Dabura

Something I didn't catch before: To be honest, Sammy's shown a pretty good knack for pissing people off. Which isn't to say he's a certified agitator, but there's certainly an element of that in his game. Hasn't been there all along, but it's there now.

More and more, I think God wants the Habs to come out of the East this year.

I really doubt he cares all that much about playing for a contender at this stage in his career.

Nah, if anyone, I was calling at the dude on the show who apparently was making that argument. I can appreciate the point, and it's not totally without merit. But all in all, I say, "No big deal" -- especially if those dudes in suites, as annoying as they may be, are helping to keep organizations afloat. Annoying people in crowded places are pretty much unavoidable, unfortunately.

SALAVAT?! That guy owes me money!

The implication being..."real" hockey fans tend not to enjoy very comfortable financial situations? hmm

Sammy played the best hockey he's ever played as a Wing when he was put on a line with Drake and Draper. That's because he's a checking-line forward -- one who has, unfairly, been called on to be a top-6 scorer. I maintain that Cleary - Draper - Sammy is about as good a checking line as the Wings are going to be able to assemble while still keeping a thoroughly dominant top-6 and a solid energy line. That could see Maltby on the fourth -- although, in all honesty, I'd dress Helm over him on most nights if I had to choose between the two.

Yes, I know -- that's why I wrote it. So, after a pointless detour, we're back to where we were before: defend these arguments without coming off like a ****, or spare us all the pain of having to read these arguments every time someone makes a thread that's even just slightly related to the topics of grit, toughness, enforcers, etc.

Talking about twisting words -- you're adding "to win" to my statements, which changes their meaning considerably. Take away "to win," and you've got your arguments in a nutshell, which I'll list again: - The Wings are soft - People "around the league" say the Wings are soft - Fighting is essential - The Wings need to fight more - The Wings need to get tougher - The Wings need to send more messages - If the Wings don't do more of the above, they'll get run at, and it could totally be lights-out Now, if what you're saying right now is that you disagree with these statements, then congratulations: you disagree with yourself.

You have, on numerous occasions, called this team "soft," and said that "everyone around the league knows it," and argued that this team "needs" to "fight more" and "get tougher" and "send messages." You're trying for a copout concession. Ideally, I'd rather not see that, so that the next time we have a thread like this, you won't pop back in with the same tired, inane arguments.

No, it all comes down to you being close-minded. The definition of "anti-enforcer" is ostensibly obvious: it's being against enforcers. Your shortcomings in arguments like these do not owe to a misunderstanding of that term, as anyone with half a brain knows there can only be one real definition, or two if you distinguish between a league-wide context and an organizational one (i.e. The Detroit Red Wings Vs. The Philadelphia Flyers). None of the people you're arguing with are anti-enforcer (i.e. against enforcers) in either of the aforementioned contexts. So, again, the term is not the problem -- not for the people you're arguing with, at least.

Ouch. I like Helm's energy. I also like Helm and Hudler's chemistry. Malts' days are numbered.

What. are. you. smoking? At what point have I ever said, "I don't think the Wings should carry any enforcers in their system ever again"? Answer: At no point have I said anything resembling that. What I've done is acknowledge the general value of enforcers while at the same pointing out the fact that the Wings, relative to most other clubs, don't put much stock in fighters and have the success to prove that fighting need not be an essential part of their system. Then you spout off your typical bulls*** about how fighting is not only an essential part of the Wings' system, but also something the Wings "need" to do more of. Every time you're asked to cite strong evidence to support this claim that the Wings "need" to fight more and get tougher, you can't do it, and you end up in the hole you're in now, twisting people's words and pulling ideas straight out of your ass in some attempt to save face. Give it up already.

While you're away working on your maturity issues, be sure to also brush up on your reading comprehension skills -- I never called you a flip-flopper; I was making the (truthful) point that your "argument" currently rests on the inane notion that everyone who's arguing with you is a "hypocrite" (i.e. "flip-flopper"). There's absolutely no merit to that and, not surprisingly, you've provided no compelling evidence to the contrary. What, NN would take a skilled player over a fighter? Big whoop -- it doesn't make him a hypocrite. What, Heaton disagrees with you and has the smarts to back himself up? Doesn't make him a hypocrite. You consistently raise the same argument in these kinds of threads: Wings are soft, need to get tougher, need to fight more, blah blah blah blah blah. So, I'm asking you straight-up: where is the damn evidence? I can cite a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, including the Wings' organization-wide philosophy and the unequivocal success of said philosophy (i.e. tearing through the playoffs and winning the Cup without looking "too soft" or "physically vulnerable" or what have you). Again, I'll stress the point that this does not make me "anti-enforcer," as you like to claim. To be "anti-enforcer," I would need to categorically disapprove of enforcers in the NHL, which I don't -- which I like to think I've made very clear on numerous occasions. So, basically, your argument has nothing. It's basically just you running around calling people names like a little brat. But hey, if it fills you with pride....

I never said I was upset by Schneider's decision. If anything, I agree with the folks who said they were glad to see him go. My point was just that it's plain as day why someone would say Schneider's decision was "worse" than Hossa's. Hossa wasn't even a Pen for a whole season -- hardly a "staple" there.

Hossa is cosmopolitan, even when he was with the Pens; he's not strongly allied with or attached to any club. Schneider had become a key part of the Wings; he was, dare I say, a staple. They were equally free to walk away from their respective teams, but it's easy to see how Schneider's decision "hurt" more. Point being, comparing the two is kinda lame.

You're still getting things wrong left and right. That's what makes my arguments relatively strong and yours relatively weak -- you're just flat-out not grasping certain concepts. For example, the McCarty of today is not a serious enforcer, was not brought in to be an enforcer, was not dressed to enforce, and did not, aside from one mostly meaningless scrap, enforce anything during this past postseason run. Furthermore, he was consistently the weakest link in the lineup. Another example: "What makes you think the Wings don't need [a fighter] while everyone else does?" I've never said the Wings flat-out don't need a fighter in their system, or that they should dress only soft European figure skaters, or anything of the sort. What I've argued -- and Babcock himself would say the same thing, as he is, after all, the one who chose to go through the playoffs without a serious enforcer -- is that fighting doesn't have an especially prominent place in today's Wings' system, and that winning the Cup without dressing a genuinely intimidating, effective enforcer in the playoffs (which -- let's not kid ourselves -- Mac is not) only validates this. The Wings, like "everyone else," see the value of enforcers. But unlike "everyone else," they're the class of the league. That owes much to the choices they make. One of those choices concerns fighting/enforcing/sending messages: "Not so important to us as an organization," they say. And with the way their system runs, and with the success this system is enjoying, there really aren't any great arguments to the contrary. Case in point: the best you seem to capable of producing is "They and their fans should feel embarrassed" and "There's more to pride than winning." Grow up. Get back to us when you do.

Not to be an ass, but we talk about this pretty much every day. That said, I mostly agree with your lines -- only, I'd put Sammy on the third and dress Helm over Maltby.

Please. You're bitter because you've been called out on the general stupidity of your arguments regarding this team's "need" for more fights and a greater level of "toughness." Confronted with the reality that you can't defend these arguments of yours in an intelligent, rational, level-headed, and ultimately compelling way (that's the thing about stupid arguments: they're stupid), you've now decided to play the "flip-flopper" card. You might as well be making yo' momma jokes. Fact: you're not arguing with hypocrites. NN has never contradicted his stance. Heaton has never contradicted his stance. I've never contradicted my stance. I won't speak for the other two, but like I've said dozens of times over the course of our multiple-thread-spanning argument about this tired-ass subject, my personal stance is this: enforcers have their place in the NHL, but today's Wings don't care much for them and are, in fact, coming off a postseason run that saw them tear apart the opposition without the aid of a single legitimate enforcer (for the record, Mac couldn't enforce a one-legged kitten at this stage in his career) -- all of which stands in strong opposition to your argument that "The Wings need to get tougher and fight more." This is not tantamount to saying, "Enforcers are completely useless and I'm completely opposed to fighting in the NHL." In fact, I've said on several occasions that one of Mac and Downey will probably return. (Feel free to read through my posts.) So, the ball's in your court. I'm still waiting for some solid support for the argument, "The Wings need to get tougher and fight more."

The Wings have the best blue line in the league. Right now, Kronwall is the #3 guy on that blue line and is coming off a strong postseason showing. In a couple of seasons, when Rafalski's age and Kronwall's experience both show, he'll be the #2 guy. When Nick retires, he'll be counted on to account for many of the lost minutes, possibly becoming the official #1. Point being, "just another role player" my ass. Moreover, if the Wings were to part ways with Kronwall right now, they wouldn't be able to fill the void with anyone in the current pipeline. Stuart would assume the role of #3, but who would he be paired with? Who in the Wings' system is currently capable of stepping right into that second pairing and doing a better job than Kronwall? Lilja or Lebda? Not bloody likely. Meech? No. The rest of the "logjam kids"? They're fighting for the #6/#7 spot right now -- hardly the kind of players you'd want gunning for a spot on the second pairing.

I'm pretty sure you've got a monopoly on that department, buddy. Having said that, let's take your brilliant new points and incorporate them into our hypothetical Babs discussion: Anyone want to take a stab at Babs' hypothetical reply?

Hey guys, remember that time Gary Roberts blindsided Mule and no one did anything about it? Wings just rolled over and died! Softies, the whole lot of 'em!

Not to speak for brutus, but I assume it's because he, wisely, would prefer to have someone who can fight and take regular shifts over someone who can only do the former.

Unless the Habs nab Sundin and Price has a stellar season, the Pens are still the team to beat in the East. Which, granted, isn't saying much.