Icteria virens

dam, I've always like Visnevski since he came into the league. Why couldn't we get something like this done? He's exactly what we need on the blue line.

offensive upside - not in the NHL physically - well he's shown to be injury prone, 5 years in today's NHL is a long time, one day he 'may' be playing above his contract, the problem is he isn't now and is overpaid. If we were overpaying Hudler, Cleary, Flipper alot of people would be very upset but it's ok with Kronwall? my expectation do not come from TSN, like I said before, everyone knows he was tearing up the AHL and showed tremendous offensive upside while there among the hitting ability. Everyone knows he was the only non-NHL'er on team Sweden. Everyone had high hopes for him and that's why he's been a disappointment. They didn't draft him in the first round because he was scouted as a good stay-at-home d-man who makes solid decisions with the puck and was expected to chip in the occational goal every now and then. The fact that he hasn't done it in the NHL is disappointing. I agree he could end up a top pairing guy but the longer he doesn't live up to his billing 'at the NHL level' the longer he's overpaid. I don't want him traded, (I never once said this in any of my posts) and want him to play the type of hockey at the NHL level that he's shown in Sweden, AHL etc.

go back and re-read threads about him right here on this board, everybody gushes about his offensive upside and his physicallity, this is general knowledge. The DRW's feel the exact same way about him too. If you don't know that then you haven't been paying attention. Why did we draft him first overall then? Capable of joining the rush? big deal - so does Lebda as soon as anybody say anything even slightly negative about a Red Wing everybody jumps all over them saying that person wants them traded - right now we are overpaying him based on potential, it's dangerous to lock up a guy for 5 years in the new NHL based on potential. If we overpaided all our young players like Cleary, Lebda, Flipper etc. we'd be up a creek. The bottom line is he hasn't come close to living up to expectations of how he played in Sweden, the Olympics where he was the only non-NHL'er on the squad and in the AHL. the type of game he's played in the NHL is nothing like it, he doesn't deserve to make 3mil a year and tying up an injury-prone player like that for 5 years in the new NHL is stupid. go back and re-read my posts - I never said he should be traded

so then what are his strenghs supposed to be? the report is the exact same one used by sportsnet.ca http://www2.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/players/Niklas_Kronwall/ don't tell me you think he's a stay at home d-man , this is general knowledge that he's supposed to be an offensive defenseman with big hit potential. a more physical Lidstrom, don't try and confuse the issue. and I never said he should be traded

I'm beginning to wonder if you did Assets Skates well and is usually in sound defensive position. Has a wealth of offensive potential. Hits anybody that moves. Flaws Must prove capable of handling big power forwards in front of the net. His lack of size has already led to a myriad of injury woes. Career potential Top four defenseman. I guess you're right, he's at least lived up to the forwards in front of the net and injury woes part of the report. it's the easiest one to find, and quite accurate, so are you telling me the Wings report read : "good stay at home d-man, little offensive production but won't miss many games because he's tough as nails, potential top 6 d-man" it's laughable that you can't take off the red colored glasses and just admit he hasn't come close to being the player NHL brass envisioned

read the scouting report, he hasn't lived up to his potential on both sides of the puck, that's clear as day.

snakebitten all year? sounds like more would've , could've , should've

exactly what he is? He's done absolutley nothing at the NHL level, when the Wings start playing in the AHL he'll become more vaulable , until then it was stupid to tie up a guy with his output for so long.

here's TSN's scouting report on him http://tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=21...e=nhl-red_wings only a true homer would say he's lived up to his billing. "sound def. position, wealth of offensive potential, top four defenseman" if , could , would, should don't equal has done at the NHL level

the future of what? low offensive production and missed defensive oportunities? this guy is seriously overrated

never gave much thought to Drapes before, I still think he'd need another Selke season or something like that to get there. Cheli - I doubt that very much Lids is a lock

yeah, that's my point , if it couldn't grow on ESPN perhaps it's just a niche sport, the American public has more pressing issues like hot dog eating and folding when flopping trips duece on the button.

I'm sorry but ESPN did NOT grow the sport, when poker, hot dog eating, house remodeling on TLC, and Area Football (on NBC no less, you know, the same network that shows hockey after the football season is over) get better ratings then hockey on ESPN they did not grow the sport. They had their chance, counldn't do it, do you know why? because hockey is a niche sport in the US which nobody here wants to admit. Not sure why but hockey is not the 4th sport, hasn't been for a while now.

and what was ESPN offering per year? 40million, this has been and continues to be good for the NHL. Don't you guys remember how ESPN treated the NHL as soon as they got the NBA rights? Like second class citizens. The Comcast deal is *currently* worth over 1/3 that and it's just gotten sweeter. the small increase the NHL would have by going to ESPN, well actually ESPN2, would be offset by the major reduced fee for the rights to broadcast the games. Comcast is actually bigger than ESPN/Disney, it's their featured program and it won't take a back seat to hot dog eating constests and poker(which get better ratings even though hockey has been on ESPN for over a decade) They are working on expanding the market and as a result of the first deal the NHL Network is coming to the US, that would not have happened on ESPN. I would like to know how ESPN is going to sell the game now when they couldn't do it before? Doesn't anybody remember them taking NHL hockey off in March for an entire week during the college basketball tournements. Or how they kicked NHL tonight, a show many lament not being available anymore, to the 1.30am slot when they secured the NBA rights and began showing NBA "2 nite" in the former NHL slot?

it would be great for the Divealanche thing to flare up like a festering wound, that'd probably do more for ratings than any network or anouncing crew! That was passion not usually seen by sports fans. I believe the chippiness and fighting would actually grab more casual viewers too. Let's hope.

the schedule change won't be happening the colorado rivalry hasn't been anything since 5 years and too bad won't be coming back if the NHL was HOT in 97 or 98 why did the ratings suffer with ESPN? Why didn't it get more popular? I share your optimism for a game we like but I just don't think hockey has a broad market appeal, it's still a niche sport IMO and the network will not substantially change that, it hasn't in the past.

how long was hockey on ESPN? A decade and a half, 2 decades? How much did hockey grow if Arean Football was getting better ratings near the end of ESPN's tenure? It is a total myth that ESPN will grow hockey, if didn't do it before and there's nothing in the ratings to suggest it would in the future. PTI and Around the Horn almost never mentioned hockey, even when it was on that network, unless they wanted to make fun of it. there's no hockey buzz like you said when poker gets better ratings than hockey after years of hockey coverage. ESPN tried alot of things, it never worked for them. They gave the NHL a lowball offer that just pissed off the NHL execs after the lockout.

at least the league has been proactive with putting some games on the internet like MLB. in terms of ESPN, hockey wasn't exactly getting outstanding ratings while it was on ESPN, Area Football was outdrawing NHL games on TV. People seem to act like ESPN is a magical cure for hockey when it's a niche sport in the US. Too expensive to play for many. Was hockey gaining in popularity when it was on ESPN? If anything the ratings were going downhill every year. When it came time to offer a contract for the rights after the lockout ESPN gave the NHL such a lowball number it was insulting to the NHL. Don't look for it on ESPN anytime soon when Poker, Madden video games, and bowling get better ratings. People keep saying ESPN will grow the sport but where's the evidence for that? It failed to grow the sport before and now with even more sports options and channels how would it accomplish that?

stop making sense!!! There is absolutely no problem with Lang, he puts up respectable numbers considering his ice time and linemates,he's not the featured go-to-guy like he was in Washington, plus he produces in the PO's , something this team sorely needs. Like the other poster said, ***** about Lang putting up decent numbers in the reg. season and producing in the PO's but ***** about Datsyuk putting up great numbers in the reg. season and not in the PO's, you just can't have it both ways. Some just need to ***** about something. It's only been 3 games. Lets' all step back from the ledge.

Apparently the Rangers are also in the running for his post hitting exploits, less of a chance he'll land here? http://www.nypost.com/sports/rangers/range...arry_brooks.htm

I don't even think you make good points. NO way should it be changed, I'm not even for an alternate jersey. It has to be one of the coolest logos in all of sports, even to non hockey fans.