eva unit zero

Dwayne Roloson was in the minors behind Dominik Hasek and Martin Biron; both of whom are starters. Cloutier is now in the minors behind Jason Labarbera and Jean-Sebastien Aubin...both of whom are journeymen who have yet to prove themselves as capable NHL netminders. Oh, and Cloutier has NEVER been a true starter in the NHL. By true starter, I mean he has never been one of the 30 best goalies in the league. Never, not once. And he's on his way down...so he never will be, either.

Liv didn't run away; he wanted to come over years ago and the Wings kept saying 'maybe next year' even when Liv was the best goaltender in Sweden. Liv should have been brought over in 2004 after he dominated the Swedish league. Had the Wings brought him over then, he would probably be significantly better than he turned out. Totally mismanaged. And ultimately because of their own failure, they didn't offer him a contract after last season. I was surprised nobody took a chance on him, though.

Maybe it's because the two seasons Maltby put up 30+ points, the Wings had several forwards miss 20+ games? In Maltby's two best offensive seasons, he didn't play regularly with Mac, and Kocur had retired by then. How could their presence have affected him directly when they didn't play together that often those years? I don't think Dave Lewis used them together more than a handful of games, and Maltby's two best offensive seasons were both under Lewis. Maybe THAT's why Maltby did well? Because he WASN'T with McCarty or Kocur... No, none of those guys can fight the way Downey can...but their significant advantage at being able to play the game outweighs their disadvantage in fisticuffs. Downey is not a good enough fighter for that alone to justify his roster spot, and all of the guys you listed bring more than Downey to the Wings. The question is, with which 12 forwards in camp are the Wings most likely to win most games? The answer doesn't include Downey. Downey is terrible at both ends of the ice. Not true of anybody the Wings have under contract; everyone else is good at one end or both ends. Being a 33-year-old bottom-tier heavyweight doesn't get you a roster spot if you can't play. And that is a perfect description of Downey.

Eric Lecompte, Terry Ryan, Brad Church, Kevin Grimes. What do these guys have in common? They are all enforcer-types drafted in the first round in the 90s. And they have a total of ten NHL games played between them. Lecompte is the only one who played professionally last season, and he last played in North America in 1999. Just to show that the draft is not a be-all end-all. Oh, and Downey was never drafted.

Ferguson scored 145 goals in 500 games, including a 29 goal season. Probert's best season was also a 29-goal year. Downey will likely score fewer than 29 goals total when his career is over. Probert and Ferguson were far better PLAYERS than Downey, just from a skil standpoint. Not to mention that they were significantly better FIGHTERS as well. Downey offers nothing to justify his presence on the team over a Kopecky, Drake, Maltby, Grigorenko, etc. A fighter with Draper's skill level is more than welcome on the Wings. It's these guys who CAN'T play hockey at the NHL level and are only marginal fighters (Downey, Norton, Bootland) that people are going ga-ga over that is getting the 'hell no' response from people like myself and NN.

Juicers? They'll die off pretty quickly. I'd rather be a Cyber Knight anyway.

Yeah, I buy that. Without Downey our stars are guaranteed to get cheaped and bullied, but Downey's 10 minutes a week will prevent all that? There is a world of difference between Downey and Laraque, and that's just in the SKILL department. You'll notice the Pens didn't go out and get Downey.

Not at goal scoring. Hudler might be the second most talented sniper on the team. With couple years experience, he could even become the top sniper.

I'd love to attend, but there is a 99% chance I'll be working 2pm to 10pm. EDIT: Officially that is...more likely it will be 2pm to 10:45....

Just FYI, nobody mentioned there was assigned to the Griffins.

Based on the scenario I laid out, European Wings who fell into the 'bottom six' group of forwards: Franzen, Hudler, Filppula, Kopecky. A defensive forward who was only four points shy of the point cutoff for top-six status, and two rookies who should be top-six scoring forwards by this season or next at the latest, and Kopecky, a rookie who missed most of the year injured. The only 'marginal' European we have is Lilja.

Hasek also has six Vezina trophies as the league's best goaltender, and two Hart trophies. While Osgood may have comparable wins and Cups to Hasek, he is blown away by Hasek's accomplishments individually. Also, basically the same team? Let's look at something; each team's top-six defensemen, arranged by defensive ability. Norris contenders in bold. Defensemen who would retire within two seasons are underlined. Rookies are marked with an *. 97: Konstantinov, Lidstrom, Rouse, Fetisov, Murphy, Ward 98: Lidstrom, Rouse, Fetisov, Macoun, Murphy, Eriksson* 02: Chelios, Lidstrom, Fischer, Olausson, Duchesne, Dandenault I don't think there's even any argument about this. The 98 and 97 teams had the same forwards, except the replacement of Tomas Sandstrom with rookie Tomas Holmstrom. The 02 team had easily the best forward corp of the three. How one could argue that the 98 team was anything but the weakest group of skaters of the three teams is baffling. The 98 team had the weakest defense, losing a Norris contender in Konstantinov and bringing in a washed up depth defenseman like Macoun to fill his shoes?

McCarty's biggest impact in the postseason had absolutely zero to do wit hthe fact he fights. McCarty would have been a useless scrub in the playoffs if you take away his clutch scoring; fighter or not. Dingman was the 13th forward on that Avs team...he only saw time in the playoffs because Forsberg was injured for most of them, and other forwards missed the occasional game. Dingman's name should be listed, but under the Lightning not the Avs. McKenzie is the same story, he only dressed because Nieuwendyk and Stevenson missed significant playoff time. None of the guys who were fighters first made any sort of significant contribution in their respective Cup seasons. Brad May had one fight last season, a meaningless draw vs Danny Richmond. His value is not as a fighter anymore, but as a defensive forward and a grinder. Let's see, from the list of players you posted, the following players saw more than 200 total minutes during the postseason. In other words, an average of 10 minutes over 20 games played. Anaheim-Pronger, O'Donnell, Beauchemin, Moen Carolina-Mike Commodore Tampa Bay-Nolan Pratt New Jersey-Ken Daneyko, Colin White, Grant Marshall Detroit-Darren McCarty, Brendan Shanahan Colorado-Greg DeVries Downey is a journeyman with no skill. The average regular season scoring output of the listed forwards in the applicable season? 75 Games, with 16 goals, 20 assists, and 36 points. Downey's CAREER stats are 7-6-13 in 183 games. He's 33, so it's not like he's going to suddenly get better. Downey is not even at the Chris Dingman level; Dingman's single season high in goals is 8, compared to Downey's career mark of 7.

Cleary's improvement had more to do with the fact that he wasn't given prime ice right away and had to actually work for his opportunities. On other teams Cleary was given prime ice time right away because he was supposed to be a future star. His lack of work ethic ruined that, and he came to Detroit on a tryout basis because nobody else was interested. He had to work to earn his roster spot, and he had to work to keep it, both things he never had to do in the past in his NHL career. Downey was never supposed to be good, and he works hard just to get the minimal performance he does show. Cleary is on a totally different level from Downey...there is no comparison between the situations.

How many 'overpaid Russians' do you see on any team's fourth line? Russians are easily the LEAST likely to be overpaid fourth liners, as a marginal Russian player could earn much more money in Russia. If anything, there are a lot of Russian players who could play in the NHL but don't because teams generally opt for Canadian fourth liners of equal or lesser ability. The European talent is generally more top heavy; if a European player isn't going to be a significant contributor, he often doesn't end up playing in the NHL much or at all. Think about the number of European stars at forward, defense, and goal. There are more European starting goalies than Canadian. There are almost as many European top-six forwards as Canadian. There are probably just as many European top-four defensemen as Canadian. There are about 400 forwards in the NHL. Mikael Samuelsson's 34 points was 180th in scoring among forwards last season, so we'll use that number as the 'break' point for top six forwards because the primary job of a top-six forward is scoring. North America produced 113 top-six forwards, and the remaining 68 were European. To break the 'top 12' mark, we'll use games played. 360th in GP is Eric Boulton with 45, so 45 games or more would make a player a top-twelve forward by that measure. Boulton is 249th among North Americans, and 111 Europeans reached the 45 game mark. Meaning there are 136 North Americans in the bottom six, and only 44 Europeans. Not to mention, having a limit on the number of foreign players would drastically diminish the quality of hockey; Ten teams worth of Canadians would be relegated to the AHL, as there are only six Canadian teams. There's only 5 teams worth of Americans, so how do we fill 24 teams

My Big Ten picks for the opening weekend of Big Ten play: Michigan 24, (10) Penn State 17 Michigan State 31, Notre Dame 6 Indiana 27, Illiniois 13 (8) Ohio State 20, Northwestern 10 (9) Wisconsin 34, Iowa 10 Purdue 23, Minnesota 7

Downey would have zero bearing on Hank and Dats unless he was playing with them. Enforcers do not serve as deterrents unless they are feared fighters and are likely to be on the ce at the same time as the guys they are protecting...neither of which is true about Downey on the Wings. Nobody will be deterred if there is only a slim chance they would even be on the ice against the fighter, and/or if that fighter is not someone they would be afraid of facing. I believe this is the primary reason behind everyone who complains about no enforcer. The 'fighting' poll is proof enough that a majority of the 'get an enforcer' crowd feels this way because they want fighting and not because it would help the team more than a defensive specialist or a secondary scorer.

Hmm..Downey did a whole lot about Boogaard didn't he? Where is that sticking up for teammates that he is so good at? Oh and BTW...the Wings were NOT outmuscled last playoff. You can say 'Anaheim fighters RAR!!!' all you want, but the Wings hung with the three biggest, baddest, toughest teams in the league last playoff, and their losing to Anaheim was far more about scoring and defensive errors. Toughness was NOT a deciding factor. So you can call Anaheim this big bad bruising team all you want...the fact remains that the Wings matched the physical play and toughness. Unless you say 'toughness' and mean 'fighting' which is just ignorance, as 'toughness' is better equated to 'grit' which is not directly related to fighting. I would rather a skilled player who can contribute offensively or defensively than a useless pylon like Downey or Norton. You apparently disagree. And while that's ok, it still makes you wrong.

What third or fourth liners are in Detroit's top six? Or Boston's for that matter? We're talking third or fourth liners as in from the 181st to 360th best forwards in the league, not third liners as in guys who would have been third line on the 2002 Wings team. Well, if we figure the average NHL career lasts twelve years (sounds abour right) that means we need to fill 30 teams with 23 players from twelve years of drafts. So we need about 55-60 players per draft year to make the NHL to have the necessary number of players to sustain the league. Mason and Vokoun played the same amount last season, and Mason played better. That's outplayed, plain and simple. How is this different from any period in NHL history since the Original Six? The divide between good and bad teams has ALWAYS been there; You are acting like the worst teams in the league would be closer to the top teams in talent in a 21 team league than in a 30 team league...which is just not the case. The top teams would still be able to collect talent. If two teams are offering the same money, the player will often go to the team that has a better chance of winning. So if one team has been a top team for years, and has skilled vets and young players with good potential, they are more likely to attract free agent talent than a team that has a bunch of washed up vets, young kids with mediocre potential. They'll also have more assets to trade off the roster, and can more easily absorb trading away a prospect or pick for immediate help. The NHL is more competitive from top to bottom than it has been in its history. The 'contraction' argument is always posed because people are under the misconception that the league had a higher average talent level in the 80s, and that contracting the league would return to that type of play. That's hugely incorrect, as from 1972 to 1988 there were between 21 and 25 major pro teams made up almost entirely of Canadians, far more than the number of Canadian players playing major pro today, and the offensive game was a result of a talent divide between teams that had stockpiled talent and those that were stuck with a significant number of second-rate players. That was especially evident in the goaltending divide, such as a couple seasons when Edmonton goaltenders Grant Fuhr and Andy Moog would BOTH play for the Campbell Conference All-Stars. The NHL at the time only had a handful of goalies who would even start in today's NHL, and two of them were together on one team.

If you believe the pro-enforcer crowd, Downey's mere presence should have prevented Boogaard from even taking the cheap shot in the first place.

Only half the teams can have winning records, even if everyone's regular roster had twelve Zetterbergs, six Lidstroms, and two Brodeurs. There will always be better and worse teams; the thing is the 'worse' teams now would be competetive in the 80s. I'll explain why: there are approximately 350 Canadian players in the league now, while in the 80s there were approximately 450. If we assume that extra 100 players to be evenly distributed among the positions, that means about 60 forwards, 30 defensemen, and 10 goalies who would have been in the league based on the 1987 demographics are not there now. That's about 3 forwards, 1.5 defensemen, and .5 goalies per team based on a 21-team league. If we assume that Canadian hockey has improved over the years, we can round up to achieve whole numbers. So the skill group that made up fourth-line forwards, No.6-7 defensemen, and the bottom half of backup goalies is now out of the league altogether, meaning that teams now have guys who would have been third liners in 1987 playing on the fourth line. So even a team that now is a little on the less skilled side would still have been a competitive team in the 80s. For example...Marc Denis finished 44th in save percentage in the NHL, making him an average NHL backup based on that statistic. He was 20th among Canadian goaltenders, which would have made him a bona fide starter in the 80s. There are 8 Canadian goaltenders who finished in the top 20 Canadians yet failed to make the top 30 goaltenders. Meaning there are only thirteen goaltenders (including Rick Dipietro as the one American) who would start under both sets of criteria, and seventeen who would be excluded from the '87' group because they are either European or American. The top 60 scoring Canadian forwards includes names like Penner, Schaefer, Avery, Ouellet, Lombardi, and Boyes. Only 41 Canadian forwards are in the top 90 scoring forwards from last season, meaning 19 guys who are second line offensive forwards would have been first liners in 87. If we make the assumption that the distribution from top to bottom is the same proportion for both Canadians and Euros/Americans (for simplified math), that means that the talent would break down like this: Canadian players, 1987 vs 2007 First liners: 60 v 50 Second liners: 60 v 50 Third liners: 60 v 50 Fourth liners: 60 v 50 13th forwards: 20 v 16 No.1-2 D: 40 v 33 No. 3-4 D: 40 v 33 No. 5-6 D: 40 v 33 7th D: 20 v 16 Starting G: 20 v 16 Backup G: 20 v 16 So ultimately, 10 first liners are pushed to the second line, 20 second liners are pushed to the third line, and 30 third-liners are pushed to the fourth line. 16 fourth liners are pushed to the press box, and 26 are pushed to the minors. Seven top-two defensemen are demoted to the 3-4 slot, Fourteen 3-4 defensemen are pushed to the 5-6 slot, and 16 5-6 defensemen are pushed to the 7th position. Five 5-6 defensemen are pushed to the minors. Four starting goalies are now backups, and eight backups are pushed to the minors. All 13th forwards or 7th defensemen are in the minors. The contracts Hartnell and Timonen wanted (and got) were a worse example fiscal management...paying first line money for a second line forward, and paying elite defenseman money for a second tier defenseman? Nashville had no plans to resign Hartnell or Timonen at anything close to those amounts. Vokoun was outplayed by Mason last season, and Vokoun has health questions. Nashville made the decision to go with the significantly cheaper goaltender and develop their top prospect. Kariya left because he thought the team was moving to Hamilton and didn't want to be under the microscope in Ontario. Balsillie is never in the picture and Kariya probably stays in Nashville. Who said anything about late round draft miracles? I said that there is a significantly higher level of talent in the league now, not that teams lacking talent could draft a superstar in the 7th round. I would argue that every team in the NHL right now has enough talent to be a playoff team in any year the league had 21 teams. See my breakdown above about why teams now are generally better because better players are playing on lower lines. All four teams from the last expansion are more supported and fiscally stable than Winnipeg was ever capable of. Winnipeg is touted as a good hockey market by Canadians. So that means all four of the most recent expansion are good hockey markets cpable of supporting a team, based on the Winnipeg standard.

Well, since the NHL is a gate-revenue driven league, attendance should be the primary indicator of a team's fiscal situation. And if we're using attendance to determine whether a franchise is in a viable market, we can use Winnipeg as the litmus test since everyone thinks Winnipeg did such a great job supporting the Jets. So here's the deal; only two NHL teams-the Hawks and Islanders-averaged worse attendance per gme over the past three seasons than Winnipeg's single season best. Chicago and New York are not small markets, and if they are the only teams that don't meet the Winnipeg test, then there is no struggling small market in the NHL at this point. If there is a small market team currently in the NHL that can be considered struggling, it can be taken as proof Winnipeg is a failed hockey market because that would mean even on their best day they were struggling to survive. I'm not isputing the label of Columbus as a small market...it's the third-largest market in Ohio and somewhere around 35th or 40th among all markets in the US. I am mainly disputing the statement of 'struggling' being applied to it.

Ozzie wouldn't have been second in Smythe voting had it been in spite of him. Ozzie had easily the weakest group of skaters of the three recent Wings Cups teams, yet they had little difficulty hoisting the Cup. Vachon may or may not have been better; Vachon has comparable achievements to Ozzie in that he was 'almost' named best goalie, and he won the Vezina in an era when it was awarded as the Jennings is now; Ozzie has a Jennings and almost was named best goalie. Major difference? Vachon never won a Cup as the outright starter, the closest he ever came was splitting duty with Gump Worsley in 1969. Also, Vachon was only once among the GAA leaders, finishing second in 74-75 in the only season he would ever post numbers below 2.48 GAA. Osgood has been among the league leaders in GAA (and save percentage) several times, and only Vachon's best season is better than Osgood's career average. Osgood will retire with more wins than Vachon, and Osgood has never had a losing season while Vachon had three. Ozzie has won 30 games six times while Vachon did it only twice despite playing three more seasons (so far) with about the same number of average games per season? Note: 94-95 season counted as .57 of a season for this purpose. I think Ozzie is probably more likely than Vachon to end up in the Hall because he has achieved all of the same things and then some. Last season was also the first year during Osgood's career that he failed to win 20 games, or in the case of the 94-95 lockout season, 11.4 games. That is a mark that Vachon failed to reach three times in his career, even accounting for total team games played being less than 82.

To reiterate the point, AGAIN, in 1989, there were 20 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL. There are 16 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL now. So unless the Canadian product has gotten worse (blasphemy in Canada) that means there's at the very least four teams worth of NHLers not in the league. If we assume the shut-out talent is proportional in Europeans and Americans, then that means we have over seven teams worth of NHL-caliber players who are not in the league right now. Yes, it takes generations to grow talent...but we don't need to grow talent--we already have it. The NHL right now could probably support 36 or 38 teams with comparable average talent to the 1980s. Now, that number of teams is kinda silly..but 32 is a good number that lends itself well to divisions and scheduling.

So how does this work? Central plays the Pacific, and the Northwest plays who? So what three teams do the teams that finish 7-9 play? You have some interesting ideas, but you need to put more thought into them because there are pretty obvious reasons why they wouldn't work as is.