egroen

Paul Coffey - 1995 45 GP 14 G 44 A 58 Pts Outscored all defensemen by a margin of 26% 6th in scoring for all players in the league (2nd in assists) Won the Norris and actually played decent defense that year

I have a tough time picking out Lidstrom's absolute best season -- 2002 if we count post-season, but regular season? 2008 he led all defensemen in scoring by over 10% and was 4th in Hart voting. Datsyuk is getting up there, but I still do not think his best is at a level with Fedorov's 94 season.

No - Gretzky does (1.92 to 1.88 in over 500+ games played) The first time Lemieux retired he would have had it, but then if Gretzky had retired at the same age, Gretzky would have been a lot higher. Lemiuex and Orr both had shortened careers, but Orr was more impressive, IMO. Probably the two most physically gifted players in NHL history (along with Howe and Hull), but if you rate careers, they just can not compete with Howe and Gretzky.... their best years were not better by a huge amount. Both Lemieux and Howe have 6 Art Rosses, but Howe was Top 5 in points for 20 straight years in the NHL -- which is simply unheard of. Lemieux did it 9 times and even Gretzky did it only 16 times. Lemieux's best season is at a similar level to Howe's best season.

Who would you put him ahead of? Gretzky actualy did everything Lemieux could have done. Howe's peak is similar to Lemieux's, only twice as many good to great years. Orr is simply the greatest two-way player ever with a peak even higher than Lemieux.

Then you would have to retire #9 and #4 league-wide as well. IMO, Lemieux is an easy 4th out of them.

As one of the few Tootoo fans on the site, I will miss him and his shennannigans!

Mike Bossy was also a vocal opponent of fighting in the NHL - did not make him very popular. I do think it will be a sad day if it is ever completely removed from the sport.

Conn Smythe and Pearson votes are never made public, much to my annoyance.

Homage to "THE Captain". Yzerman was captain for 20 years -- the next closest was Delvecchio with 11 years. Abel - 6; G. Howe - 4; Lindsay - 4

Sure. They'll be right up there hanging next to your buddy Holmstrom's #96.

They do not publish the votes, so you can't know this. I would say he was in the running for all 3, and definitely would have won in '09 were the Wings victorious.

I actually think it is a travesty Red Kelly's #4 is not already hanging in the rafters. Larry Aurie's #6 was officially retired in the 30s and needs to go back. I would love to see Ebbie Goodfellow's number retired - but that is #5. I am perfectly fine with Fedorov's number being retired, and Osgood most likely needs to earn the HoF if he is to go up -- which he is still on the edge.

Campbell flat-out insulted hockey fans with that. Pretty much all "message sending" comes from angry, frustrated players on losing teams... or did you think it was something else? Most of us know what sending a message looks like - and Malkin was sending a message to Zetterberg and his own teamates. You obviously need to watch it again if you think Talbot needed protection. Zetterberg gives one shove in response to an Osgood spear from Talbot (it was from the front, so we are not talking big, bad Zetterberg was putting Talbot in danger)- other than that, nothing - Malkin skates around the net and comes right for him, from behind and starts swinging right away. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=jp-m...o&type=lgns This rule has been a joke since it first came out.

It just seems to me younger fans have bought a revisionist history of what caused the rule change back then -- like the Burtuzzi - Moore incident was common place back then. It wasn't, but skilled players like Zetterberg (typically the players from the other team having the most to do with the win) were being targeted by larger players, skilled or unskilled... that's it. Exactly like we saw at the end of that game. You weren't watching hockey at that time, so it's simply why you will find yourself disagreeing with most older hockey fans on this issue (we know instigating when we see it)... just like an older fan might have a more accurate understanding of why the power play was ended after a goal (new rule in the 50s).

Did you think the coach was required to order a hit for message sending to happen? Which is exactly why I don't think you were watching hockey much before the instigator rule was created. Knowing your age, I also know this to be true.... but it also shows. You seem to think it was this cool, calculated move -- in 90% of the cases it was not.

Are younger NHL fans really this clueless (on this particularly issue, that is not a sweeping condescension). Do you not remember why the instigator rules were put in place? And then the addition, as players were obviously taking advantage of the final minutes in a game. It was exactly for what happened in that game - a larger player going after a skilled, non-fighter player from the other team after a loss to A) Do it and not have to suffer much consequence from the penalty itself and B) To send a message It was not just "goons" doing this. Watch the tape - Pittsburgh was down 0-2, was obviously frustrated (particularly Malkin who had been completely shut down at that point) and he went out of his way to target Zetterberg (the cazuse of much of Pittsburgh's frustration) and throw punches at him. 99.9% of the time no one goes after Zetterberg like that for holding another player. This was exactly the type of situation the rules were created for - like it or lump it. Do you really think that was a spur of the moment fight there between two willing combatants?

1) You help by punching that person? I see players grab other players in that situation 99% of the time -- and that is if I am buying Talbot was in any danger from Zetterberg, gasp, holding him. 2) And you are drinking Bettman's koolaide if you think that was anything else. 3) In a more spur-of-the moment fight sure. Refs quite frankly rarely call the 'instigator' and yet they did there - knowing full-well the implications of that call.

Lol - yeah, Zetterberg was gunning for Talbot there. How many fights has Zetterberg been in again? Again, please point to this "fine print" you seem to have found that pardons non-goons.

Heh... brain fart - but that was not a "spur of the moment" fight by any means -- Malkin went after Zetterberg with definite intent. Stupid rule, but get rid of the rule - don't weasel your way out of it when it comes back to bite you in the ass ()having to suspend a star player in the Stanley Cup Finals).

That has nothing to do with Malkin's, as we all know what the intention of starting a fight with a smaller, non-fightiong, skilled player at the end of a 0-5 shellacking is.

I guess I missed the fine print in the rule that only a registered goon can "instigate"... don't bring it up if you don't want a discussion on it. Malkin was obviously "sending a message".

Around here??? Now that's crazy talk!

And are automatically suspended for 1 game... unless they play for the Penguins.

Agreed. That was retarded -- I appreciated them not getting pushed around by the Ducks and not being intimidated, but they at times tried to play the Ducks' game, which played exactly into their hands. The Wings may have "outhit" the Ducks in that series, but the hits had a far lesser effect. I think they would have won the Series earlier if they concentrated on playing the Wings' game more. Kudos to the Ducks for throwing them off.

It's taking a while for us to get down to it - but Helm was 19 when he signed his first contract in September of 2006 - which gives him 4 years. But yes, looks like he is waiver-exempt this year, and it will be his final year. Sad state of affairs if he is sent to GR though, in all honesty.