eva unit zero

Larionov was a solid defensive player. Not sure where you're getting the idea he wasn't. Except maybe the mistaken concept people seem to have that all offensively skilled Europeans can't play defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29 That might help.

I find it hilarious that everyone is talking abou Hudler's 'total lack of defensive ablity.' Hudler may not have played Selke caliber defense, but he was much better defensively this season than Datsyuk was in 2002. Would you say Datsyuk is a defensive liability? Filppula is better defensively and bigger, but as far as offensive game is concerned, Hudler>>>>>>>>>Filppula.

MINOR INCONVENIENCE!! Having to type a reply before starting a new thread just made me late for work!! Wait..I'm off today. Never mind.

You do realize that the owners are Bettman's bosses?

If Niedermayer retires, his salary doesn't hit the cap because of his age IIRC. So we'd likely see the Ducks go after a similar type of guy like Rafalski, who could probably be had for 4.5 or so, as well as resigning Giguere.

Man I miss Jiri. I remember the exact spot I was standing in when I saw that fight.

When did I say offsides should be removed? I offered a suggestion for modifying it RATHER than removing it to achieve the same goals. I certainly don't think removing offsides would f*** up the game because every step you take beyond what you would have been able to with offsides in place is a step away from your own zone when you don't have the puck. If players get too careless trying to be an extra step ahead, and it hurts their team, you can bet the coaches will have a say about it. And if it works, and creates more offensive chances for the attacking team, what's wrong with that? Not having offsides would provide more chances for breakaway situations--the winger stays high along the blueline and the moment his defenseman gains control in the corner, he takes off like a rocket to meet the long bomb pass his defenseman is sending. That would, of course, mean the defensive team is effectively short a man and this gives the attacking team an advantage. Or teams would play like they do now. Where's the harm?

Souray is not as good as Schneider, but will cost likely upwards of 2m MORE than Schneider. Signing Souray is the worst possible move; It handcuffs us to a second 6m+ contract for a defenseman, likely multi-year, right before Zetterberg's deal expires. This basically screws the Wings--it would mean that either the Wings have 27m tied up in four players, or Lidstrom retires and because of Souray's contract, Souray and Kronwall are now the 1-2 punch in Detroit. I would rather sign Schneider for a 2 year deal at 4m than Souray for a 4 year deal at 6m. When Schneider's 2yr is up, Zetterberg will need to be resigned. If Schneider chooses to retire, Kronwall is ready to take his spot and Schneider's cap hit gets tacked onto Hank. If Schneider chooses to stick around? He'll likely be less effective, and declining as the years go by. He'll accept a bargain deal much like Chelios did, or he'll go elsewhere.

There are currently 16 teams worth of Canadians playing major pro hockey. This is the lowest number of Canadians in major pro hockey since 1972. There are 30 major pro hockey teams. This is the largest number ever seen. So if we assume Canadian hockey has stayed the same--the average player is not better or worse--then there are basically an 14 extra teams of players as good or better than the worst NHLers in 1972. Now, many of those 'extra' players are star players. Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg being notable 'extra' players on the Wings. So it's reasonable to conclude that the average player now across 30 teams is better than the average player across 14 teams in 1972, or even across 12 teams from 68-71. So it's therefore reasonable to state that the quality of players top to bottom now is the best we've seen since the Original Six, and that's with five times as many teams. Contraction is not a viable option; it would cost far too much to achieve far too little, it would REDUCE the NHL's market size and revenue, and the difference in level of play would not be noticeable for the most part.

Jimmy D hasn't been the team's GM since 1990. Why would he have been fired in 95?

If you're a Coyotes fan, you SHOULD know that Phoenix has supported the Coyotes attendance-wise better than Winnipeg ever hoped to. Dallas has a team that sells out every game because Minnesota barely filled half the arena. Carolina has a good team that gets decent fan support because Hartford failed miserably at just that. Chicago and Boston are Original Six teams in good northern hockey markets that get terrible attendance. Tampa Bay, Dallas, and San Jose are relatively recent southern teams that get among the best support in the league.

You rank these two over Paul Coffey and Red Kelly? Let's look at something. First team All-Star selections. Kelly has 6, Coffey has 4, MacInnis has 4, and Leetch has 2. Now, let's look at total postseason All-Star selections: Kelly has 8, Coffey has 8, MacInnis has 7, and Leetch has 5. Now, times named best defenseman (top vote-getter for postseason All-Stars for pre-Norris years): Kelly 4, Coffey 3, Leetch 2, MacInnis 1. I think it's pretty clear Kelly is the most accomplished of the four, and that Coffey is the best of the three who played since 1980. For Coffey/MacInnis, we can also do a head to head. Coffey began play in 80-81, MacInnis in 81-82. Coffey was named to the postseason all-star team ahead of MacInnis seven times (once being named behind MacInnis), while MacInnis was named ahead of Coffey five times (once being named behind Coffey, and once being named after Coffey had reitred. MacInnis beats Leetch in the same comparison 6-3. So Leetch is behind MacInnis, who is behind Coffey. Kelly is an even 5-5 with Doug Harvey, for reference to how he compares with other greats. Harvey did win the Norris three times after Kelly left Detroit, but Kelly was playing mostly center after he left Detroit.

The triangle of SE Michigan and NW Ohio from Port Huron to Flint to Toledo is of comparable size to the Greater Golden Horseshoe and comparable population. The economy didn't stop people from buying regular season tickets to Wings games. I guarantee I would be much more likely to go to a game if there were a team with cheaper tickets based in Ann Arbor, where I live. Basically, Ann Arbor is as equally set up for success as Hamilton is.

As I have detailed in another thread somewhere, the Barons were not contracted in the sense that is being talked about here. They merged with the North Stars, and the Barons ownership group bought out the existing owners of the Minnesota franchise under the guiding hand of the NHL. The Gunds, who had owned the Barons, wanted to move the North Stars to the bay area in 1990, and instead the league orchestrated a 'split' of the previously merged teams. The Gunds got their franchise in the bay area, an Minnesota stayed put for a couple more years until the new owner decided to move them to Dallas because attendance had not improved.

Contingency plans for something like this don't exist. The situation has never been contemplated.

Not more than 10 season ago+Gerard Gallant=contradiction. Gallant's last season in Detroit was 1992-93, and he retired after one season with Tampa Bay.

Haven't you learned? Maltby is useless to the Wings, but his trade value is massive because of all the experience he has. Now that dosn't matte to the Wings because Detroit has sooo many players who have tons of playoff experience...like Shanahan, Yzerman, Larionov, Fedorov....oh wait they're all gone huh?

It's unlikely Sakic chose 19 because of Stevie; Sakic was 15 when Yzerman was a rookie-meaning Sakic was already wearing the number at that point. More likely he ended up with 99 in a similar way that Gretzky ended up with 99. Wanted to wear the number, but it wasn't available, so he picked something similar.

Hmm...Fischer was originally expected to go in the top 10 in his draft year, but fell for some reason. Generally, you can go with one or the other; talent or size; unless you have a very high pick. Talented size generally goes early in the draft. This is why the Wings have had such trouble drafting those kind of guys. The last two picks Detroit had before 19th overall? Martin Lapointe and Keith Primeau. Is that the kind of guy you want to draft? Because you'll have to see either the Wings trade a significant player or two to move up in the draft (this doesn't mean Lilja and Maltby), or they tank a season.

Because it would be one of the five smallest markets in the league. Not saying it couldn't work, but they are going to explore places like Houston (one of the largest markets in the country) and Las Vegas (fastest growing) as well as Kansas City (decent size, and immediate move-in!) ahead of Salt Lake City.

I don't recall ever hearing rumors about Karmanos moving to the Palace. I have heard such rumors in the past about Bill Davidson, though. Davidson owns the Pistons, the Shock, the Palace, and the Tampa Bay Lightning. He also owned the Vipers.

Yeah, because we all know offsides is a fundamental part of the game. I mean, taking out offsides would have about the same effect on the game as taking out the goaltender or saying everyone must now wear spikes instead of skates. /sarcasm

Bourque was a postseason All-Star and top four in Norris voting in EVERY SEASON from his rookie year until his seventeenth season. To compare with you how amazing that is: Lidstrom has only played fourteen seasons. Bourque finished with nineteen selections to the postseason All-Star team in twenty-one seasons. Lidstrom has eight in fourteen seasons. That you rank Coffey top three All-Time shows how little you know of hockey history; Coffey is not even top three among defensemen who played DURING HIS CAREER. The top five all-time defensemen, in order: 1) Bobby Orr 2) Ray Bourque 3) Doug Harvey 4) Eddie Shore 5) Nick Lidstrom With a couple more seasons like this year, Lidstrom could easily move into the top two or three.

He hit 75 without Thornton in 2000-01. They first played together consistently in 2001-02. For the record: Apart: Thornton 97-98 to 00-01: 289 GP, 79g-100a-179pt Samsonov 97-98 to 00-01: 319 GP, 95g-123a-218pt Together: Thornton 01-02 to 03-04: 220 GP, 81g-161a-242pt Samsonov 01-02 to 03-04: 140 GP, 51g-70a-121pt Seems to me like Thornton gained a whole heck of a lot more than Samsonov did from the pairing. Hard to make the argument that Samsonov only did well because of Thornton when four of his six best seasons were before he played regular shifts with Big Joe, and in another he scored better after he was traded to Edmonton. Only once did Samsonov score more than 18 goals or 40 points WITH Thornton, compared to five times without him. It was also the only season Samsonov played more than 60 games with Thornton; he led the Bruins in scoring that year. Samsonov didn't do too well for Montreal, and that was predictable because his style and skill set does not mesh with Montreal's defensive system. Samsonov was a bad signing to begin with, because the same amount of money could have been spent on a player who fit the system much better. He should be back in the 55-65 point range or better with Chicago. Any combination of Havlat, Ruutu, Williams, Bourque, Sharp, and Toews would be an upgrade over the linemates he had in Montreal, and Samsonov will likely see more prime ice.