NomadFromKazoo

If Federov had showed up and played the way he could every night then I'd probably agree with you. Unfortunately he took shifts, games, entire playoffs off. Had he not had that on and off again maybe he'd have gotten the love and the money he wanted as well. But a fair assessment of the root of his issue is that while he could be as good as you remember and frequently was, he also frequently wasn't. At his best he was better then Yzerman. On average not. At his best he was better then Datsyuk and Zetterberg. On average? Don't know yet. If Madano really does this then he's going to be one of my favorite Wings. Talk about a home town discount. Or should I say coming home discount...

This is so true. I usually see them on the road and you have to buy tickets way in advance no matter where they play.

With Hudler and Modano (if the rumors are true), it really adds something to our team we missed last year. We just didn't have scoring depth. It's not just the third line scoring more at all, you need that to spread the top D for the other team more. With a little more rest this year and some real injury healing time and some deeper offensive punch, I can't wait for next year to start.

It's a scary thought. How many years do you suppose Bettman needs to be Commissioner for that to happen?

The only think you're doing wrong is not responding to a post that responded to your point by bringing up economic realities between large and small market teams as making resolution on cap systems hard. Nothing in my posts were insulting. Just not supporting your point isn't being condescending, and the only one talking about journalism school is you.

I'm an Yzerman fan, not a Lightning fan

Wow, talk about a hysterical over reaction. You must be fun at parties. Your post was one sided. If you were just illustrating a point that was one sided and your view is more balanced why don't you just say that. And while I pointed out you criticized owners for inability to control spending but didn't recognize there are actually economic differences that make simple cost management on their part impractical as a single solution and you didn't criticize the players at all, you once again criticized owners without recognizing the impact economics has on their differences and didn't criticize players again. It's pretty pathetic on both sides how much money there is and how they spend so much time worrying about how much each other are making so much instead of just appreciating how well paid they are.

There is an inherent conflict between the interest of high and low revenue teams. High revenue want to spend for themselves. Low revenue want to share and cap. It's not an easy problem to solve. Just taking the players side and saying the problem is owners can't control themselves and not recognizing that dynamic's not really going to shed any light on the real issues. IJust supporting the players is easy, but it's not a solution. It's more complicated then that. And sure there are bad owners, there are also bad players. Again ignoring one and not the other's not going to solve anything.

That's true, the Cap era has been 5 years. Thanks for that observation, Disapperer.

Yep, no where to go from here. I'd have had no problem if Babcock had followed your view either. I'm not arguing Ozzie should have been shut out of starting as he was. I'm just not seeing an issue with Howard getting all the turns since Babcock felt he was ready and now he's all the more experienced going into this year. I think the Junes were catching up to us and a young goalie who hasn't played that many games has us better positioned for this year. So I don't just see it working out in that Howard went the distance, but we're that much better off in October as well. But I got no where new to go. Cheers!

I still don't see there was a "problem" at all I don't see any evidence Babcock thought Ozzie "wasn't up to snuff." Howard needed the work and was playing well. He's young and could handle the load and needed to keep gaining experience. We brought Howard along plenty slowly, it's his time now. Ozzie's sun is setting. That fully explains everything that happened.

OK, but I don't see how it mattered that much between Ozzie playing a few games and barely playing at all in terms of Ozzie really being ready to play. With huge chunks of our team out huge chunks of the season we were in playoff win now or go home mode anyway. If Howard had gone cold and we lost even more games, even Ozzie playing a little was going to have a tough time making the playoffs anyway. Our eggs were really in the Howard basket at that point anyway. When we had two vets, like Hasek and Ozzie, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But with Howard it really made sense to just play him and sink or swim rather then taking starts away so there is the remotest of chances that at that point Ozzie could pull it out.

Actually I argued Howard needed the experience and has been brought along to be put in this position and our head coach thought he was ready, went for it, and he was right. You're arguing he was wrong, even though he was in fact right. Howard working out wasn't a random event, it was the assessment of our head coach. Our head coach was right, that's not just a lucky occurrence. Well, the most specific statement I saw is we are putting our eggs in one basket. Realistically when teams goalie's flop they're usually toast in the playoffs and you win by having your guy ready, not having your backup guy ready. Howard needed the experience and is a young guy. Babcock was obviously focusing on preparing him, it was the right call. To get Ozzie ready as well was completely impractical. A couple of starts would have made little difference and if Howard flopped we'd already be in a deep hole. So what if he had a couple more starts? No way we do that if Babcock thinks Howard needs the starts. I thought you had to be looking for more then that, but if you're saying that's as deep as your argument went, if Howard flopped Ozzie wasn't ready, then sure, but you didn't solve that problem either.

100 points in 10 straight seasons in the Cap era. When you look most of our team being out for long stretches and how we did it again last year it's truly amazing. How do we keep that much talent so deep we can be playing the guys we did and not fall apart? And with a rookie goalie as well for the critical stretch. The whole we're soft thing is so overplayed anyway.

You're going to have to help me here, Doc. How is my asking you why you think it "wasn't the right move" either berating you or somehow infringing on your right to discuss an issue on a message board? Why someone is making the argument they are seems in fact to me to be both in the letter and spirit of the point of message boards. What was the "problem" with Howard playing all the time? Babcock thought it was the right move and it worked out. Ozzie's near retirement, Howard needs the experience. We got into the playoffs, won a round, lost a round to a great team by a whisker. What was the problem? I'm not seeing how that's somehow out of bounds to ask on a message board.

Being on a discussion forum means no one can question what your point is? Hmm... I tried to discuss your issue and your reply was that it's a "discussion forum." Whether or not he's discussing the issue, you aren't either.

What is the problem you're trying to solve exactly? Howard did is part in getting us to the playoffs and to 100 points and to the second round and while he didn't steal the series clearly isn't the reason we lost to the Sharks. He paid is dues for sure in the minors and getting NHL game experience. He was young and inexperienced, now he's young and less inexperienced. It would have been a lot safer for Babcock to play Ozzie and try to keep the streaks alive so he didn't get criticized for losing those, but he thought Howard was ready and rode him as far as he could go...and it worked. I'm not seeing an issue.

I hated the clutching and grabbing, but he was a pro at that. He also affected the other teams by being a sadist. I personally don't like the league allowing either but he was an effective defenseman when he was allowed to grab & attack other players. Skill? Not really. Effective? Yep.

I know we're tight on the Cap, what CaliWingsNut said makes sense. I'm not sure what numbers it would take to do one or multi years so I'm not sure what Cap hit they're discussing, but I see how it could be an issue they want more pay if they commit longer. Is that what you're saying the issue is? I don't see how else Modano would affect whether they re-up for one or multi years though.

No, I actually didn't say that. I specifically said the part about signing with another team wasn't a big deal to me either time. I actually specifically addressed that point and said what my issue was. I'm glad to defend my position, I already clearly stated what I objected to and even said that part wasn't the problem I had with him. I couldn't believe it took this long. And I agree with you totally.

He sure beat up on the Sharks like that. I'm between disliking him for being a sadist and being glad because it was the Sharks...

How does that even make sense? If we sign one 40 year old center to a one year contract then two kids want a one and done contract so they can get out, but if we don't sign a 40 year old Center to a one year contract they are interested in staying 2+ years? Modano, one aging player will drive two kids away in years that he isn't even going to be signed for? Sorry, I don't get how that makes sense.

Your choice, and I haven't proven it or shown any quotes so there's no reason you have to. Ironically I wasn't irked when he signed it as you were. It was when he followed it with what was actually a strong statement demanding we not match it that he irked me which is why I remember it. The second time it was not his failure to accept our offer again which irked me, it was his statements how insulting our offer was followed by his leaving for less money that irked me. You did concede he's like that so even if we don't react to the same things, our memories of him are certainly similar. But he didn't sign with us when he had a choice. If he said anything clearly now such as that no matter what else he did in his mind he'll always be a Red Wing or something to that effect I'd strongly consider that too. But I've never heard him say that. I agree, and both were strongly responsible for our first two Cups. As for me, if I could take one of them and only one of them at their prime to build a team around, I'd pick Stevie Y any day of the week and that's why I say he's ultimately a better player. Federov not only had an attitude but didn't drag his lazy butt up and down the ice unless he felt like it or use his killer skills unless he felt like it either. I'll give you if he showed up all the time like Stevie Y did then it'd be a harder choice, but he didn't and that makes it easy. For me. But Fedorov was certainly good enough it's reasonable to pick him. I agree, that was my interpretation of his wanting to exit both times he had the chance. But you're right I never heard him actually say that. Saying he tried to leave 2/2 times he got the chance is fact. I'm skewing nothing. And again I not only agreed he's a great player but said I loved him as a Wing.

Yes. He signed the sheet and told the Wings not to match it so he could leave. I'm not going by anything I read, I remember it well. You can believe it or not, I'm not going to argue about things that I just remember. It wasn't that long ago. Also, he may have had the best individual skills on the team but he was definitely not the best player, that was Yzerman. As for our ever "low balling" him, it's just silly. It's pretty clear we're not stupid. He may have gotten more on the open market then we did, but he and we both had to play by the rules, and I never said he didn't have the right to sign an offer sheet or leave when he did and I also said I loved him as a Wing, I just said I vote no to the rafters because he told us he didn't want to be here. He whined our offer insulted him. That we "pulled it off the table" doesn't change that our offer hadn't been an insult since he couldn't leave for more money the second time.

So you found my saying I wonder just a it what would have happened and if Ozzie could have done it again "pure Osgood homerism" even though I said...we did the right thing by starting Howard? Wow, I'm glad I didn't say we should have started Ozzie...