eva unit zero

Because if the Wings had to pick one forward to have out in a defensive situation, it would be Zetterberg. Not Datsyuk. That alone is proof enough that Datsyuk is not the best in the league; if he's not the best defensively ON HIS LINE, how can he be the best in the league?

I'll eat crow for saying he wouldn't win it. I will not eat crow for saying he SHOULDN'T have won it. Because he shouldn't have.

He was pretty universally ranked between 15th and 25th in the thread in question. Only a few dared to place him outside those bounds. Most of the posters who posted in it said there was no way Z could be as good as guys like Heatley, Iginla, or Lecavalier.

Matthias is completely unproven, and could score 2 NHL goals over the next two seasons. You do realize this don't you?

Ultimately...it has to be looked at this way. Is Dats the best defensive forward on his team? To answer that question, we have to ask another set of questions. Is there someone that the Wings prefer to take key faceoffs over Dats at times when Dats is on the ice? Is there someone who is used ahead of Dats in PK situations? Henrik Zetterberg and Kris Draper are both valid answers to those questions. Which then creates a new question: If Datsyuk is not the go-to-guy on key faceoffs or for PK situations, is he the best defensive forward on his team? And the answer is no. As far as Madden is concerned? Dats or Z might be the go-to defensive forward for the Devils if one of them and Madden switched. Madden could be the go-to defensive forward on the Wings if he and Dats or Z switched. But Z is the go to defensive forward in Detroit over Dats. This is, IMHO, the third time in twelve seasons a Wing has deserved the Selke, and the Selke has gone to a Wing, but the Selke has gone to the WRONG Wing. The other times: 1996 Fedorov won/Yzerman should have and 2004 Draper won/Maltby should have. In all three instances, the guy who won posted better offensive totals and had one of the best years of his career.

Hmm. My generally mocked and laughed at mention of Zetterberg as a top five player that I called before the season doesn't seem so silly anymore, does it?

I would hope they called his mom a name. That name, of course, being "Mrs. Lidstrom."

Judging by previous Babcock assistants hired for the Wings...the replacement will have played with all three of Tony Twist, Tim Cheveldae, and Kelly Chase.

Tucker would be a welcome addition on the third or fourth line for less than a million bucks. If he wants more than that, no thanks. Yes, Tucker plays a bit chippy. But so does Drake, McCarty, Draper, Downey, Chelios, Maltby. You need a few guys who get under the opponent's skin to win. I would honestly love lines that worked out like this: Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Franzen/Filppula/Samuelsson Cleary/Hudler/Tucker Maltby/Draper/Kopecky McCarty

The difference being? Yzerman made those comments in the late 90s or the 2000s...when Nick WAS the best player on the team. Yzerman has also said Sergei Fedorov was the most talented player he's ever seen play in person. The fact of the matter is...Yzerman's prime was over by the time Nick Lidstrom was the second best defenseman on the team. So the 'Lidstrom was the best player while Yzerman was with the team' doesn't work, because the same can be said in reverse.

How the hell does Thornton beat Datsyuk for Second Team? Datsyuk took home the Selke, AND scored more. How is Thornton better? His passport?

You do realize the 'sucked it up' part of the season was with Glen Hanlon behind the bench, right? You do know that the 'turnaround' happened after Boudreau replaced him? It's not like Boudreau was at the helm all year; the Caps went 37-17-7 under Boudreau. That's a 50-23-9 record projected over 82 games; good enough to get them the first seed in the East and second overall if they had played at that level all year. Most people did not expect the Caps' roster to make the playoffs going into the season; by the end of the year, Boudreau had them playing like conference champions, and had won the division. That's impressive, and Adams-worthy.

I was sitting here, pondering a series of questions. We all would like the Wings to be in the Eastern Conference. We know the NHL is considering a small expansion down the road. We know that Jim Balsillie wants to put a team in Hamilton, and the chances of that happening outside of expansion are slim unless he is willing to vastly change his approach. I and others have stated that 32 teams is a good size for the league as far as divisions, travel, etc. Some of my past ideas for realignment when the league was less financially secure included mergers of teams. This avoids the buyout that contraction would require, and allows two struggling teams to put together what parts they DO have and compete at a higher level. There have been (somewhat dubious) reports that many small-market teams in the South are unhappy with the way the salary floor is working out. So I wondered; What if the NHL expanded with four new teams (Kansas City, Portland, Houston, and Hamilton) and we saw a loss of two total franchises from the existing base due to mergers, getting us to that magic '32' while adding teams in the Western Conference. So I took a look at the most recent list of franchise values, as well as attendance figures and wondered...what four teams would be the most in need of a merger, that could be linked to another local team? Teams that get less than satisfactory attendance consistently and have low value are the winners here. The answer also needs to satisfy the requirement that we lose two Eastern Conference teams, to allow for Detroit and Columbus to move to the East; because we know Detroit doesn't move before Columbus does. I also tried to stay away from picking any team from the last expansion, as their values will be lower due to the fact they have been in the league less than ten seasons. A nearby, more stable, team also helps to qualify a team for 'merger' status, as does limited 'history' meaning teams with less historical success are more likely to be 'merger' teams. Ownership also has to be considered; group ownership is more likely to see a merger than single ownership as a single owner generally will not want to give up control, while a group will already have processes in place for those kind of things. The answers I came up with? Washington has been a generally futile club with low attendance and poor revenue and value, and the team has pretty much always been ignored by the market. Even in 98, when they reached the Cup finals, nobody cared. Florida has been, other than a 1996 Finals run where they were carried by the Beezer, pretty much the definition of futility in the NHL. Combine that with an apathetic fan base, poor revenue, and low franchise value as well as a much more successful neighbor in Tampa Bay, and you have the second candidate. So who do they merge with? Florida obviously merges with...NOT Tampa Bay. The Lightning are one of the more valuable franchises in the league. However, Atlanta is another team that has had similar 'shaky' success as the Panthers. An infusion of assets and additional owner resources through a merger might help both clubs. Washington? Well, the reasonable answer would be another struggling East Coast team that has seen poor attendance and financial struggles but generally has a better fan base. The obvious answer is the New York Islanders. Of course, we're also adding four teams in this process. So it doesn't seem fair to just let two teams have two rosters' worth of players, and then the other expansion teams get to pick leftovers. So here's how it would be handled... Phase 1: Existing teams, including New York and Atlanta would select a roster of 13 skaters and one goaltender to protect. Players who are waiver exempt would also be ineligible. Assuming approximately 20% of unprotected NHLers are exempt, this would mean that about 220 players would be 'available' for selection at this point. These must be players with either an existing contract or RFA status. The four expansions teams would be allowed to draft up to 13 skaters and one goaltender from the available players. 42 players are selected. No team except for can lose more than two players, nor can a team lose more than one player who is either a defenseman or a goaltender. The exception to this final rule is that NYI and Atl will still count as two teams for this, and thus can lose up to four players each, including a maximum of 2 D/G. All teams must expose at least two forwards, one defenseman, and one goaltender. A team must also effectively name its roster; 14 on the protected list, plus waiver exempts. A team must expose enough players after that to fill out a 23-man roster; meaning a team with zero 'waiver exempt' players must expose a total of nine players, minimum. Phase 2: Expansion teams, as well as the Islanders and Thrashers, participate in a second draft. All 'exposed' Islander and Thrasher players will be considered 'available' for this draft. The 2 player, 1 D/G limit will continue to be respected with regards to the other 26 teams; so this phase will be, for the most part, a divvying up of unclaimed assets that belonged to the Panthers, Thrashers, Islanders, or Capitals. Each team will draft eleven players, including no more than two additional goaltenders. Phase 3: The Isles and Thrashers are allowed to select 50% (rounding down) of the 'waiver exempt' players who were not also on the team's initial 'protected' list. The four 'expansion' teams are then allowed to select up to two players each from the remainder who played in the NHL the previous season, with neither team losing more than four players. This allows the Isles and Thrashers to keep core players such as Kovalchuk and Ovechkin, but allows the expansion teams to build something of a core before they have to compete with the Isles and Thrashers for players in the second phase. It also allows the six clubs equal chance to add extra players; which may include higher paid players the existing clubs could not justify keeping given the salary cap. It also allows the expansion teams to pick up some younger players who could help them, but are less likely to see time with the established clubs. It would be interesting.

Yzerman is the only players to have two consecutive seasons where he achieved all of the following marks: Lead team in goals, assists, and points. Scored 50+ goals. Scored 100+ points. Finished top 20 in Selke voting, with at least one first-place vote. Furthermore, without Gretzky and Lemieux, if you assume the voting places in the same order, Yzerman would have finished with several more First and Second team selections. Another statement of note...both of Yzerman's primary linemates during the 93-94 season, Ray Sheppard and Keith Primeau, finished top-ten in position voting at the end of the season for the first time in their careers. This is, incidentally, the only occurence where both of Yzerman's linemates achieved this feat. Yet for the first time in seven seasons, Yzerman did not finish top six in center voting. While there was obviously some lost votes due to injury, Yzerman scored well enough to finish 15 points ahead of Geoff Sanderson, who finished seventh in voting. Igor Larionov (60 points in 56 games) and Mark Messier (84 points in 76 games) tied for ninth place in center voting; Yzerman obviously outperformed both players by a considerable margin. Did Yzerman get shafted by the injury (notice, Larionov only played two more games and scored much less) or did he get shafted by the perception that his teammates were top notch and therefore, after several years of being an elite center, he was now the product of his environment? And as far as Gretzky's Selke votes are concerned...Gretzky never received a first place vote in his career, and never received more than one vote in a season. That alone speaks to the fact it was more about one person paying homage to 'The Great One' than Gretzky actually playing defense worthy of Selke voting. Kind of like voters voting for Brian McGrattan for the Lady Byng.

I would like to see you post a list of names of people on this board who, until Kopecky was playing really well in the middle of last season, ever believed he was capable of being a full-time NHLer. I'll give you a hint, this list is exactly one name long. And it doesn't allow you to use the term 'we' as you are not included on the list.

The major difference being that Sakic's best years came outside of the primes of Gretzky and Lemieux. Yzerman WOULD have a Hart trophy if not for that. Sakic also didn't receive a freak injury when he was just breaking out; Yzerman, as I have said, had his knee wrecked by a freak accident and still dominated the league afterwards. All of his 'durability problems' were because of that initial injury; he would LIKELY be the second leading scorer all-time had it never occurred. Seriously; he played seventeen seasons after wrecking his knee and missed quite a few games. His speed was also diminished because of it. Yzerman, in an extra 200 games and with a good knee, could easily have scored the 133 points that would have placed him second in points. The 109 goals might have been a bit less likely, but still very possible, and 187 assists would have been very doable. The fact that he did all of that while playing great defense and suffering a nagging injury makes him GREATER. Yzerman played the majority of his best seasons without any legitimate first line talent playing with him. Sakic played his best years with Sundin and Nolan, and later Forsberg, Hejduk, Tanguay, and Drury. Not to mention the fact that Sakic has typically paid far less attention to defense than Yzerman did after the age of 29; Sakic has always been offense-first, while Yzerman, in his offensive prime, changed to defense-first. What people often forget; the first season Yzerman played with a defense-first approach was 1994-95. The year before that, he scored 82 points in 58 games, a pace that would have seen him finish with 119 points over a full season. And had Yzerman remained healthy, Fedorov wouldn't have scored 120...so Stevie Y would have been second in scoring. Had Yzerman continued the take an offense-first approach, who knows how many points he would have scored at age 37? That's the thing; people like to make comparisons with Yzerman based just on points. Yzerman was ALWAYS about more than offense...I think the fact that Bowman changed his focus in 1994 blinds people to the fact that YZERMAN WAS ALWAYS GOOD DEFENSIVELY. Just ask Bryan Trottier about Yzerman's rookie year; he'll tell you Yzerman was one of the league's best defensive centers in his first season.

Well technically, the 'give us the Norris back' argument would mean: Chicago Blackhawks Dallas Stars Detroit Red Wings St. Louis Blues Tampa Bay Lightning Toronto Maple Leafs

Now to be fair...the two guys who are fighting for the 'best of the generation' tag in Yzerman's generation are ranked 1-2 on your list. And everyone else's list. So given that he was not that far behind them, it's not unreasonable to suggest that maybe he was just as good as guy who without Gretzky and Lemieux were considered the top centers? Yzerman is considered the greatest Red Wing center ever. This is pretty universal, and gives us a point of reference against other great centers; namely Sid Abel, Alex Delvecchio, and Norm Ullman. All of whom at one point or another were considered the top center in the league. You have included Beliveau, Mikita, and Esposito. You do realize all three played in the same era, and therefore could not all have been considered the 'top two' of their era? So unless you are saying the third best center from one era is better than the third best center from another, even though the two guys ahead of him are universally considered the top two centers EVER, then your argument of all three of those guys ahead of Yzerman doesn't hold. When you furthermore consider that from 1981 to 1993, either Gretzky or Lemieux was named the first-team center 11 of 13 seasons. That covers Yzerman's entire prime. Had Yzerman not had to contend with Gretzky and Lemieux EVERY YEAR, he would have a few more postseason All-Star selections and trophies. Brad Park is another good example of this kind of thing. Many people consider Bobby Orr to be the greatest player ever. Brad Park was often the top defenseman in the league after Orr in Orr's best years, which is all you could expect of any defenseman EVER if Orr is truly the best ever. So that alone gives Park a solid argument that he is as good as guys who have won a few Norrises, because he would have had three Norrises (minimum) if Orr isn't playing. How many Norrises would Niedermayer have if Lidstrom weren't around? The answer, based on existing voting, is that Nieder would have won three straight coming out of last season. Trophies are nice, but you can't use number of trophies won as a serious factor in determining whether a player was better than someone from another era; the competition wasn't the same, so there's no telling whether one player was better but faced stiffer competition. My argument to this is goaltender's from the 1980s. A major reason the 1980s was so high scoring is that a lot of talented offensive players were in the league, but the goaltending quality was at an all-time low. I personally feel that every single NHL-level netminder today would have been an All-Star candidate in the 1980s. Only a handful of tenders around then were good enough to even be in the league right now. A guy who is a top AHL goalie this year would have been considered top-10 in the world with the same level of play in 1987. But if you go by trophies won, then Pete Peeters was better in his prime than Roberto Luongo, Evgeni Nabokov, Marty Turco, or Chris Osgood have been at their best. Even though Peeters only twice in his career posted a save percentage upwards of .900, and was generally a mediocre goaltender who struggled in a starting role. Or even better....Bill Durnan is the greatest goaltender ever, as he was considered the top netminder in the league six times in his seven season career. Was it a Hasek situation, where the guy is just that much above the norm? Or was it a Luc Robitaille/Kevin Stevens thing where the top guys were good players, but it was more about the rest of the field being kinda terrible. Stan Mikita isn't even considered to have been the best player on his line for the majority of his prime. He had two elite wingers...does that make him individually better than Yzerman? Would Mikita have been a superstar if he wasn't centering Bobby Hull for a decade? Or would he have been another Adam Oates; a guy who was a very good playmaker who happened to click with an excellent finisher. Oates to me is VERY similar to Mikita, in both style and skill level. Mikita often led the league in scoring centering Hull and Wharram. Hull is generally considered the top player from that line. In other words...Mikita performed well playing his best years with a BETTER player. Imagine if Yzerman had a Bobby Hull to pass to? 200 points doesn't seem out of reach given that kind of help. At which point you have to consider...did Gretzky get 200 because of his skill, or because of the league? And now we're asking the question of whether Gretzky or Lemieux are even the greatest offensive centers ever, which to this point has been an assumption. I guess what I'm trying to say is... What makes one dimensional players who fought for the rank as 'best offensive player' better than a guy who fought for the title of 'best offensive player' but ALSO played well defensively? The fact that they played in an era which didn't include Gretzky and Lemieux?

A major difference that affected Yzerman vs Gretzky/Lemieux? Only once in Red Wing history have two players scored 50 goals in the same season; this was 1994, when Fedorov played 28 minutes per game and Yzerman, after coming back from injury, turned 30 goal scorer Ray Sheppard into a 50-goal man. No time in team history have two players broken the 100 point mark. Meaning that while Gretzky and Lemieux played their best years with other offensively talented players (for example, five players on the 1993 Pens scored 100+ points) Yzerman's best years were played in the ABSENCE of offensively skilled players. I don't think the numbers tell an accurate story of how good the players were offensively; Yzerman was closer to Grezky and Lemieux than the numbers suggest, and it's largely because of the fact he could be consistently double or triple-teamed without anyone else on the ice becoming a threat. If teams tried that with Gretzky, the other team had to look at Kurri or Coffey facing less coverage. With Lemieux, teams would have to look at a guy like Stevens or Tocchet, or yet again, Coffey, coming up ice against half-coverage. A daunting prospect. Of all the 'top' centers in the league during his career, Yzerman is the only one that had to play most of his prime basically by himself. And he was still the third most offensively productive. Another example...peak linemates. Mario Lemieux's highest scoring linemate ever in his best years was Jaromir Jagr with 149 points. Wayne Gretzky's was Bernie Nicholls with 150. Yzerman's? Gerard Gallant with 93 points. Only once did Yzerman ever have a 100+ point linemate; this was John Ogrodnick in his second season, which he missed a large portion of. Lidstrom is top five among defensemen, but Yzerman is top-five among centers. As centers typically see more recognition as 'top' players, I would say this ranks Yzerman above Lidstrom.

There have been many times I have felt that NBA games or series were called in such a way as to achieve a desired outcome. Moreso than I have ever felt about the NHL, even in this past Finals series. The NBA seems to walk the line between 'sports' and 'entertainment' and often ventures onto either side; it's part of the reason I can't ever take the NBA seriously. Because the league always seems to find ways for its big names to waltz into the championship series, even if their teams were vastly outplayed and some might say they 'lucked' into a championship berth. There are also rumors that the KG trade to Boston was forced by Stern, given the fact that Minnesota was refusing to listen to offers and then suddenly shipped him East for what most considered less than his fair value. If that is true, it would stand to reason that the Celtics would be the beneficiaries of some ref love handed down from the league offices. The only motive I could see for such a series of events? Boston has always been an NBA town because of the Celtics' success. But recently, the Celtics have been poor and the Patriots and Red Sox have won a couple championships...so the town is not so green anymore. But it is this year. If the NBA DID rig those things...it was to get back to the top spot in the hearts of Boston fans.

I didn't say Lemieux's season wasn't a more impressive feat given the cancer. I said Yzerman had a better year as in better ON THE ICE. Also, the fact that Lemieux's weakest linemate in 92-93 was better than Yzerman' strongest linemate in 88-89 is a factor. If Yzerman were playing with physically dominant players who were also among the best offensive players at their respective positions...you can be DAMN sure that he'd have had more impressive offensive numbers. Everyone isso quick to say 'Hank and Dats are better than Crosby and Malkin because they play defense' yet when I say 'Yzerman had the best season ever by any forward because he posted one of the best offensive seasons ever, and is the only person to post anything close to those kinds of numbers AND be considered a top defensive forward.' I get shat upon for 'What about these other seasons where guys posted more offense?' I dunno...I just don't ge how defense SOMETIMES matters and sometimes doesn't, depending on the discussion. Either it does, or doesn't. There should be no 'sometimes' about it.

His son is currently wearing his number for the same organization; this likely would have occurred even had Colorado retained the Quebec retired numbers. But yes, the Avs did do a 'retiree dump' when they moved...which was not terribly classy.

Those are all fine seasons. The difference? Gretzky had Jari Kurri, one of the best finishers in league history who ALSO happened to be an elite defensive forward. Lemieux in 1993 was playing with two of the top power forwards in the league in Rick Tocchet and Kevin Stevens, and had a dominant second line on his team featuring Ron Francis and Jaromir Jagr. Bobby Hull rode shotgun for Stan Mikita, who was considered the top playmaking center in the league at the time. Steve Yzerman had a career third-liner in Gerard Gallant playing his left wing for most of his prime, and that particular season had right winger Paul MacLean (the Wings assistant coach now) playing the right side. Yzerman scored 65 goals, 90 assists, and 155 points. Gallant and MacLean COMBINED to score 75 goals, 89 assists, and 164 points. Lemieux that season was in a similar situation, where he contributed just shy of 50% of his line's offense. The major difference? Yzerman did it while playing top-level defense. Fedorov's 1994 season is probably the most comparable...and yet, Fedorov had two very skilled wingers and a much more competent defensive unit (Steve Chiasson's 47 points were the most of Wings defense in 1989 and good for 6th on the team overall; Chiasson was third in defense scoring with 46 points in 1994, behind Lidstrom's 56 and Coffey's 77...Coffey was fourth on the team in scoring. And I will remind you...I stated I consider it the greatest single season performance by a forward. This means that the relevance of defense and teammates is based on how important a factor I deem them to be. I did not claim it as "universally hailed as the most epic single season any forward has played" because that is obviously not true. But IMHO, no forward has had a better complete season than Yzerman did in 1988-89.

Yzerman's performance, pre-Bowman, was already good enough to rank him as one of the best two-way centers ever. Bowman did reinvent Yzerman's game, from the standpoint where previously he had been a top offensive center first, and he also played defense, he was changed to a top defensive center who was also capable of scoring at a high rate. Bowman didn't magically make Yzerman a good defensive player; he already was one. Bowman simply changed his primary focus. Yes, Yzerman's best years defensively were in the 90s. But he was still very good, perhaps even great defensively before Bowman.

Yzerman was named 'Most Outstanding Player' and was a top forward at both ends of the ice. Lemieux was not.