betterREDthandead

Good start for Howard. Nice positioning so far.

Saturday: NY Islanders @ New Jersey Ottawa @ Pittsburgh Chicago @ Los Angeles Washington @ Carolina NY Rangers @ Buffalo Atlanta @ Toronto Florida @ Philadelphia Columbus @ Montreal Boston @ Tampa Bay Dallas @ Nashville Detroit @ Vancouver Sunday: Calgary @ Minnesota San Jose @ Pittsburgh New Jersey @ Washington Florida @ NY Rangers Chicago @ Anaheim Colorado @ Edmonton St Louis @ Phoenix

I think you'd be surprised if you compared Sundin's career production to Hossa's. Sundin is almost exactly a point-a-game player over his career, Hossa is not yet. Hossa's production is better in the years since the lockout, that's true, and to be expected since he's in his prime. But Sundin, despite his age, has been better than a point a game last two seasons. P.S. - Yes, I still am.

Agreed. It'd be really cool if the Wings and their fans were known for something truly unique and original. Maybe if we went to the seafood store and bought an octopus......... Point: We have our traditions. Maybe the stick salute is a neat thing, whatever, but "other teams are doing it" is a bad reason.

Younger yes. More good years ahead of him yes. Better talent, no, not really. And comparing the two based on salary only also assumes the trade value for Hossa is the same as Sundin as well.

Ai yi yi, that would cost the world. It's never happening. I think the Leafs, if they trade Sundin, will take less than what MacK quoted. Never broadcast your real price, that's Bargaining 101.

Nor can I see Sundin plowing into a corner and knocking someone on their ass at age 29, either. It's never been his style of play. In fact I think if you had to pick one forward in the league whose game is most like Nick Lidstrom, it'd be Sundin. He's been an absolute model of consistency and health. $5 mil is a good price.

Uh, the Wings, seeins'how that's the only team he'd accept a trade to. Under these alleged conditions, anyway. Doesn't really matter if the Leafs give him the extension if they trade him afterwards.

:puke:

And it's brought them sooooooooo much success

There's such a thing as a roster limit. If they can't play, they don't get put on the roster. What NHL team can afford to waste two roster spots on PR stunts?

"Pitchers and catchers report" are the four most beautiful words in the English language. Go Tigs!!!!!!!

Friday: Atlanta @ New Jersey Washington @ Florida Columbus @ Detroit Dallas @ Anaheim Calgary @ Los Angeles Saturday: Buffalo @ NY Rangers Boston @ Toronto Philadelphia @ Montreal New Jersey @ Ottawa Atlanta @ NY Islanders Florida @ Carolina Washington @ Tampa Bay St Louis @ Nashville Los Angeles @ Phoenix Edmonton @ Vancouver Sunday: Colorado @ Chicago San Jose @ NY Rangers Detroit @ Dallas Columbus @ St Louis Pittsburgh @ Buffalo Montreal @ Philadelphia Calgary @ Anaheim Nashville @ Minnesota

I don't really root against any particular nation actually. But I (obviously) root for the USA at all times, and to a lesser extent Sweden due primarily to awesome uniforms. Always liked the triple crown as a kid, still do. Bonus now that the Swedish national team is like the official Red Wings branch of the IIHF.

I'd go. We send them NHL and NFL games, its only fair they give us a Premiership match

Dead on. We need some dependable scoring. The defense is already far and away the best in the league. The second-level scoring is dependent on guys who still don't have that much experience. A good, steady, experienced 2nd-3rd line type is what the Wings need most.

Then that's what he should say instead of making s*** up. He's not some douchebag on a message board spouting things in semi-anonymity, nor is he some idiot behind a microphone. He's a supposedly highly respected member of an elite community, in a position that carries a lot of weight and responsibility in said community. I wouldn't care if all he'd said was that the Wings were no guarantee to win the Cup, because then he'd be right. I'm not asking him to bow to the almighty RED WINGS. It's just that if he's going to speak off the cuff like that and have his facts wrong, it's one day gonna bite him the ass.

Personally I'm annoyed because he doesn't have his facts right. His premise may be defensible but his claims aren't.

Here's how I see the numbers after crunching them a bit today. Read like this: Team Maximum points that team can earn by winning all their games Points the Wings need to surpass that total When the Wings can do that if they too win all their games So for example, the Sharks can earn 123 points if they never lose. The Wings need 38 points (at this moment) to guarantee the Sharks cannot pass the Wings this season. They can earn that 38th point on March 19 against the Blue Jackets if the Wings, too, do not lose. This doesn't take into account anything like, the teams actually playing each other. For example the Wings or Kings can make up ground tonight when they play. Because the Wings are likely to lose less often than the rest of the conference, the Wings will probably clinch things earlier than the dates shown. SAN JOSE SHARKS - Wings clinch #1 seed 123 38 March 19 vs. CLS MINNESOTA WILD 122 37 March 19 vs. CLS DALLAS STARS 119 34 March 15 vs. NAS CALGARY FLAMES 118 33 March 15 vs. NAS NASHVILLE PREDATORS - Wings clinch division 117 32 March 13 vs. DAL COLORADO AVALANCHE 117 32 March 13 vs. DAL PHOENIX COYOTES 116 31 March 13 vs. DAL VANCOUVER CANUCKS - Wings clinch playoff spot 115 30 March 11 vs. CHI ST. LOUIS BLUES 115 30 March 11 vs. CHI ANAHEIM DUCKS 113 28 March 9 vs. NAS COLUMBUS BLUE JACKETS 111 26 March 5 vs STL CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS 109 24 March 2 vs BUF EDMONTON OILERS 107 22 Feb 29 vs. SJ LOS ANGELES KINGS 101 16 Feb 22 vs. CAL

Friday: Anaheim @ New Jersey Carolina @ Washington Boston @ Buffalo Columbus @ San Jose Saturday: NY Rangers @ Philadelphia Los Angeles @ Pittsburgh Detroit @ Toronto NY Islanders @ Minnesota Edmonton @ Calgary Florida @ Boston Montreal @ Ottawa Carolina @ New Jersey Tampa Bay @ Atlanta St Louis @ Dallas Colorado @ Vancouver Nashville @ San Jose Sunday: Philadelphia @ Pittsburgh NY Rangers @ Washington Anaheim @ Detroit Minnesota @ St Louis Los Angeles @ Columbus Florida @ Buffalo Nashville @ Phoenix Chicago @ Vancouver

No, it's not that the Wings are winning games by just a goal and it's OK. It's that the Wings are not winning games by just a goal, they're winning the vast majority by two or more, and that Bobby Clarke is dumb for not realizing it and spouting off without the facts to back him up.

The Wings aren't as good as the 80's Oilers. Wow, thanks for that incredible insight, Bob! Why is winning by one goal a bad thing? A win is a win is a win and the Wings are obviously the class of the league. If the worst he can say about the Wings is that they win some games by one goal, he may as well just wrap up the Cup and put it under the Wings' tree. Right now the Wings' goal differential is 3.36 GFA vs. 2.09 GAA. +1.27, an average of more than one per game which no other team can approach. Let's compare this with the Oilers in their Cup-winning seasons (84-85, 86-87, 87-88). Goal differential: 1985 Oilers: 1.28 2008 Wings: 1.27 1987 Oilers: 1.10 1988 Oilers: 0.94 Looks like Bobby Clarke is talking out of his ass. Again. Buuuuuuuuut....let's say we need further proof that he's dumb. (Stay tuned for further proof that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic.) Here's the breakdown of goal differential in the Wings wins this season. 1 goal: 14 2 goals: 10 3 goals: 13 4 or more: 4 Up until just a few days ago, a plurality of Wings wins were by three goals. (They beat Minny yesterday and Phoenix last week by 1 each - in between were a couple two-goal wins.) Just barely a third of Wings wins are by only one goal. It's no wonder Clarke could never build a Cup winner.

Fixed it so it's more true than before. God what a terrible basketball season. Anyone want to take a guess at where BOTH my teams are in the standings? This sucks.

Only one coach on the hate list. Marc Crawford.

The point of a contending team making a trade at the deadline is to gain a short-term improvement - why would you want to trade for someone whose year is already wasted?