toby91_ca

Really?.......really? I'm thinking about lobbying the NHL to abolish the +/- stat due to its uselessness, but over emphasized at the same time.

Are you sure he signed? Pretty unlikely if you ask me. I think he was offered a few 2-way contracts that he declined, but was invited to try out with the Coyotes, with the hopes of impressing an earning a 1-way deal. He has no interest in going back to the AHL.

I have to be honest, this is a very, very odd thing to be hearing from a Canadian hockey fan. Not only is it odd, I've never heard it before in my life. You support the "team" not the individual players, since these players tend to come and go over the years. In this case, you support your "country", I could care less who the individuals are on the team, but even looking at them, when they are playing for Team Canada, I have a very easy time forgetting any dislike I may have for them and even cheer them on individually.

I don't place too much stock in per minute stats as I think it's completely unrepresentative of what a player may do if he had more or less playing time to work with. I think if you were to do a super duper in depth study into per minute scoring I think what you would find is that a player might increase his scoring as his ice time increased, but I would bet his production per minute would decrease. I have no basis for this conclusion other than logical thinking though.

I think I struggle a bit with Datsyuk vs. Crosby from an "overall" perspective. I can probably be convinced that Datsyuk is better overall currently....I may play too much stock in potential than I should. However, in terms of your comments above, the non-bolded attributes, other than creativity, have come with experience and I think Crosby will continue to improve in those areas over the years (already has each year he's been in the league) just as Datsyuk has. In terms of skating, this is where I disagree, I think Crosby is, hands down, a better skater.

Using Ovechkin as the measuring stick since you chose him as the best, I think you need to back up your claims with stats before putting a player down so much: Time on ice per game: Malkin (22:31), Ovechkin (23:00) PP time per game: Malkin (5:33), Ovechkin (5:24) Total giveaways: Malkin (81), Ovechkin (107) Total takeaways: Malkin (94), Ovechkin (60) ratio: Malkin (+13), Ovechkin (-47) Malkin's defense isn't a joke, I've heard some argue he should be selke worthy, which I think is a joke, but he's certainly responsible and definately better defensively than Ovechkin (although this is really not arguable by stats, even though some might try). My vote goes to Crosby, but that might change after this year. He hasn't been healthy the last couple years, even when playing, so it's been hard to judge, but even with Malkin putting up the numbers he's been putting up, opposing teams still chose to focus their best defensive players on Crosby.

If you are going to only look at the years both were in the league, Osgood only played in the finals once (1998). Doesn't make any sense that you exclude the times Roy went to the finals before Osgood was in the league but then include times for Osgood was in the finals 5 or 6 years after Roy retired.

If this the list is for current best goalies, I don't have a problem with Osgood off the list. I mean, there were 5 (I think) goalies picked ahead of him to go to Team Canada's Olympic orientation and there were a few guys involved in picking those players that have seen plenty of Osgood, up close.

Much more to it than that. Hargrove took over for Eric Lindros, who resigned due to all the BS that was going on internally within the NHLPA offices between Kelly supporters and those that oppose him. It's unclear what side of the fence Lindros sat.

Help me understand what you are going to do when someone gets injured? Play short? You won't have enough cap space to call anyone up to fill in.

Have you? Take this example. Player "x" signs a 5 year contract with team "y" and asks for a NTC. Are they asking for the NTC because they want to make sure that they can't be traded and will be with team "y" for at least the 5 years they signed for? Perhaps, but more often than not, the answer to that question is no. Players ask for NTC's so they can control their movement. They do it to avoid waking up one morning and being told they have to move 3000 miles away. They do it so they can have a say in what team they go to should circumstances arise that suggest a trade is the best option for both sides. Sometimes, trades may get worked out and the team then goes to the player for approval, but often what happens is....team and player speak and agree that a trade is the best option and player agrees to be traded to one of any of the following 10 teams lets say and then the team goes out and negotiates the best possible deal. EDIT: For clarity, I don't think Stuart should or will be traded, just commenting on the NTC thing.

This has nothing to do with whether I think Stuart should be traded or not, but I also get a little frustrated when so many people suggest there is no way "x" player is going to be traded....he's got a NTC. The only thing a NTC does is provide the player with the opportunity to pick the team he will be traded to. If you work out a trade for a player with a NTC, the player would have to approve it (there are also various circumstances and conctractual arrangements), but if the player agrees, he'd be traded. Yes, it's an added wrinkle that you need to deal with when trying to trade a player, but players with NTC's get traded all the time.

I think a lot of the players were not in their prime and just for accuracy, the bolded players weren't even on the team. That said, they probably were the best winnning team of the past 10 years.

What's to complain about here? For the past 2 years, he's had injury troubles (playing in 60 or so games each year), but he still put up 15+ goals and 40+ points each year in those reduced games. $1.5 million is pretty damn cheap for that kind of production and consider the fact that, if healthy, he has the potential for more.

The total cap hit for all 3 combined is likely less than $3.5 million, so you can't really complain too much.

Did you misspell Domi's and Gretzky's names on purpose?

I'm sorry, but this story is BS. There is no chance that Holland would tell someone about a signing that he just made without it actually being made official. So, even if Williams ends up getting announced as having signed with Detroit, I still feel the story is BS.

Not really, when Kronwall signed, he was a 25 year old that had 47 games, 2 goals and 14pts to his NHL career.

NM

Careful, guys like Malkin and Crosby block a decent amount of shots. during the regular season for comparison: Crosby - 42 Malkin - 39 Datsyuk - 33 Zetterberg - 32 I'm kinda wondering if Sykora not being able to play is actually a negative for the Wings, that guy is useless.

If you have both NBC and CBC, why would you even be watching NBC to be begin with?

If the question is hypothetical in that either way they win, then I'd prefer a win at home in game 7, but if your question really means, "would you prefer they lose tomorrow night so they could win at home in game 7?" then no way.

No chance at all....if the Wings win. The only time EVER that a non-goalie won from a team that didn't win the cup was 33 years ago when Reggie Leach scored 19 goals in 16 games (24pts). No one else on his team had more than 6 goals and on the winning team, the best was Lafleur with 7 goals and 17pts. Interesting enough though that the coach of Leach's team was Fred Shero......father of current Pen's GM, Ray Shero. In any event, Malkin is only a few points up on a Crosby and has scored less goals, there is absolutely no chance that he wins if the Pens don't win.

I had no problem with the calls. On Franzen's, guys put their sticks between players legs all the time, but in doing so, you leave yourself open for a potential tripping call. Hard to say if there was a dive or not as you do go down pretty easy on those if you try to get your legs moving. I think most are calling dive just because Franzen suggested so, but any player in the same situation would have said it was a dive as well, so I take that with a grain of salt. On the Ericsson call, I guess I said I didn't have any problems, but I guess I've got a small one with this and that's consistency. It was definately a penalty as far as the rules go, the problem is that you don't know what you can and can't do, I understand where you can distinguish this from similar instances, but where is the fine line? There really shoudln't be a fine line, it should be black and white. The reason this was called is because the Pens player never touched the puck, he wasn't a guy dumping it in and then trying to get past the D (to be honest, I don't think there should be a difference and I'd like to see this called more often) + there was far too much time from when the puck went by and when Ericsson came and initiated contact. I agree it's a penalty, but I'd also like to see that called all the time because it is plays like those that really cut down on some offense off the rush. They definately missed the too many men call, but to be honest, I didn't even notice it until CBC showed the replays.

I heard on Sportsnet that that the league was unhappy with the officiating standard in games 1 and 2 and rules will be enforced more strictly tonight. So....I have a few thoughts on this: - Clearly, the rules have not been called strictly (not pointing at one side vs. the other, just a general comment). You don't have a to watch the video to make that statement. Ignoring the end of game 2, there were a total of 5 pentalties called in 2 games. How is that possible? Especially in games that are tighter than any other games in the season. Clearly a different standard, which is the frustrating part. It's not just the stats either, watching, you can clearly see missed calls, both ways. - My beef - I don't mind the play, that's not the problem and I'm not a fan complaining that Detroit is getting screwed on calls, etc. (the Pens are actually probably on the shorter end here), just making general comments. It's the consistency, or lack thereof that drives me crazy. No other major sport has these issues and allows their officials to be the subject of critism. Either change the rules or keep the existing rules, but whatever you do, if you call the rules black and white, there should be no controversy or complaining. Sure, a call is going to be missed here and there simply because the refs can't see everything, but there should be very little judgment involved in make calls when you have a rulebook to follow. - In a similar vien, the Malkin incident at the end of game 2. I understand the rule about getting suspended (as it is written) and I understand what is also written about the NHL being able to review and make judgments after the fact, but I think this is just silly. I vote to throw the rule out all together as it is stupic, but if you have a rule, just make it black and white. I think it is extremely clear that the rule was not drafted to catch stuff like what happened in game 2 and this is why there was no suspension, suspending Malkin for what happened would have been pretty dumb, but why....again....leave so much judgment to the league, leaving them open for critism every time again??? Either get rid of the rule all together or leave it as black and white. If guys get suspended because of the rule, even though it wasn't meant in that kind of situation, so be it, stuff happens, live with it. Same with all suspensions....if you do this....you get this many games, plain and simple. Sorry.....had to vent a few years worth of frustration. The biggest problem is that most in the NHL think it needs to be this way, you can't really fix it, there needs to be judgment. Really? Is the game of hockey so different that you can't have things black and white, even though you can have that in every other sport??