egroen

Tootoo has answered the call a hell of a lot more times than the likes of Maltby and Samuelsson - who can be downright embarrassing at their reluctance to drop the gloves, except when there is a ref holding them back when they put on the "Why I oughtta...." act.

I've actually grown to like Tootoo. If he played here he would be a fan favorite in no time.

Even more of a black eye for the KHL.

I couldn't see Holland trading anyone other than possibly Kopecky (for a low round pick), but even that would give some flexibility. Maybe Meech (because I do not think he is going to trade Lebda)?

Will Hossa accept $4 million?

Not even close - try going to an Eastern teams' forum. Out of Western Conference teams I'd say Detroit gives Crosby a healthy amount of flak; but it does not even compare to a team like Washington or Philly.

Blackhawks fans may be the worst I have ever seen - I wish the ol' senior had lived until 120. I hope we humialate them at the Winter Classic.

A pretty unfair comparison, as the situations were completely different. It would be interesting to pull up the threads on Datsyuk's signing - many thought Holland collapsed to Datsyuk holding him hostage by signing in Russia. It was definitely not the easiest signing and luckily Datsyuk continued to improve and the salary cap grew. Holland pulling an existing offer to Sergei is also extremely unusual.

For it to be a goal, the yellow lines would have to be the correct angle of the ice: ... seems a little "off" to me. (I'm just having fun at this point)

Huh... it looks obvious to me. And I was just highlighting the lines on the ice (which I have a feeling are extremely accurate). So you are basicaly saying reviewing a call is useless and the on-ice refs calls should be final? I am actually fine with that, but since they do review goals, using extremely rudimentary tools I can show that was a no-goal by a fair margin. Enough to over turn a call.

EDIt

I guess I am crazy, but it seems more accurate than just eyeballing it. The top of Miller's head in both pictures can also be used to measure the space, and seems to line up nicely. Slide that first arrow in the first picture a little bit closer to the center of the net (like the second picture shows it should be) and it is a no-goal by quite a wide margin. Either accurately review it or leave it to the on-ice officials. And the puck is going at an upward angle towards him -- doesn't look close at all to me, unless Crosby is 5'2 and his shouldres are no higher than the crossbar.

It's half-assed physics for sure, but I think it shows pretty easily it was not even close. And is certainly more accurate than just watching the replay.

Turns out the placement is even closer to the center of the net than I thought... it is a 'no-goal' by an even wider margin.

I'm still not sure what you think is inaccurate about my arbitrary "lines" then? Where am I off? Because I do not even see it being that close. Do you think my angle of the ice is off to a large degree? Crosby's position? You are certainly taking a lot of time to defend this goal, so try and be a little more helpful in you scrutinizing.

I am sure you will be right - but Holland could try and sell it. That extra $5 million (over the average) in the first two years could be invested at a conservative 6% return over the remaining years for an extra $2 million dollars. Effectively making his total return in seven years at $50m instead of $48m - making it $7.14 per year realized. Plus it helps to sign Franzen. Just trying to think outside the box

I did? Go ahead and check my history for anti-crosby posts... I actually spend more time defending him around here. I was curious if it was a goal or not. Actually taking the brief time to draw out the angles and look at Crosby's position relative to the net from the various angles in the video (again, 1:16 of the videa shows it very clearly) was easy to do and shows that it was really not even that close, and certainly not close enough to measure angles. I think what I showed is much more accurate than simply eyeballing it. Why do you care so much that it should be a goal?

Then why review it at all? It was incredibly easy to show that was clearly above the crossbar, if you bother to do anything at all more than "eyeball it".

Wish we had Downey up -- there is always the chance the Blues thug it up. Especially considering they are a frustrated team right now, with the coach publically ripping the team and questioning their work ethic.

Is physics an absolutely foreign concept to you? Do they measure a skyscraper by climbing to the top and dropping down a ruler? Come on, this is basic stuff! It took all of two minutes to show that was not a goal... why can't the "War Room" do the same?

Homenugget: I have absolutely no idea what you are doing with that third line. If you check the video at 1:09 and 1:16 you can see Crosby's position where his stick makes contact with the puck - it was closer to the center of the net than the far post. My "dot" was conservative in placement and clearly shows his point of contact on the stick was clearly above the crossbar.

Ansar Khan is saying a front-loaded contract for around 7 years. Could we see: 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 for an average cap hit of $7.43 million Or in my ideal situation: 12 12 6 6 4 4 4 for an average cap hit of $6.86 milion

You have to take his point of contact in correlation with the net into context, however: I have added a line in black which shows his actual position - again, clearly over the crossbar.

Unless Crosby is 5'2 that was definitely above the crossbar. This is pretty conclusive proof, IMO. From the various angle replays (at 1:09 and 1:16 of the video posted you can see it exactly), you can easily see Crosby makes contact within the far post. If he had made contact exactly at the far post, as the picture above shows, he would have been exactly lined up with the crossbar. However, he was inside of it by at least a foot. No goal. The "War Room" sucks.