eva unit zero

Hudler is perfectly competent defensively. On many teams he would be among the better defensive forwards. The fact that he plays on a team that has several highly skilled defensive forwards doesn't mean he is not capable himself. In fact, I would argue that Hudler and Holmstrom, while perfectly capable defensively, are the only guys among the top 10 forwards on the team who wouldn't be seriously considered for the top PK unit of most other teams in the league. Do not forget that of the Wings' top ten forwards, Drake, Malts, Draper, Cleary, and Samuelsson all came to the team as defensive specialists; most of them as veterans. Homer came as a third/fourth line grinder. Only Hudler, Filppula, Z, and Dats were actually EXPECTED to be scorers.

It wasn't a butt end. A butt end is a jab with the butt end of the stick with intent to hit a player. As it was Ribeiro's motion, not Osgood's that caused the contact. The most it can be called is a high stick. Which, admittedly, probably deserved a two-minute minor. The fact that Ribeiro is apparently not being suspended is a joke; Marty McSorley was kicked out of the league for a comparable slash. Chris Simon was suspended almost half a season for that kind of slash. Yes Osgood sold it. But the thing is, out of all the goalies in the league, I can't think of many who embellish LESS than Chris Osgood. Combine that with the fact that Ribeiro is the person who committed the grossest overembellishment of any play ever since hockey has been televised. The fact that Ribeiro has a history of being a serious diver suggests to me that if osgood even made contact, he barely felt it; his history suggests that had Osgood actually hit him in the face as he claims, he'd have been laying on the ice writhing as if he had been struck in the face by a full swing with a sledgehammer. And smiling and joking about it later. Ribeiro should have been suspended for the remainder of the series. Osgood should have been given a two-minute penalty for high sticking. End of story.

False. He has yet to be given more than a game or two at a time on the second line outside of a stretch at the end of last season where he was the one of the team's two best scorers on the ice most nights.

The rule for match penalties is that the player is suspended indefinitely until the play can be reviewed. Given the league's track record, I would expect one game. I personally feel that Ribeiro should be suspended for the remainder of the playoffs...which would be two games.

The difference being that Kiprusoff was pulled for no reason at the very end of a game that was settled in favor of Mclennan, who proceeded to, on almost the very next play, go nuts on a Wing player. He was on the ice for one reason; to take action against a Wings player without risking the star goaltender being suspended. Ribeiro was on the ice at the time because Dallas was down by a goal and he is their first-line center. It's the difference between the Wings putting Aaron Downey or Pavel Datsyuk out at the end of a game and either of them going nuts on an opposing player.

That's because as difficult as it was to catch at full speed, hand pass was absolutely the correct call. I have to give big kudos to the ref for that one, honestly. Extremely difficult to spot and he not only caught it, he didn't hesitate to make the correct call.

If Winnipeg managed to beat the Jets' per-game average single season record by 1,000 fans per game, they STILL wouldn't average a sellout of the MTS Centre. I am not saying Seattle or Portland is definitely a better market, but they are both big markets and markets where hockey at other levels is doing well. So they are definitely worth a good long look. Also, if someone with an expansion bid wants to put a team in Portland, as happened in the last round of expansion, and nobody does from Winnipeg, as also happened, then this discussion is moot as Winnipeg would 100% NOT be getting a team over Portland. But the argument 'Winnipeg fans would definitely sell out a 15,000 seat arena for an NHL team' has nearly 20 years of history disproving it as Winnipeg never even came close to that kind of attendance figures in the NHL over an entire season, and this was in a 15,500 seat arena.

What you are basically saying: I value a guy who will hit every game but be otherwise average over a player who will score a point every game or two and play solid defense. What that statement effectively means: I would rather watch a team full of physical guys who fight every game than a Stanley Cup champion who doesn't win through having the most muscle in the league. If you can't accept that fast paced, skill-based hockey is a better game than clutch and grab hockey where the winner is the team that can put the most hurt on their opponents and get away with it...then you should go watch UFC because hockey is not for you.

The Wings lost their entire second line from last season? I hope you don't mean Bertuzzi and Calder. But you're right, Jason Williams didn't come back either. And the way people here speak of Samuelsson....well, I guess it would be more impressively stated as: "The only returning member from the Wings' 06-07 second line was that suck butt Mikael Samuelsson, and the offense still didn't get worse!"

Hopefully, in one week's time that poster can be referred to as 'The Detroit Red Wings' all-time playoff victories leader'

Dallas, I'm disappointed in you. As a Wings fan you should know that in the 1952 playoffs, Detroit as a team went 8-0 in the postseason, with Terry Sawchuk in net for all games. Sawchuk allowed a mere 5 goals in 480 minutes of play, posting a then-record 4 shutouts, a record that stood for nearly 50 years. 1952 is important because...?

Even in the years of the 'crease rule' it was legal to enter the crease after the puck. Hull was legally in the crease, and had possession of the puck. had he shot the puck without drawing it back and it ended up in the net, there would be no controversy. As the rule contained a provision allowing for the puck to leave the crease so long as possession was maintained, there shouldn't be a controversy over Hull's goal. The only reason there is a controversy is because it was an overtime goal in the Cup finals; much like the Datsyuk penalty last year, people LOVE a controversy where it cost one team, wrongly, a championship. Even though neither instance directly did so, people here point to both as teams getting screwed out of the Cup.

Technically, Hull was in the crease legally in 1999.

By a heroine overdose, did you mean something like this:

Well, he picked Nabokov for the Vezina, so there's no guarantee about how much he actually knows about hockey.

After two consecutive losses that can be largely attributed to lack of focus on Osgood's part.

Green Bay isn't just an NFL team. It's the NFL team with the most championship victories of any of them. I would have to imagine if Atlanta, Florida, or Tampa bay won ten or twelve Stanley Cups, the team would be pretty popular after that as well. Think about the Lakers, Yankees, or Red Wings. The teams with the most championships, respectively, among American teams in their sports. The Packers also fall into that category. What do they have in common? They have NATIONAL fan bases. This is a product of winning consistently for many years. The Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Raiders, 49ers, Bulls, and many other teams have seen this occur. If a team wins consistently, it doesn't matter where it's from. The problem is, it's impossible to have every team win consistently. So you have to put teams where you have the right mix of interest, populace, and money. Natural regional rivalries (Such as potential rivalries in KC vs StL or Houston vs Dallas, or perhaps even Seattle/Portland vs Vancouver) are a big help, as evidenced by Det/Chi, Det/Tor, Cgy/Edm, Mtl/Tor, Mtl/Que, and so on. But arguing that small markets can succeed and using Green bay as the example is NOT a good argument, because Green Bay's level of success is unusual, and for every Green Bay with a successful pro team in a small market, you have the Hartford, Quebec, Winnipeg, and so on that has lost one due to market size despite being a market that 'loves' their team.

The average attendance of the AHL's Manitoba Moose is just shy of 8000, and just over 50% of the arena's capacity. By comparison, Seattle of the WHL averages about 5000 in a 6500 seat arena, and Portland averages about 7500 in a 10,000 seat arena. Seattle and Portland also have larger populations and better corporate environments. In other words, the argument that Winnipeg is a 'better' market is silly.

Absolutely Drew Sharp. Not even close. The others I may disagree with at times, but all of them, yes even Kara Yorio, typically know what they are talking about and have valid reasons for their opinions, even if what they say is unpopular. Sharp pretty much writes what he thinks will cause controversy, and in turn get him readers, and as a former columnist myself, that annoys me to no end. He is also the endlessly pessimistic type. He is a Detroit-based writer who spends 99% of his time looking for reasons that Detroit teams WON'T win, rather than writing something positive or interesting about the teams he covers. Sharp is typically fairly detached from reality. An example of this is his pick of the 76ers sweeping the Pistons. The 76ers posed a challenge to the Pistons and won Game 1 only because the Pistons walked into that series underestimating their opponent. The talent level was an obvious mismatch, and Detroit wasn't going to go three consecutive games underestimating a capable opponent.

Because that pays better than his current job does?

The first statement CANNOT be true, as Nonis was fired by the Canucks a month ago and speaking to him would not require permission. The second is unlikely as Clarke stepped down from his GM position in Philadelphia due in large part to his age and the fact he didn't feel capable of dealing with the daily stress any longer. Why would he leave a job as a VP in Philadelphia for the GM position in Toronto? He'd likely make less, see more stress, and would not be working for the Flyers organization he has spent most of his 30+ years in professional hockey working for.

Let's put a rest to some of these myths, shall we? First myth: Winnipeg can support an NHL team. I'll start with a list of teams. New York Islanders Phoenix Coyotes Winnipeg Jets Florida Panthers Carolina Hurricanes Nashville Predators New Jersey Devils Atlanta Thrashers Anaheim Ducks Los Angeles Kings Washington Capitals Know the significance of that list? Every team on that list is considered to be in a 'bad hockey market' that can't support a team. Except one. Why does that matter? Because the same division of teams can also be used to find the teams that in their history fall into one of two groups: Teams with a minimum of two seasons of average paid attendance greater than 14k, and teams that have never had average TOTAL attendance of greater than 14k. Yep, you guessed it. Winnipeg is the 'one' team that doesn't match the others. What you wouldn't guess is that it is the only one that has never drawn an average of better than 14k fans per game over an entire season. Next myth: Hamilton sold 15,000 season tickets without a team. Jim Balsillie's publicity stunt is to blame for this myth. However, what is not mentioned is that despite the 15,000 number that is pushed about, Nashville actually drew in significantly more money in season tickets than Hamilton did during the same period. Why? Because Balsillie did not sell a single ticket. He took 15,000 DEPOSITS for season tickets. A small, totally refundable (read: zero risk) amount of money that guaranteed the person depositing the money season tickets if Hamilton were to acquire a franchise. IIRC, the deposit amount was less than $500. Consider that CHEAP season tickets for most teams start in the $2000 range. I had the opportunity to purchase Red Wings season tickets this past season; unfortunately, the finances did not allow for it. But had the question been 'place a 100% refundable deposit' I likely would have done it. Hamilton is one of two markets in Canada I would consider even potentially capable of supporting a team that does not currently have an NHL presence. Quebec City is the other. My concern about Hamilton is the same reason I feel was primarily to blame for Quebec's loss of the Nordiques, and many of Ottawa's troubles, as well as difficulties faced by the Sabres, Islanders and Devils. The team is located in an area that has a long standing hockey culture associated with a regional rival; therefore the majority of corporate support is aimed at the 'primary' team in the area. The secondary teams can in this regard be considered 'small market' for purposes of their corporate support. Hamilton stands a chance at avoiding this pitfall because the potential owner is, himself, a supremely successful businessman, and is particularly skilled when it comes to marketing. Combined with the saturated but disenchanted Toronto market, and Hamilton stands a decent chance of actually succeeding as a market. But they did not sell 15,000 season tickets. Next myth: Leipold did not sell to Balsillie because of Gary Bettman. While it is no secret that Gary Bettman was not pleased with Jim Balsillie's antics in the Nashville debacle, the sale of the Predators being to a local group rather than Balsillie centers on one factor. Money. Balsillie wasn't willing to put down a single cent unless he had approval from the NHL BoG that he could move the team immediately. Where the problem is, of course, is that BoG bylaws state that a proposal to move a team cannot be voted on at the same time as a sale proposal, meaning the sale would first have to have been approved. But for a sale proposal to be approved, BoG bylaws require a binding agreement; in other words, a serious offer and acceptance of such. To have a binding agreement, the purchaser must put down an agreed upon amount of money. Balsillie was never willing to take this step with Leipold; therefore no vote could ever take place. Leipold did not sell to Balsillie because Balsillie wasn't willing to put his money where his mouth was. If he truly felt confident in his ability to move the Predators to Hamilton as he claims, he should have followed through and entered into a binding agreement, purchased the team, and moved them as soon as he was allowed to. Because there was no BoG vote that ever took place on the sale (as there was never a sale agreement) Bettman had absolutely NOTHING to do with that decision. And just for the record....Seattle, Portland, and Houston all have a long history with professional and amateur hockey. Kansas City has a natural rivalry with St. Louis that takes place in other sports, and a well-managed team could duplicate the Avs' revival of the Denver market after the Rockies failed there, with a revival of the Kansas City market.

Nope. Legal goal, under the same rule addendum that allowed Forsberg's breakaway goal in round 2. I swear, half of my posts on this board are the same damn thing; explaining the FACT that Hull's goal was technically legal.

Unlike many on this board, I am completely honest when it comes to my hockey 'career.' I also have never claimed to be some amazing wunderkind, nor did I pose it as 'look how awesome I am, I only ever got two penalties!' nor did I ever claim that I never got away with stuff. But your argument of 'it's impossible' doesn't work. One of the things that gets professional hockey players where they are is the ability to cheat and only get caught a small percentage of the time. As a personal rule, I typically abhor cheaters. I include intentionally committing a penalty to gain an advantage in play as cheating, and therefore refuse to do it. Kind of like how I don't like complaining to the ref about a call that was an obvious penalty. That's my personal style. I never claimed it made me a better person or a better player; simply that it made me rare if what was stated was true.

Balsillie will get his team one of two ways. He will either eventually give in and follow the BoG's rules and bylaws, and make a good faith attempt in the existing market before eventually attempting to move if allowed... Or... He will get in on the next wave of expansion. I know BRTD will agree with me on this, but 32 teams is where the NHL should be, and probably is, looking to for a long-term stable number of teams. The question in this situation is a different one; the NHL's priority if teams are added is likely to add two 'Western' teams and move either Detroit or Columbus to the Eastern conference. Ideal solution? Two teams from the Southeastern division; we'll say Florida and Atlanta; are sold or the existing ownership decides to move them to more hockey-friendly markets. In addition to this, the NHL adds two more teams. Balsillie would get his team in Hamilton, and the other three would possibly be Houston, Portland, and perhaps Las Vegas. Detroit and Columbus join Hamilton as new cities in the East, while the West is bumped up to a matching 16 teams. Divisions perhaps could be: WESTERN CONFERENCE -Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Las Vegas -Calgary, Edmonton, Portland, Vancouver -Chicago, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis -Colorado, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix EASTERN CONFERENCE -Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto -Buffalo, Columbus, Hamilton, Ottawa -Carolina, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington -New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia