eva unit zero

Important analysis regarding tonight's game: Wings win. That is all.

The fact that he's Chris Chelios. Now Osgood or Brodeur? One of them might be able to pull off such a feat.

Lining up broken sticks at the red line is not the same as winning two awards that are polar opposites. There's a stupid but POSSIBLE idea that nobody would ever do, and then there is something that absolutely cannot happen. Much like the question...What's to stop Chris Chelios from taking hom the ultimate trifecta of awards; the Norris, Selke, and Vezina?

I will keep it short and simple. The NHL will not rule on a proposal to move until a sale has been approved. The NHL will not rule on a sale until there is a binding agreement. The NHL Board of Governors (AKA the owners) is the governing body that approves or denies such motions. Bettman has a very limited role in this process. As far as the salary floor...teams receive revenue sharing based on their revenue and their market size Teams that are in the top half of league revenues are not eligible for revenue sharing. Teams in markets with more than 2.5m TV households are not eligible for revenue sharing. Teams that do not reach 75% of capacity cannot receive revenue sharing. And finally, teams that do not match the NHL's financial growth rate lose a percentage of their revenue sharing monies. So ultimately, unless teams are struggling and failing to match the league's growth rate or failing to draw fans to games, they will always be able to spend up to the cap floor, no matter where it is. And for these struggling teams, relocation and/or sale may be an option...but not without a good faith effort in the existing market.

Well, if we count Ottawa and Buffalo, since both draw heavily from Ontario for attendance...then why does Ontario need four teams (including a potential team in Hamilton) then? California is three times as large as Ontario in terms of population. So if Californians only care about hockey to 33% of the degree Ontario residents do...then three teams is about right based on the current NHL. The Ducks don't quite have the fan support that the Kings and Sharks do, but then again, the Senators don't either. And all three California teams have better support than Winnipeg ever did. So don't give me the "Canadians LOOOOVE hockey and deserve it!" crap.

The fact that the criteria makes them exact opposites; to win one you would have to be th least viable candidate for the other. That said...I would say it has been Lebda.

No. He is shady because he is trying to get assurances that his moving the team immediately will be approved before he puts down a cent towards purchase. That's like wanting to get the community board of a condo association to approve you moving one of the condos to another piece of land before you put down a single cent towards purchase. Not only is it completely against their policy, it sets a bad precedent. All of the 'Hockey should be in Canada roar!' crowd doesn't seem to realize that if the NHL makes this exception for Balsillie, and then someone from, say, Kansas City wants to purchase the senators and move them right away, they have set the precedent that it is ok to do so. The Panthers and Thrashers are not doing well compared to teams like the Wings, Leafs, or Rangers. Guess what? They are still doing better than Winnipeg, Hartford or Quebec ever did. Yet fans act as if those cities are entitled to hockey and places that better support their teams (like Phoenix, Florida, Atlanta, Carolina, etc) are not entitled to the same kind of respect and should be stripped of their teams. And btw...Green bay could not support NHL hockey. Wisconsin is not a huge hockey state, and Green Bay is a very small market. Yes, the Packers have success. Why? because Football is #1, and the Packers are the most successful franchise in NFL history. The Edmonton Oilers are comparable...they have one of the more successful franchises ever, and are a franchise owned by a large number of locals. Edmonton wouldn't be able to support any other sport at the major league level. Had it not been for their run of titles in the 80s, some passionate fans, and some help from the league, the Oilers would have left Edmonton in the mid 90s. Edmonton is the only WHA franchise to have success after the merger, and as a result is the only one still in its original market. Green Bay is behind Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Toledo on the list of potential NHL cities in terms of viability. And that's just in (or near) Michigan. Other higher profile US cities that are probably more realistic destinations to receive an NHL team are: Houston, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, or Duluth. But, if you're willing to put your life savings up...I will gladly take that bet. I could use some extra cash.

Balsillie will only get a team if he is willing to play by the NHL's rules. In other words, if he is willing to pony up the cash for a binding agreement BEFORE he gets any assurances about being able to move the team. If he can't accept that, he won't be an NHL owner because the NHL will not rule on moving a team before the sale, and part of the standard ownership transfer is that a good faith effort must be made in the team's existing market before any relocation. The fact that Balsillie tried twice now to purchase a team and move them as soon as possible indicates to me that he is unwilling to accept that condition.

"I'll be the average height guy with a medium build, brownish hair, and wearing a Red Wings jersey." How could that be confusing?

When it is pointless and has no bearing on the discussion, such as trying to predict the year by year salary for a long term deal...even though it doesn't matter. In the NBA, it would matter, as their cap rules are different.

I would respond and say I have been consistent with my 'bashing' as you call it...I haven't said 'Oh man Dom sucks for making that mistake' and then turned around at the end of the year and said how awesome he's been all season and that I've always had his back. When he's made mistakes that he obviously shouldn't have, I've called him out on it. Just like every other player on the team. When they have made mistakes they shouldn't have, they receive a little burn from me. if they are playing well enough in their role, I generally give them credit. It's why I have bashed Hasek more than usual this season (he has had some terrible games) and why I generally don't bash guys like Samuelsson and Hudler who are the standard whipping boys on the forum because they aren't scoring 100 points, and why I called out Flip and Cleary for not producing for much of the playoffs despite getting prime ice time.

If Chelios comes into the game, it should be for Lebda. The biggest defensive weakness the Wings have had is a failure to clear the crease. Lilja is much better in that regard than Lebda is. Lebda is really the most useless player on the team; he's not good defensively, he's not a good playmaker, and he has a weak ass shot that isn't very accurate. All he has is speed, and he doesn't use it like he should. At the rate he's going, by the time he learns how to use his speed, he won't have it anymore. But honestly, Chelios has not looked good either. So I don't know if I make that switch. I would have to be in the room every day with the guys to know whether they were crushed abotu game 5. If they are suffering emotionally, I would make the switch because Chelios, ultimately, can still play at a high level with proper rest and motivation. If the guys are in the proper frame of mind, there's no need to change Lebda for Chelios. If it goes to a Game 7 as a reslt of defensive errors, then Chelios comes in.

What I don't get: 1) Why people feel the need to break down how much each year is worth, instead of just the expected cap hit. 2) Why anyone would offer a deal that starts and ends at the same value, but rises in the middle, rather than a front-loaded deal (makes the player more tradeable later on if necessary) or a deal that ramps up (helps delay the cost to a time when other high salaries might be off the books, or revenue may be up) 3) Why any player would sign such a deal rather than a deal that is heavily front loaded (quick cash) or a deal that ramps up at the end (leading hopefully to a bigger number on the next deal) Z's deal won't be worth more than Nick's per year. I would expect Z's deal to start lower and ramp up towards the end; with a cap hit between $6.7m and $7.4m, likely around $7.1m.

I am completely shocked by this attitude. The Wings have won three games in the finals. Osgood is the only player who has been a three star selection more than once in a Wings win...he has been first or second star each time. The Wings would not be a win away without the way Osgood has played; that is difficult to say with as much certainty about any other player, including Lids, Dats, and Z. Osgood had one game where he could have played better, and suddenly he's not in the running? Even though his stats say he's got one of if not the best playoff performance in the past 15+ years even with his 'bad' game? Yeah, he only has no chance because his name is Osgood. if it were Hasek, Brodeur, or Roy with the same exact run, highs and lows...they'd be shoo-ins. Please try and give a little respect to the second greatest Wings goaltender ever, k?

He will not get more than Lidstrom. I expect his deal to be close to 7.1m as far as cap hit is concerned.

Why would you be so sure of that? Osgood has won over 400 games regular season and playoffs combined, is a Stanley Cup winner, and has been a Vezina contender. His style is also radically different than Hasek's. Why would Ozzie have questions for Dom? Note: This is not intended to bash Hasek in any way, just a request for clarification of an odd statement.

Completely agree. Probably the best game of hockey I have seen in years. I was saying this in the third period. Phenomenal game with many scoring chances, a lot of solid defensive plays, and excellent goaltending at both ends. It's what I would expect out of the Cup finals.

When the NHL switched playoff formats in 1993, they had a rule that the home team was allowed to choose either 2-2-1-1-1, or 2-3-2. The NHL has also used 2-3-2 in the past. I would personally be in favor of a 3-3-1 format; less travel than a 2-2-1-1-1, without running the risk of the 'home team' playing 3 away games in a 5 game series, as well as making home ice advantage more meaningful; a team that excelled in the regular season would get 3 cracks at home before moving to hostile ice for 3 games, and coming back home for a game 7 if necessary. It does run the chance of a team playing 3 home games in a 4 game series, but ultimately that's why you have to win in the regular season.

It was contact initiated by Dupuis on a player that was not in possession of the puck. While I can't say I thought it was worthy of calling it kneeing or intent to injure...it was absolutely interference. Tell me Dupuis did not impede Helm's progress by skating into him. The correct call was a minor for interference.

The only references to Osgood that I heard on NBC were obligatory mention of 'And Osgood at the other end has also been spectacular' after a five minute BJ for Marc-Andre Fleury, who they never felt content to mention without saying his full name.

Yeah, Ozzie can't win. Here's a secret: The top five goaltenders from 1990 to the present are Martin Brodeur, Chris Osgood, Patrick Roy, Ed Belfour, and Dominik Hasek. All have played for Cup winners and for weak teams. Osgood is the only one of the group who has never had a losing season. The Isles finished last in the league the year before they picked up Ozzie; the next season they were a point away from winning the division, with Osgood as the team's MVP. He would singlehandedly stretch out the Isles playoff run to seven games against a much more talented Toronto team. The next season he was traded to St. Louis to make room for Rick Dipietro; he would completely shut down the very favored Vancouver Canucks in willing the Blues to a 3-1 series lead, before the team's serious skill disadvantage would succumb to the Canucks' offense. And in 2004, against San Jose, he was the only reason San Jose didn't win in 4 games with a 5 goal margin each game. If it were any of the other four goaltenders with the exact same run Osgood has had, they'd be unanimous selections for the Smythe. Instead, people say 'well, look at the team in front of him!' and then I respond with "It's the same team that went 2-2 vs Nashville, except for the goaltender." If you don't think Osgood's never-gets-rattled mental toughness and his calm approach to the game have immensely helped the Wings...you haven't watched a playoff game. And ultimately, you can't say that the team would play the same for other goaltenders...because they don't.

Fleury has given up 4 goals twice in this postseason run, including against Detroit. Osgood has done it once. Before you say 'Wings D!!' please recognize that Osgood gave up 4 goals, including Kronner's own-goal, on 32 shots. Fleury gave up 4 goals (including the game's first three) on 24 shots against the Rangers, a game the Pens only won because they scored 5 goals. Osgood has been RIDICULOUSLY GOOD for the Wings.

Now to be fair, all of the goals you've mentioned have been rebound chances where there are more than one Penguins player down low. When does that ever happen at the other end? I've been thinking for a while that Detroit's one defensive weakness is clearing the crease. The Penguins are exploiting that weakness. That weakness is why Chelios and Lilja were both playing ahead of Lebda. Yes, Osgood was off the post. Why? because he was stopping a shot that was coming from the slot. No goaltender hugs the post in that situation. Filppula's flying goal is a better example of a goaltender failing to get to the post when he needed to. If Kronwall doesn't put that puck past Ozzie, and everything else happens the same way, then Osgood has a Conn Smythe trophy over his head last night.

Ozzie was fine. Just because the Wings lost, doesn't mean the goaltender played poorly. Blame the fact that the Wings were CONSTANTLY turning the puck over much of the night, or blame the fact that the refs seemed to have a double-standard about things like obstruction and interference. Those are legit complaints that had a bearing on this game. saying Ozzie played like s*** after he was one of the best players on the ice on either side? That's being a moron.

And trade Kronwall for putting it in the net. Stuart and Lilja can go too. Oh, and Lebda for his countless turnovers. Franzen can go too, and Cleary and Filppula for not showing up to play all playoffs. Hudler was our best forward most of the night.