sibiriak

Are you kidding? A player who won the Cup will always command more in salary then a comparable player with no ring. Ask any GM if he prefers winning experience. Especially on a young or expansion team.

His playoff stats, as poor as they are, are still better than Savard's non-existing playoff stats. His chemistry with Zetterberg and Holmstrom, and now emerging compatibility with Filppula and Bertuzzi. His highlight reel plays, that put butts in the seats and sell merchandize. All of those earn money for the franchise directly and indirectly. And the contract is about how much money will a player make for his team vs how much he would get in salary. Datsyuk seems to be a better revenue earner of the two, indubitably.

Savard played 580 career NHL regular season games and 0 play-off games. He amassed 155 G 338 A for 493 Pts. That is 0.27 GPG 0.58 APG and 0.85 PtsPG. He is third from the bottom in +/- among Boston's forwards with -18. Datsyuk played 359 career NHL regular season games and 42 play-off games. He has a Stanley Cup ring. He amassed 107 G 217 A for 324 Pts. That is 0.30 GPG 0.60 APG and 0.90 PtsPG. Datsyuk leads the Wings' forwards and is currently 3rd among all NHL forwards with +33 in the +/- category. He only got 3 less +s than Lidstrom, fer crissakes. I'd say, Datsyuk's stats are better than Savards. Not to mention the intangibles.

Apart from the fact that the President's Trophy gets us a matchup with Calgary and home ice through the playoffs, it also means, that the chance of winning the Cup is about 30%. (6 of the last 20 Pres. Trophy winners won the Cup). Of the 280 playoff teams that haven't won the President's trophy in the last 20 years, 14 won the Cup. That's only a 5% chance. Go Wings, let's beat Nashville for the 1st overall!

Hasek played fine in the SO. If your team doesn't score any goals in the SO, it's tough to win it.

Actually, if we play like this in the playoffs, where there's no back to back games, we'd be just fine. In the 3rd period it was a tired team vs a fresh one. It happens.

Don't worry. There's no way the Wings will lose a game where both Maltby and Draper scored.

Check out those moves by Draper, he must have been watching dats in practice and taking notes!

Hockey needs to GROW, so eliminating any teams is a very bad idea. It is also very arrogant for a Detriot fan(s) to call for elimination of other people's teams. So my choices, just to be contrary, are Detroit and Toronto.

Friday: Tampa Bay @ Carolina Montreal @ Ottawa Philadelphia @ New Jersey Washington @ Florida Dallas @ Detroit NY Islanders @ Buffalo Columbus @ Chicago Phoenix @ San Jose Saturday: Atlanta @ Boston Minnesota @ Colorado Pittsburgh @ Toronto Buffalo @ Montreal Ottawa @ NY Islanders NY Rangers @ Philadelphia Washington @ Tampa Bay Anaheim @ St Louis Dallas @ Nashville Calgary @ Vancouver Sunday: Detroit @ Columbus Edmonton @ Chicago Boston @ New Jersey Carolina @ Florida Los Angeles @ San Jose Toronto @ NY Rangers

And them losing it wouldn't matter either. So why not try to win? Actually, that gamewas much closer then the score indicates. w/o the EN goal, and the two goals that Columbus' defensemen put in their own net, it could have turned differently. Anaheim played quite poorly and didn't dominate.

Vegas? Yes, Moscow for gambling, sightseeing and nightlife. The kitch and drivethrough weddings you can keep. South Beach? No. But unless you are playing for the Panthers, you can onky go there on vacation. Which anyone in Russia can do, if they have the money. And Thailand or Bali are in noway worse anyway. Venice? Is that Venice, Italy? There's no NHL team there. But St.Peterburg is called "the Northern Venice". And if it is Venice, Kansas, then you can keep it. Caucasus mountains or Altai mountains are in no way inferior to Colorado. And much less commercialized. Not to mention the lake Baikal, "the golden ring" of Central Russia, the Volga river, the Siberian forests and rivers, the geysers and mountains of Kamchatka peninsula, architecture and art treasures of St Petersburg and Moscow, great museums and galleries in many other cities. 11 time zones, climates varying from tundra to subtropics, national parks and simply forest you can walk in, located just few commuter train stops from a city of a million people. In its natural and cultural variety, of all things, US got nothing on Russia. I agree. My women comment was more of a joke in response to the same claim made by Hank. And I hope you would grant me, that living with a girl who has the same language/cultural background as you (all other things equal) is easier than if you come from totally different backgrounds (again all other things being equal). I can't speak for the reasons why each russian player came to the NHL. For the older crowd, who came in the 1990s, it was more likely the only way to earn decent living with their skills. But for the newer generation, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Ovechkin etc., earning same or greater amount of money in Russia is quite possible now. So I'd guess that they come for the challenge and not so much for the money. Which is my whole point.

Except the pro athletes rarely see anything except airport-hotel-rink-airport in their travels. And after you visit Miami, LA or New York a few times, it becomes routine anyway. It is indicative, that both Kovalchukand Ovechkin choose tospend their vacations in Europe and in Russia, rather than stay and explore the "Beautiful locations" in NA. When you can afford it, you can go see beautiful locations allover the world. Russia itself has quite a few awsome tourist attractions. And many of them have an RSL team nearby. So apart fromthe novelty factor, the sightseeing is hardly important. Don't even start me on women. Russian girls (and especially Siberian ones, where many RSL clubs are based) are IMO more beautiful on average than NA ones are. And they are better to live with (again on average), especially for a Russian guy. Hepatitis? If one Elias got it, it doesn't mean it runs rampant. If you can afford normal private medicine, you are no worse off there than here. And HIV rates are lower. Plus the incidence of either is too low to worry about. Again, let me stress, that to be poor in Russia sucks much more than being poor in America, but to be rich in Russia is IMO better than in NA. Yes,hotels in smaller cities outside Moscow are not yet caught up, and some RSL arenas are subpar. But there've been at least 1 or 2 new modern arenas built every year for the last several years. In another 4-5 years all RSLteams willbe palaying in new modern arenas. Service infrasructure is also being rapidly improved. And there's at least one passable hotel in any decent size city. Some have very good hotels too. And so you should, all other things equal, because you were born here. But I think that if asked, many Russian players would rather play at home forthe same amount of money, if the competition level was the same, which it is not. Kovalchuk's $4.5 mil. here means that after federal, atate, and local taxes, social security taxes, propety taxes etc. he'd be lucky to actually see $2.3 mil.in his bank account. That many Russain clubs certainly can afford. And please, define glamorous. What does Kovalchukget todo in Atlanta, that he couldn't do in Moscow, St.Petersburg, Kazan, or Novosibirsk? Go to the Atlanta Aquarium? Yes, the injury factor is there, but it applies to all players everywhere. You could lose your $1mil. from Amur Khabarovskif you are hurt, and you could lose your $2 mil. from the Nasville predators. Either way you lose a lot of money. You admitted yourself, that the largest contracts are only likely for the top 10 Russians at best. The rest could earn comparable life-time amounts in NA and in Russia, if you take into account the difference in taxes and purchasing power. So lets concentrate on the top tier only. The numbers are hypothetical, but I think close to reality. Let's say Malkin (age 19) can get $3 mil. (after tax) for 3 years from "Magnitka" and then $4 mil. for the next 5 years, and then 4.5 mil. for another 5 years, and then $3mil. for another 5 years. Then he retires at 37. All this time he lives in his home country, close to his family, doesn't need to learn English, or to have to drag an interpreter with him everywhere he goes. He can play for his National teamin all World Championships and Olympics, and Euro hockey tour etc. He would never have to play more than 60 games in the regular season. Or he can go to the NHL, where he would earn $3 mil.in his first year (assuming he hits all the bonuses), and under $2 mil.for the next two years. That amounts to $1.5mil., $1 mil.,and $1mil. after taxes for his first three years. Then he becomes a restricted free agent, which means that i's unlikely that the other teams will sign him,they'd have togive up too much. Coupled with the cap, which means that no team can have 2 players at the league max, this would mean something like $4mil. - $5mil. per year at most until Malkin turns 26 and becomes a UFA. That's $2-$2.5 mil. after taxes for another 4 years. Then, Malkin gets his payday (assuming there's no new rollback of the salaries, or lowering of the cap meantime). He gets $8mil.per year ($4 after tax) for another 7 years. After that he is getting older, so he would get, say $5 ($2.5) mil. per year on average for the rest of his career (4 more years). Again, he retires at 37. But he would have played a 100 games a year instead of 70-80, so his chances of getting injured and having a shorter career are much higher. He would be away from his parents and friends all this time. He won't be able to play in too many international tournaments for Russia. But lets ignore all the intangibles. Let's just look at the after tax income streams in each case. Russia: 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 3 NHL: 1.5 1 1 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 It seems that the NHL income stream is very much inferior compared to the Russian one. And that is a top tier player. You can paly with the numbers, but the basic assumptions are valid, I think.

$3 mil in their rookie years (and less in the following years) would be equivalent to $1.5 mil. in Russia. That is what Alexei Morozov is making in Russia now. Malkin was reportedly offered $3 mil.by Magnitogorsk. Do you really think that OV or Kovalchuk would command less? As to lifestyle, Washington and even more so Atlanta have nothing that Moscow doesn't have in that department. New York or perhaps LA may be the only possible competition. So no, the Russians are here for the chance to compete against the best and not for the money. They could have earned more staying in Russia.

Dear imisssergei aka bringhomethecup or whatever else you want to call yourself tomorrow. Opinions that contradict factual evidence are called wrong. I am tired of trying to suggest to you facts supporting my position and disproving yours, and get but repeated same old unproven statements in return. I am done. In my opinion, you are just seeking attention and have no desire to maintain a reasonable dialogue. This my opinion is so far supported by the evidence. If you can prove me wrong in this, go ahead. Goodbye.

I don't usually make predictions, but Ifeellike making one today. the Wings win in OT or SO. The final score would be 4-3. Datsyuk, Schneider and Filppula will be among the Wings' scorers. I won't be able to watch the game, because we got tix for the Anaheim-CBJ game tonight. Go Wings, Go!

Russain tax rate is a flat 13%. No local taxes. There's a sales tax, but the prices outside Moscow and St.Peterburg are much lower than here. The teams usually provide cars, housing and other perks free of charge (and tax-free). Under these conditions, $1 mil. in Russia is roughly equivalent in purchasing power to at least $2mil. in the US. The only Russian players that make more in the NHL than they potentially could in Russia are Yashin, Fedorov and Habibullin. Datsyuk, Kovalev, Kovalchuk were all offered more money in Russia than the PP equivalent of their current NHL salaries. Not to mention Ovechkin and Malkin, who are playing for the rookie max, that is several times less than their Russian salaries would have been. During the lockout, dozens of NHLers made a millions of dollars in Russia. The oil and gas are dear right now, and their producers have a LOT of dough to spend on toys, like pro hockey clubs.

Being in the majority doesn't necessarily make my opinion correct. But when virtually everyone thinks that your opinion is wrong (yes, opinions CAN be wrong), that is usually sufficient grounds to at least reexamine your thinking. Your position, as I understand it, could be summarized as follows: 1. Hasek is way past it, and will be totally past it next year. 2. Hasek's health is so fragile that he couldn't possbly be counted upon as a starter. 3. As a remedy,you suggest bringing in Theodore, who (according to you) is due to play like in his Hart season, or Belfour, who (again, according to you) is getting older but better. Let's examine this opinion of yours. 1. Hasek is not as good as he was 10 years ago. But Hasek at 90% is still among league leaders in all statistical categories. All but a couple of teams would love to have Hasek in their net. And he plays for CHEAP, which allows the Wings to sign at least one more good player than they could if they had to pay 3-5 mil.for a starting goalie. Perhaps Hasek's play would deteriorate next year. It is a concern. However, he doesn't take much cap space and is still a good bet. 2. Hasek played more games this year than many other (much younger) starting goalies. He is 15th in the NHL in in total Time on Ice. He is on pace to start 56-57 games this season, which is HIGHER than his average for the 9 seasons with the Sabres, when he was recognized as the best goalie in the world. So the health concerns are not supported by the evidence. There's no reason to think that Hasek's health would catasrtophically fail next year. 3. Theodore's ONLY advantage over Hasek is that he is younger. His stats are abysmal, he is one of the worst goalies in the league statisticaly, and he even lost his starter's job in Colorado. Detroit already has Howard that is an infinitely better choice than Theodore, in case Hasek can't play next year. There's absolutely NO reason to believe that Theodore would regain his Hart form any time soon, if ever. Belfour is the same age as Hasek, and is playing demonstrably worse. What would be the point of getting rid of one old goalie with possible health issues, and replace him with another one, that has always been inferior throughout their respective careers, and is inferior now? It seems that your opinion is not based on any rational arguments, and is just an elaborate "I hate Hasek" declaration. In other words, your opinion is totally wrong and unsupported by evidence. You may as well claim that the moon is made of blue cheese. You wouldn't be any more wrong.

There's an ignore button...

Defensive? Why, you didn't attack me or mine. There's no reason for me to be defensive. There is, however a reason for me to be irritated reading someone irrationally pusing an indefensible point in multiple threads, regardeless of the almost unanimous opposing opinion supported with valid evidence. If you suggested replacing Hasek with a good young goalie, who is realistically available for the next season, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But bringing up Belfour or Theodore as possible replacements, and then trying to defend that suggestion by arguing that they are better than (or even comparable with) Dom, is beyond laughable. It's like if someone was seriously trying to prove that the sun is blue. Please, don't insult my intelligence.

Belfour started 2 (two) games more this season than Hasek. Belfour played over 50 min. less than Hasek in total ice-time this season. How does this suggest that Hasek is more fragile? Belfour let in 0.69 G per game more than Hasek, while having a worse Sv% by 9 % points. Belfour has 1 SO to Hasek's 7. How does that suggest that Belfour is a better goalie?? Belfour is the same age as Hasek, so why do you think Hasek too old, and Belfour just right for the Wings next year??? You make no sense. It also seems to me that you don't want to listen to sense. So i'm done wasting bandwidth on you. Note, that not a single poster has supported you re: Hasek vs Belfour/Theodore. This in itself has got to be some kind of record. Edited for typos.

He is making 3.9 this year. Let's aay he'll make 4.5-5 as a UFA. That's not too expensive for a #1 goalie in his prime. How do you figure that one? Belfour is only 3 months younger than Hasek. And he is playing like he's 5 years older. Your dislike of Hasek appears to be irrational. You so far failed to defend any of your contentions. Time to stop and ask yourself: "Do I have any rational reasons to want Hasek gone? Do those reasons stand up to scrutiny?"

When a goalie makes a mistake, no defense on earth can unmake the goal. Good team D can limit the scoring chances, but the goalie still has to stop the shots that get through. And Hasek does that, and does that almost without fail when the teams needs it the most. What Hasek would play like next season, is the question for the next year. Given his past actions, Dominik will be the first to say "I can't play anymore", if he won't be able to perform to his own high standards.

The UFA goalies worth thinking about are only these three: Giguere, Backstrom from MN, or Biron. The last two are not really proven starters yet. And Joseph and Belfour are the UFAs next season as well. So Holland has a fallback.

By " .200 GAA " I actually meant 0.020 Sv%. Sorry, that was confusing. EDIT - Budaj has played a total of 86 NHL games in his life. It is too early to judge how good he will be. So to answer your question, I'd much rather have Dom next year than Bugaj. A year after next, probably Budaj, but only if he keeps improving. If the Wings go after a big name goalie next year, then they will not be able to sign either Datsyuk or Bertuzzi, or perhaps both. That big name goalie better be worth it.