Stu in Israel

True equality is when a person is judged for his/her abilities, not for their race, religion, or ethnic origin. Furthermore, the job of GMs is to provide a team with players who can help them win, not to make statements about social situations. Mike Grier the player, should be considered IRRESPECTIVE of his skin color, and nothing else. Also, Abdelkader is obviously an Arabic name. Is Justin Abdelkader the first player in the NHL of Arabic origin?

Sorry, you're wrong about Babcock's opinion of Hudler. At first Babcock didn't like Hudler, but this season he was rather complimentary concerning Hudler. I think Hudler's bargaining tactic should be the following: Take a low, but short offer, and then when Lidstrom's contract ends or when he retires, and more money is available, bargain for a longer and more lucrative contract; providing he has shown his worth during that time.

Since the question was "What?" not "Whom?" my answer is: I think the Wings will pick a hockey player! Seriously though, I am impressed with the knowledge demonstrated by the previous posters, salute your perspicacity, and look forward to seeing how many of you called it correctly.

Pavel Datsyuk and Zach Parise are running neck-and-neck for the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy. Datsyuk's +/- is higher, his penalty minutes are less, and even though Datsyuk currently has more points, Parise has scored 40 goals to Datsyuk's 25, would that tip the scales in his favor? Norris Nick doesn't look like such a shoo-in for the James Norris Memorial Trophy this year. San Jose's great run makes it appear that the Wings may not win the President's Trophy, but many posters consider that a "curse" anyway. Anyone have statistics regarding the Frank J. Selke Trophy (Best Defensive Forward)? Fedorov was the last Red Wing to win the Art Ross Trophy, in 1994, and no Red Wing has won the Hart Trophy since Gordie Howe in 1963. This last statistic might be worthwhile as it may indicate the depth of the Wings rather than one standout. No Red Wing has won the Vezina Trophy since Terry Sawchuk in 1954-55, and the Jennings Trophy is clearly out of contention. Will the Stanley Cup be Detroit's only chance for hardware this year? By the way, I'm not so worried about a Detroit-San Jose series if it should come to that. Detroit won its two home games quite handily against the Sharks whereas the Sharks barely won their two home games.

Everybody has an ego and even though the Stanley Cup is the ultimate prize, I'm sure that all sportpeople relish their individual awards. Correction (and think about the wording): I am sure that Pavel COULDN'T care less!

Has anyone noticed that Zach Parise is running neck-and-neck with Pavel Datsyuk for the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy? So the Wings now have the most points in the NHL. Big deal; Boston has one game in hand and San Jose has three - a meaningless statistic. Having said that, I have a good feeling about a Sharks-Wings matchup. The Wings were close in their two losses at San Jose and the Sharks were blown-out in their two losses at JLA.

I think Conks has proven himself when presented with the challenges hes faced. BUT, this is Osgood country...the veteran stays in for the playoffs! There's still a few games to go until the playoffs, but do you remember the starting goalie named Hasek who was replaced in the playoffs by a backup named Osgood? Will history repeat itself this year? Only time will tell!

Every year the Wings go into a funk sometime during the season, so I've learned not to get too upset. It is very difficult to play at the same intensity level throughout the complete regular season. Nevertheless, the defense this year hasn't looked that good, and the goaltending is really bad. However, I vote NO to a firing at this time. Let's hope that things improve.

A plague upon all those who use the word "official" in the title of their topic!

Don't expect back to back cup wins, it's extremely tough in the new NHL. What does the "new NHL" or the salary-capped NHL have to do with it? In the "old" NHL one would have to assume that due to less teams, the talent-level was higher, so how did the Canadiens win 5 straight?! Between 1975-1983 the Canadiens won the Cup 4 straight times followed by the Islanders with 4 straight times. Enough with these stories of Cup hangover and "salary cap" reasons. A good team is a good team, and that means "hunger," motivation, desire! No team can win all their games, but take a look at the Wings' losses this year and you'll see that tiredness or that particular night's lack of desire were the reason(s). Lidstrom even indicated this in one of his recent interviews.

I have always criticized those who like fighting by saying that the name of the game is hockey, not boxing, WWF, or total combat. Nevertheless, I recognize the fact that sometimes fights are needed and are justified. However, I've never seen a decent hockey fight. It all looks like a bunch of jersey-grabbing to me. Someone should teach hockey players moves to counteract the jersey-grabbing!

I personally, reject the term "Cup hangover." If there were such a thing how did some teams win the Cup three straight times, four straight times, and the Montreal Canadiens even won it five straight times. Here's an applicable quotation I just found on the Internet while searching for something else: Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. -- Lou Holtz

Dear Egrogen: Yes, your source is much more explanatory and exact than mine. I'm sure any reader of this topic will appreciate your research and the addition of your citation. However, would you agree with me that with a mere two instances, the nomenclature of "Gordie Howe hat trick" is a misnomer? By the way, my saying that Howe was not a "fighter," didn't mean that he didn't fight, it just meant that he wasn't an "enforcer." One final note from your citation: Having seen and remembered the fight with Lou Fontinato, I had always believed that Howe had won most of his fights, but your citation seems to indicate otherwise. Here's hoping that the Wings' finesse style continues to take prominence over fighting; fighting is necessary at times, but the sport is hockey, not "combat!"

The "Gordie Howe hat trick" is complete bulls***, and should not be perpetuated any further. Here's a citation (with specifics) that should end that bulls*** for all time, but I doubt it will. Howe had a "Gordie Howe hat trick" -- a goal, an assist and a fighting major in the same game -- once in his career. It happened Dec. 22, 1955, in Detroit's 3-2 victory against the Bruins at Boston Garden. Howe assisted on Real Chevrefils' power-play goal at 3:30 of the first period and tied the game at 2-2 with a goal at 18:19 of the second against Hall of Famer Terry Sawchuk. The fight came against another Hall of Famer, Boston defenseman Leo Boivin, at 4:37 of the first period. Author: John Kreiser | NHL.com Columnist Howe was known for being a master of "elbowing" in the struggles in the corners, but was not a "fighter." I distinctly remember reading that Howe had said, "Scoring hurts them more."

A large part of whether Hossa is re-signed, other than his productivity, is what will be the amount of the salary cap. However, here's another name to think about: Brian Rafalski. Rafalski's 6 mill. salary is presently exceeded by only three players: Lidstrom, Hossa, and Datsyuk. How good could Jonathan Ericksson be, assuming that he'd be the next defenseman called up? Would it be worthwhile to jettison Rafalski's salary and bring up Ericksson in order to keep Hossa? Rafalski is signed until 2012, so he'd have to be traded. There's an entire hockey season to think about this one.

"The first hurdle will be the inevitable Stanley Cup hangover. " What is this continual bulls*** when there are teams that have won 4 straight Cups, and Montreal once did it 5 straight times.

I've listed the 4 straight winners (and Montreal's streak of 5 straight) a number of times because this BULLs*** topic keeps reappearing. Barring injuries to key players, here's the answer from GMRwings1983: It's all going to come down to hunger and passion. The top players will probably have the passion to win another Cup, but the role players and the lesser tiered guys are going to have to show the same kind of hunger that they had last year. If they don't, we won't repeat.

Two diferent words, two different meanings.

The Vladdy story is great, and maybe the Drake story is also, but the key factor is DESIRE. Teams of lesser talent and/or ability can win championships if they have DESIRE. The TEAM must have DESIRE, and all these stories of long seasons, tiredness, etc. are all bulls***! Ottawa Senators, 1902-1903 to 1905-1906, 4 straight Stanley Cups. Toronto MapleLeafs '46-'47 to '48-'49, 3 straight Stanley Cups. Montreal Canadiens '75-'76 to '78-'79, 4 straight Stanley Cups. New York Islanders '79-'80 to '82-'83, 4 straight Stanley Cups. The Edmonton Oilers won 2 cups, interrupted by the Canadiens win in '85-'86, then they won 2 more cups. Who were their Vladdies or Drakes? Good team and DESIRE is the key. Oh, excuse me, Montreal Canadiens 1955-1956 to 1959-60, 5 straight Stanley Cups. 'nuff said?

As I wrote, my post was an "unsophisticated sociological/psychological comment," so I thank Octopusonice for his/her very intelligent insights into this problem. After actor and entertainer Freddie Prinze had committed suicide, people who had known him or influenced him were interviewed and a former acting coach of his in New York said, "We can teach them how to be successful, but we can't teach them how to handle success once they get there."

An unsophisticated sociological/psychological comment: Due to America being so much of an immigrant-accepting country, sons usually exceed the achievements of their parents: educationally, financially, occupationally, professionally. However, counter to this, the many (not all) offspring of famous or rich people seem to have troublesome lives (until they get themselves straightened out!): the rich ones become profligates, and the offspring of famous parents turn to drink or drugs. Yes, the above is a terrible generalization, but start to think about the Paris Hiltons in the first group, and the first four sons of Bing Crosby as representatives of the second group, of this pattern. The only "out" of this pattern, is for the offspring to find a career or vocation in which they can shine in their own light.

It appears to me that "Never Forget Mac . . . " has found the picture you wanted and I'm glad for you, but next time why don't you make your title a lot more specific. Example: Seeking Ovechkin photo - blowing bubble. Your title could've been for a million things

I think the Stanley Cup visits are getting ridiculous. Kris Draper's child takes a crap in it. Holmstrom's cousin uses it for a christening. Additional players and wives may now be thinking of unique (and disrespectful ways) of using the Cup in order to become "newsworthy:" as a salad bowl or soup tureen, as a planter "box" (let the next family clean the dirt), holding the developing liquids for photographs, as a urinal, etc. Either the visits should be stopped, with the players getting a photograph of themselves beside the Cup (as well as their permanent miniature replica); OR, a directive has to be issued that the Cup is to be displayed ONLY, and NOT used for any other purpose

The best response or comeback to my original post was from Jedi, but, whereas your posts are usually intelligent, this one is ridiculous. Many people have commented on jersey designs, logos, and colors, did you tell them that they have no right to express their opinions because they don't play in the NHL? Ridiculous !!!

Many thanks to Echolalia, stud-defenseman, SouthernWingsfan, and Doggy - I had some great laughs today due to your posts. By the way, for Miller76's comment about "s*** happens," check this out: s*** HAPPENS Close-to-complete Ideology and Religion s*** List Taoism: s*** happens. Confucianism: Confucius say, "s*** happens." Buddhism: If s*** happens, it isn't really s***. Zen Buddhism: s*** is, and is not. Zen Buddhism #2: What is the sound of s*** happening? Hinduism: This s*** has happened before. Islam: If s*** happens, it is the will of Allah. Islam #2: If s*** happens, kill the person responsible. Islam #3: If s*** happens, blame Israel. Catholicism: If s*** happens, you deserve it. Protestantism: Let s*** happen to someone else. Presbyterian: This s*** was bound to happen. Episcopalian: It's not so bad if s*** happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it. Methodist: It's not so bad if s*** happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it. Congregationalist: s*** that happens to one person is just as good as s*** that happens to another. Unitarian: s*** that happens to one person is just as bad as s*** that happens to another. Lutheran: If s*** happens, don't talk about it. Fundamentalism: If s*** happens, you will go to hell, unless you are born again. (Amen!) Fundamentalism #2: If s*** happens to a televangelist, it's okay. Fundamentalism #3: s*** must be born again. Judaism: Why does this s*** always happen to us? Calvinism: s*** happens because you don't work. Seventh Day Adventism: No s*** shall happen on Saturday. Creationism: God made all s***. Secular Humanism: s*** evolves. Christian Science: When s*** happens, don't call a doctor - pray! Christian Science #2: s*** happening is all in your mind. Unitarianism: Come let us reason together about this s***. Quakers: Let us not fight over this s***. Utopianism: This s*** does not stink. Darwinism: This s*** was once food. Capitalism: That's MY s***. Communism: It's everybody's s***. Feminism: Men are s***. Chauvinism: We may be s***, but you can't live without us... Commercialism: Let's package this s***. Impressionism: From a distance, s*** looks like a garden. Idolism: Let's bronze this s***. Existentialism: s*** doesn't happen; s*** IS. Existentialism #2: What is s***, anyway? Stoicism: This s*** is good for me. Hedonism: There is nothing like a good s*** happening! Mormonism: God sent us this s***. Mormonism #2: This s*** is going to happen again. Wiccan: An it harm none, let s*** happen. Scientology: If s*** happens, see "Dianetics", p.157. Jehovah's Witnesses: >Knock< >Knock< s*** happens. Jehovah's Witnesses #2: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our s***? Jehovah's Witnesses #3: s*** has been prophesied and is imminent; only the righteous shall survive its happening. Moonies: Only really happy s*** happens. Hare Krishna: s*** happens, rama rama. Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this s***! Zoroastrianism: s*** happens half on the time. Church of SubGenius: BoB s***s. Practical: Deal with s*** one day at a time. Agnostic: s*** might have happened; then again, maybe not. Agnostic #2: Did someone s***? Agnostic #3: What is this s***? Satanism: SNEPPAH TIHS. Atheism: What s***? Atheism #2: I can't believe this s***! Nihilism: No s***. And of course we must add...Alcoholics Anonymous: s*** happens-one day at a time!