Dabura

I think there might also be something to the Tootoo-'s-never-won-the-Cup thing. Maybe not quite a Dallas Drake hunger, nor a Daniel Alfredsson drive, and I know there are those who feel that if Tootoo ever wins the Cup, the world will implode...but, just sayin'.

I think it's more that he sucks.

I'm sorry, but, like I said in the new enemies thread, this whole "Similar record" business smells. The Red Wings are the Red Wings. The Senators are...the Senators. I mean, bless their hearts - but what have they ever done? "Well, this one time they almost won the Cup." OK, great, they almost won the Cup once. My point stands. Even last year - they got torched by a Penguins team which was absolutely destroyed by a Bruins team which was beaten decisively and definitively by a Blackhawks team which we had had on the ropes, 3-1 (before we forgot how to play hockey, which, admittedly, is a problem with us). And that was without Lidstrom, Rafalski, Stuart. And, for the most part, DeKeyser. We were a team "in transition" (or, "reloading"), not a team that was looking about as "stacked" as ever (see: the Sens). Maybe the Sens finish above us this year. I highly, highly doubt it, though. And you can bet it wasn't just the money (or the Swedes) that Alfie had in mind when he signed here.

I was gonna say this, but I thought "Into his own net" had a certain...edge to it.

Didn't Bourque get dealt to the Avs at the trade deadline? Or am I remembering it wrong?

Into his own net.

Absolutely. I hated the Avs with all of my heart, soul, mind, body, everything. And I was...nine? '97 was glorious. Much more so for the older fans, I'm sure.

Fair enough. I was only...eight? Actually, I think that was my first *official* season of NHL and Wings fandom. It broke my heart, I do remember that, but I can only imagine how much it must've sucked for the older fans. (I live in PA. Not a long of Wings fans here.) I remember Bowman saying it was the greatest (worst) dispappointment of his life.

That's what I said. Belarusians.

You put Sum41 on your list but not Joni Mitchell? Canadian blasphemy. Also: Leonard Cohen.

A sweep, I can handle. It means we were the lesser team. Or we didn't want it as much. Or whatever. Point is, there's really nothing to argue. No nagging what-ifs. We lost, fair, square, and definitively. Now, that 2009 loss, on the other hand...I stopped following hockey for a couple of seasons.

They like them some Russians.

Well, it's not like anything we say here is going to inflence how the team approaches things. They won't fear anyone, and they (hopefully) won't take anyone lightly. Though there will, inevitably, be those nights when they just flat-out don't show up. And they'll all probably be against the Panthers. I actually think the Blackhawks are much more fun to watch than the Blues. That grinding, stifling, one-goal-a-game business? meh.

The 'hawks were by far the most dominant team in the league last season. And they won it all. The way we dominated them (before one of our all-time great choke jobs) in the second round is, I'd say, way more impressive than what the Leafs did against the Bruins in the first round. We were absolutely embarrassing the eventual Cup champs - and after taking out the much bigger, meaner, "deeper" Ducks (who I feel would beat the Leafs pretty easily in a best-of-seven). If their only two glaring problems are their top two centers and top two pairings...well, I think that's cause for concern - on their part. And I know they have the best two goalies in the league now, and when they fuse together into one super goalie no one will ever score against the Leafs again. But, really, neither one makes me go, "Oh man, he's gonna give us problems." I think their biggest asset against us is their coach.

Left wing lock!

Yep.

Semantics. Which team(s) do you fear might give us real problems?

Rumo(u)r has it "Alfie" sneezed in public, on a crowded street in Ottawa, and no one said, "(God) bless you." When asked about it, a few of the people who'd been there said, "Well, he didn't say, 'excuse me.'" For his part, Eugene Melynk defended General Manager Bryan Murray, saying, "I know Bryan. We work together. He wouldn't lie about this." Which is interesting because Murray hadn't said anything about the incident.

I can absolutely understand people's beef with Cleary. No one's saying he isn't a warrior and he doesn't bring it in the playoffs, it's just, my God, those knees! He falls down every shift. And pace has become an issue. And why, why, why do we - the mighty Red Wings - have a crippled Dan Cleary in their top six?? I love Postseason Cleary. I love that he produced the way he did this past run. I don't think it was "just luck," but I have real doubts about his ability to even finish a season at this point - even with his great peformance fresh in mind. It wouldn't be a wasted roster space, but...I think a guy like Tatar could give us more - especially since what we need more than anything else is goals. A guy like Tatar should be a shot in the arm. The same is true of Tootoo, I feel. He's a spark plug. He can rally the troops, get them up, start a buzz, get the fans going, create something out of nothing. And, yes, he can fight. And, yes, he can hit like a freight train. If we lose him, we have all of no one who can really provide what he provides, and, depending on how things go in the Eastern Conference, that might be a big issue. Overpaid? Yes. But I'd rather have him at a relatively steep price than not have him at all. You want to have your bases covered.

Can't remember if I replied to this or not, and I'm too lazy to check. (Too lazy to check, but I'll potentially re-write an entire response? Totally.) We do still play a puck-possession game, I think. It's just, like you said, we've lost some key pieces in Rafalski, Lidstrom, et al., so it's not nearly as pretty and dominating as it once was. But the goal, I think, remains the same: have the puck as much as possible. Also, about Ottawa... When we had the 'hawks on the ropes, everyone in the hockey world was pooping themselves. But, we choked, and we couldn't buy a goal in Game 7, so we = the Sens? And maybe even worse than the Sens? Wah? Alfredsson said it himself: we play a special game. We're a special team. Not what we once were, no. But we've still got the chops to absolutely waste any team in the league in a best-of-seven series, provided our heads and hearts are in it to win it. The Sens have done nothing - nothing - to make me think they're suddenly a team to be feared, a team that's "really going to surprise everyone." Why, because they have Bobby Ryan? We know all about Bobby Ryan. Clarke MacArthur is an upgrade over Alfredsson? OH NOES! I mean, credit where it's due: they finished in seventh last season without the regular services of, like, all of their key players. But then, we know a thing or two about succeeding despite injuries, don't we? meh. The East.

Not sure if this was directed at me. (I'm narcissistic.) I don't think these jerseys are lame because they look like practice-wear. I think they're lame because, well, they're lame. But I do also think there's maybe something to the idea that this is "Practice Uniform" done wrong, whereas ours is it done right. "Because it's 'classic'?" I guess, yes. But I'm not talking about the heritage and legacy and all that. It's just a great look. It's, again, elegant. It's sexy. It works. It doesn't make more than half the people who see it go "Huh? Why? Where's the.... And why is there...."

Also - My God do they look psyched. You can almost taste their enthusiasm, that's how palpable it is.

Except our uniforms are awesome. I was never a fan of this new feel-good cartoony logo & scheme. They're the Sharks; they should be kinda menacing-ish, not fruity. To expand on the our-uniforms-are-awesome point: there's good simple...and there's bad simple. Good simple is elegant, powerful, "classic." Bad simple is, "Oh, look, a marketing gimmick." This is the latter.

'bout time.

I guess that's my biggest concern. The wear and tear. The grind of a full regular season with multiple games against the likes of the Bruins and Leafs. I have to wonder if our puck-possession system - which basically invites physical punishment (if you have the puck, you're not checking. And you're probably being checked) - might become something of a double-edged sword, given that Eastern teams generally play a looser, more wide open, run-'n'-gun game than what we've grown accustomed to in the West. Basically: we should have the puck a whole lot (good. See: controlling the play), but the flip-side of that is...we'll have the puck a whole lot (bad. See: "if you have the puck....") This is why I don't really see us parting with Tootoo. What if we end up really needing a little ball of hate? On a positive note: think of all the points we might "get back" by not playing the 'hawks 104 times. And we'll also be seeing the Flames less. And the Sharks.