NomadFromKazoo

Even if he's good enough, don't you think we should retire the number of players who wanted to play for the Wings instead of bolt every chance they got like Federov? He was a free agent twice. The first time he signed with Carolina and told the Wings not to match. The second time when we couldn't match he signed for LESS money to leave. Screw him.

Needing to go from cruise control for months to round one was a lot harder and that took us half a period. Sure, the Ducks will have the "perfect" time off to the FIRST game in our series assuming they knock off the Sharks, but they will tire as it drags on a lot faster then we do.

I was watching FSN Ohio on the Internet and the commentators were confused to say the least. They said it could draw a penalty but it was clean and they blamed Stuart for the hit and that it was Umberger's fault for not looking. They had all the bases covered. They also dropped it and moved on other then reporting on Umberger's status and saying Umberger was heroic for coming back after the hit, so I don't think the replays convinced them it was not clean.

My favorite part of the article was how Hitch and Babcock said the Jackets played so much better in the second game, one they lost 4-0! Wow, an improvide 4-0 skunking! At this rate, how long after the series is over until they're actually competitive?

I think what's up his sleeve is that based on his comments, Hudler MAY be willing to stay for bargain basement price in order to stay for the next two years when we have no cap space in exchange for getting a better deal after that and trust us to come through for him. TBD, but I think it's the only way we keep him because Hossa's staying and we're going to be in 2 years of cap hell, but then things will get way better with the core of our team signed long term. If he leaves because we just don't have the cap to pay him full market, I can't blame him. But I'd love to keep him.

If the Ducks beat the Sharks they play the Wings next, not whatever team you root for so I wouldn't worry about it.

Yes

We win the series, Hitchcock can have his stupid lame excuses why he didn't really lose, which he can tell to his heart's content on the golf course starting at the end of April. Works for me!!!!

This is my thought too. The Ducks are the worst of the possible first round matchups and they aren't going to catch Columbus now so either the Blues or Preds need to pass them. For us, good effort in a game that couldn't possibly be more meaningless.

I predict Mac will be in the NHL next year, but not a Winged Wheel. We have too many good young players who need to be in Detroit next year, not Grand Rapids. The only way he stays is if we trade enough mid-tier players to free the cap space to sign Franzen and Hossa and there's room for both him and the youngsters to fill out the roster cheaply. Other then that, he is good enough to play in the NHL, but doesn't crack our roster anymore. I think the whole "enforcer" thing is overrated. Our players are hockey players, none of them are sissies. They were a lot more physical in the playoffs last year then anyone gave them credit for going into it and it'll be the same this year. Playing different teams every night is just a different thing then playing a best of seven war with one where you can do like the Flames did a few years ago and give up a bunch of goals at the end of a game and absorb a hundred penalty minutes running our goalie and fighting everyone on the ice to intimidate for the rest of the series. Babcock has toughened the team, but fighting through 82 is stupid, not soft.

Good point, here's another one. Goalies that have won the Stanley Cup in the last year. 1 Chris Osgood

In terms of impact to the team, no disrespect to Hus or Lilja who have had great years, but there is no doubt that Dats turning it up a notch is a MAJOR development and exceeds the others. In terms of percent improvement to his game though, Huds has been excellent. Lilja is a strong third. I think the criticism of Stuart's a little unfair. Granted he didn't come in and dominate, but he's been solid. He's fitting in the D. No doubt I'd like him to turn it up a notch now that we're heading to the second season, but declaring him a disappointment's a bit premature a bit strong. K HAS been someone disappointing though, but not so badly he can't still redeem himself and it's time for him to start doing that. In the end, 9 months a year is a LONG time to play hockey. Players do need to be able to play well and then turn it up a notch, like now.

Definitely the Ducks. The most travel, dirty team. We shouldn't have trouble beating any of these teams unless we don't play our game and if we don't play our game any are a threat.

I see a lot of far out predictions that ignore a lot of reality, but this one's pretty pragmatic. I hope we do get Mule AND H to stay, but I still put that in the "odds against" category. Until Howard's an NHL goalie he isn't and even if he's solid in net during the season the playoffs next year are as we all know from brutal experience an entirely different game. We tried this year with the rubber band and paper clip solution to the goalie position and we're sweating bullets. If we don't make a move like this we're way too likely to be in the same boat next year. Anyway, we'll see, but this is as good a prediction as I've seen.

Exactly what I was thinking. I hope he's "back," but I'd like to see him not suck for a change before counting on anything. At least Conklin is showing if Ozzie can't pull it together all's not lost. But I still feel better with an Ozzie on top of his game going into the playoffs.

Exactly. I can certainly see thinking it "should" count as a goal, it felt like we were scored on. But the rule was followed. Don't like it, get it changed, don't expect it to be called the way you want the rule to read. Anyway, she's a kid, just more commenting on the situation. Sharks fans are among the most fanatical. Having lived in San Jose where sports is usually a casual thing, the Sharks are the clear exception.

I'm totally with you on this. I'd love to play Columbus in the first round and Chicago in the second and we don't travel until the Conference Finals and hopefully the Sharks pull a Sharks and don't make it that far either. I acknowledge everyone's points on the risks of playing various teams, I just think other the the Sharks we just need our B+ game to beat any of them and we're not losing unless we don't play well. And with Calgary and Anaheim there's the additional factor they're thugs.

Mechanics: YOU said his mechanics were an issue. I asked for the basis of that and you said he sucks. I said that's not proof, goaltending is not JUST mechanics and the coaches hadn't stated it was either so that's not proof. Now you keep coming back with that I was "adamant" his mechanics were fine. Not only was I not adament, I never said they were fine. I just kept pointing out you'd made no case and were supported by no one. D is subpar: I have never stated this. You repeat it again as fact when not only did I not say that's the issue with Ozzie sucking I NEVER thought it. Bad bounces: I'm ANNOYED when Ozzie says this. I wish he'd shut up about it. Playing in more games: You said he needed to be pulled for practice to fix the mechanics issue you couldn't support. I never said PLAY HIM, I said it made SENSE to play him if the coaches didn't see a mechanics issue. My view is and always was if sitting's the answer they will do that. In fact I pointed out they HAVE done that and I AGREED with it. Go back and show any quote in this lengthy discussion where "I" stated he DOES NOT HAVE a mechanics issue or we NEED TO play him, it's the D's fault, he's getting bad bounces. I only said you had supported nothing. So prove me wrong with quotes as to what you say above. You can't because that's not what I said. Support your arguments by supporting them, not by just saying PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! You just make stuff up, like that I'd blamed the D which I not only didn't but don't think. You also made up the bad bounces, which I not only didn't say but Ozzie annoys the snot out of me when he says it. This is the lame way you argue. You're not even fun to spar with.

You're a bitter little fem, aren't you? Not only are these shemale misrepresentations of what I said about Ozzie, I have not even addressed the D in any way in any of these conversations and I've never used the term "bad bounce" or anything like it either. I think the problem is that Ozzie is sucking, not the D, not bad bounces. So if you want to make stuff up, you only show what you are. At least above I misunderstood and admitted it, I didn't just make it up like you are.

It was my bad, I think we were writing these at the same time, but I said so in the post before this post of yours.

I agree Ozzie's been way better as a sub. But I'm not sure it's just "loyalty." Hasek finally should have and did give it up. We have up and comers in the minors getting close. We signed a quality backup in Conklin. And as everyone keeps pointing out there are lots of mediocre goalies in the NHL who aren't really an upgrade. So the specific solution to the problem's not obviously apparent. Do we give up a bunch of our future and tie up a bunch of cap or hope Ozzie and Conklin can hold it together all be it with band-aids and paper clips for the year while we address other needs? And then you add on top of that what SHOULD be a monster D and it makes sense that while it was a gamble is was a reasonable choice. What if we had signed a guy who ended up being mediocre himself and we were looking at only "hoping" to keep Hossa "or" Franzen? Again when we have guys who will at least initially be cheap coming up from below next year and maybe we can sign them both and still be able to pay our young goalies as the cap goes up? I guess instead of saying you don't like what they tried, what EXACTLY are you proposing we should have done? Criticizing's a whole lot easier then solving. BTW, someone "chastised" you for saying Ozzie's a better sub then starter? I'd like to see that quote. I've been supporting that Ozzie's our best option this year, but I can't see how anyone could disagree with that he plays better as a sub as it's clearly true.

OK, I see what you're saying. In reading as you say it here I think you're right, that is what he meant. I thought with the Howard reference he meant that Howard would be our starter now. But in re-reading it with your interpretation in mind, I think you're right, he meant Ozzie would be better healed and ready. I still think the knowing what we had in Howard was a bit of a useless diversion, I don't think a few weeks in the NHL would have changed much. But he didn't mean Howard would be NHL playoff goalie ready, so my apologies to the author of the quote I misinterpreted. I'm not sure I agree that was really the issue, it seems to me watching Ozzie that he's just not in the zone. I don't see him doing anything really different, it just seemed last year he had the ability to take a wild swing at the puck when it seemed impossible and bat it away and this year he just doesn't. Shots he stopped just sail under his arm. He's close, but close doesn't stop pucks from going in.

Dude, you're completely missing the theme, you're supposed to hysterically overrreact! This is completely measured and reasonable, in short, you've LOST it! We were stupid for not playing Conklin and bringing up Howard and we didn't trade for another goaltender soon enough and we tied up our cap and Ozzie's done and he's been killing us all season and now we're completely and utterly SCREWED!!!!! If you need any more tips on appropriate complete and utter lack of perspective let me know and I'll help you out again...

I see, so if we'd played Howard in Detroit this season he's be a playoff goaltender for an elite team and instead we wasted his season in Grand Rapids and now he's just a minor leaguer. I mean playing a kid in Grand Rapids to grow him into an NHL goalie and bringing him to the NHL slowly is such a waste of time and talent. I'll file this in the black can under my desk marked crapola and save it for all due future reference. I always love the argument that when our kids come up they play well is PROOF they were always ready for the NHL and we were buffoons to have wasted all that time playing them in the minors. Silly me, I always thought it was solid proof we did a great job developing them in the minors and honing their skills to be ready to play in the NHL. It turns out they ALWAYS WERE and we're STUPID!!!! Wow, re-reading what I just wrote I realize what a moron I was for thinking that!!!! Note from Kaz, I misunderstood this quote, addressed below.

I'm with you except the heartbreaking part. I don't think it's a big deal or even a real change. We've been bringing up all our other prospects that are about to hit the NHL, it's still over a month to the playoffs. Why not play Howard too instead of just Conklin when they're not playing Ozzie? Obviously Conklin's been getting extra starts on account of Ozzie sucking. I don't see why starting Howard instead of Conklin is some sort of major new approach to what they're already doing. It's still Ozzie determining how much plan B plays, regardless of if plan B is Howard or Conklin. Frankly Babcock's doing a great job trying every combination. Keep playing Ozzie no matter how bad he sucks, alternate him with Conklin, let Conklin have a few starts in a row. I'm sure there's lots of discussion behind the scenes. What else can you do? Realistically, if we win another Cup in June, Ozzie is probably going to be in the net when we do it. We're not going to throw the Cup pretending otherwise.