring Delvecchio's number during his ownership. From when Ilitch took over in 1982 to 1995, there were four jersey retirement ceremonies for the Wings. 4 in the first 13 years of ownership for Ilitch. Since then, Yzerman's number has been retired, and Aurie's number has been removed from official listings. So let's compare the first 13 years of Ilitch, with the three new retired numbers, to the previous 56 years of team history, with 3 retired numbers. Yep, Ilitch clearly is completely against retiring numbers given that in his first 13 years, the number of total retired jersey numbers went from 2 to 6, an increase of 4, one of which (Delvecchio's 10) had been unretired and was being re-retired.

Let's address this 'Pandora's Box' argument. Fedorov vs Osgood. Many believe Fedorov deserves to have his jersey retired. Many believe Osgood deserves the same honor. There are many who would argue against both. It is arguable who is more deserving; however Osgood is the player more likely to end up holding most statistical records for his position with the team Fedorov vs Shanahan. Fedorov was the better player every year they were on the team together, without exception. Fedorov, in his prime, was one of the top five players in the world. Shanahan, as a Red Wing and in his prime, was one of the top five at his position in a good year. Furthermore, Shanahan came to the Wings as an established player, while Fedorov began his career in Detroit. There is no possible valid argument that Shanahan could be more deserving than Fedorov; therefore a Shanahan retirement would ensure a Fedorov retirement, but a Fedorov retirement would not guarantee anything for Shanahan. Fedorov vs Draper. Draper has spent most of his time in Detroit as a defensive specialist playing the same or lesser quality defense than Fedorov was playing at the same time. Both have always been lightning-quick skaters, and Fedorov's offensive ability and physical strength while having the same speed and defensive skills really sets him apart from a guy like Draper. Draper has spent most of his time in Detroit as a third or fourth line grinder...Fedorov spent his entire career in Detroit as a first or second line forward while playing both on the power play and the penalty kill due to his amazing two-way abilities. Draper will never even get a sniff of jersey retirement, and everyone but cracked out Draper fans know it. Other players who were mentioned: Red Kelly. One of the best defensemen ever, and only played D for the Wings. Probably deserves to hang from the rafters. Norm Ullman. An unusual situation, Ullman primarily wore two numbers currently not in circulation. He wore 16 and 7. Most of his Detroit career was spent wearing #7, as Ted Lindsay had been shipped out of town. So if a banner were ever hung for Ullman, it would not change the available numbers as it would simply add another #7 banner to the rafters. A deserving player, one might even say that it is a disservice to Ullman that a player who played fewer games and scored at a worse points-per-game rate gets full recognition while Ullman receives no recognition at all. Ullman has scored 30 more points in 13 more games than Lindsay, and scored 295 more in 305 more games played than Sid Abel. So if a Fedorov retirement gets those players into the rafters...where exactly is the harm? Both players are completely deserving of the honor. You should always think about it. Gerard Gallant has better stats than Sid Abel in about the same number of games, and Gallant was on the first line longer. Which player deserves the number to be hanging? Sergei Fedorov is one of the greatest offensive players the Wings have ever had. He did this while playing his prime in the "dead puck era" and performing as one of the league's top defensive players. To argue that retiring his jersey means the Wings have to retire Kris Draper's jersey is like saying that because a cop let someone off for speeding without writing a ticket because his wife was in labor means he has to let off the person who is speeding because they are trying to get away from the scene of a crime. It's a completely different situation, where one is a pretty simple decision where the cop just has to think 'is she really pregnant and in labor?' so to say that one leads to the other is flawed logic.

Including these three players in a very select group seems fairly odd. Linden is the least odd, as he was the fact of the franchise for a long time, but he was never a truly great player and for much of his time there the Canucks were defined by the presence (or absence) of superstar sniper Pavel Bure. Linden was much like Draper; he was a good second/third line forward who played solid defense and could play multiple forward positions, and was a team leader and fan favorite. But he's not the kind of guy who gets his jersey retired. Linden's presence as team captain and as an offensive leader on the team make his inclusion more realistic, but the Canucks had several players who were just as important to the team as Linden for many years. Markus Naslund had the captain/franchise face/fan favorite thing going, but he also has the superstar winger thing going for him and the same kind of longevity with the team. Which is one more reason Linden should not get his jersey in the rafters; because Naslund certainly won't. MacDonald is a 500 goal scorer. Yes he scored 66 goals as a Flame in one of his 7.5 seasons there. But that makes up just shy of one third of his entire goal scoring output (215) as a Flame. He only scored 30 two other times, and failed to crack 20 four of his final five seasons as a Flame. Hardly retirement-worthy numbers, unless you mean he should have retired from the game after posting them...which he did. He posted by far his worst career scoring numbers as a Flame. If you were going to name a Flames forward, why not mention Theoren Fleury, Joe Nieuwendyk, Joey Mullen, Jarome Iginla, Mike Vernon, or Al MacInnis? Yes, I realize that MacDonald is the only Flame other than Vernon to receive the honor, but IMHO MacDonald was outperformed in the uniform by all of the above forwards as well as MacInnis and Vernon; he received the honor because he retired while the others were beginning their careers. MacDonald was arguably the greatest Flames forward to that point in their short history, (Kent Nilsson and Hakan Loob could argue against him) but then, one has to argue was he great enough, and was their history great enough, to justify retiring his number with 215 goals and 400 points in 492 games, when the franchise leader at the time, Nilsson, had 229 goals and 562 points in 425 games? Nilsson's 131 points in a season still stands as a franchise record; one has to wonder where his recognition is? He's the only player in Flames history to play 400+ games and maintain a points-per-game average better than 1.10...none of the other star scorers who have donned the Flames jersey could do it. Neely...this discussion has been had many times. He does not belong in a jersey retirement discussion or the Hall of Fame. Actual performance is what matters. If a guy got injured, that's a tough break. But getting a severe injury shouldn't allow you pro-rated stats towards actually getting into the Hall of Fame or getting your jersey retired. Those things should require ACTUAL performance, which Neely doesn't have enough of. It's like my Kevin Stevens comparison...Stevens was a better player when healthy than just about everyone else...but he suffered a gruesome and tragic injury that completely ruined him as a player; and he was still one of the better players in the league and scoring a point per game for the next few years. Stevens probably doesn't make the HOF because he doesn't have the actual performance...but as far as what he would have done if he doesn't get injured.....It would have been truly frightening the kind of domination he would have continued to lay on the league. I would suggest the inclusion of Adam Oates, Al MacInnis, and Kirk McLean as replacements on your list if you feel the need to have players from those teams who 'deserve' retirement within the last 25 years to replace the ones I argued against.