toby91_ca

To be fair, this is what writers do. If you go and find the same article elsewhere, the title is very deceiving as well.....likely to draw readers. I'll have to dig up some examples. Edit: okay, here are some examples: Don Cherry's low expectations for Ovechkin, European expansion Cherry: Ovechkin won't be so great in 2008-09 Cherry: Ovechkin won't be as good Grapes sour on Ovechkin Canucks and Ovechkin draw fire from Cherry

I didn't read this article, but I'm assuming it is the same as another I read on the way to work today, which had a terrible title (Cherry slams Ovechkin.....this wasn't the title, but something along those lines). The reason the title was terrible was because Cherry's comments were not dissing Ovechkin at all. All he did was state his opinion that Ovechkin will not be as dominating this year as last year, he'll have a hard time scoring 65 goals this year, guys will focus on him more, etc. These are all very fair comments and opinions. The guy scored 65 goals last year, there is a reasonable chance he won't score that much this year. Also, he won the scoring title last year and the vast majority of expert predictions I have read so far is that Crosby scores more points than Ovechkin this year. All Cherry stated was that Ovechkin likley won't dominate the scoring like he did last year, which is basically what all the other experts are saying as well, if they are all picking Crosby to win the scoring title. Maybe it gets spun a little differently because it's Cherry. I'll re-interate, I didn't read this article, so maybe what I am saying is off base and maybe Cherry did bash the guy, but I doubt it.

I still don't buy the Shanahan argument. He had 2 big years in St. Louis and then his stats the 2 years after that were worse than when he first came to Detroit. His 2nd and 3rd years in Detroit were sub par, but after that, his stats were right back up to where he had historically been. I see no evidence at all of his stat dropping because he played in Detroit. In Yzerman's case, the theory used by many is that he had sacrificed offensive numbers by focusing more on defense when Bowman came to town, but I'm not a big believer of that. I believe it had more to do with a combination of his knee injury, age and simply a changing in the overall scoring of the NHL in general (i.e. early years when he put up big numbers, were higher scoring years for the NHL, while later on, general scoring reduced).

Who cares what anyone has to say really. Fact is, the opinion has some validity to it. There is at least a question in whether Ozzie can handle it or not. Clement is simply giving his opinion that he doesn't think Ozzie will be able to handle it. If you ask my opnion, I'd say that Ozzie shouldn't be a problem, he played most of the playoffs last year anyway when Hasek couldn't handle it. I think repeating will be difficult, just as it is difficult to win the cup in any year, but if they don't, I doubt it will come down to Ozzie cracking, it will come down to not getting the breaks you need, some luck and avoiding injuries.

I've already explained Hull and Robitaille and the significantly different roles they took on when they came to Detroit. Also, their career stats, again, would be inflated by playing in the highest scoring era in hockey, while their years in Detoit came in some of the lowest. It's fine if you think looking at the years just before coming to Detroit are more relevent, but why did you completely ignore the years just after leaving? Wouldn't they be relevent? If you want to use the age factor, they would have also been older when coming to Detroit as well.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it, or at least I don't believe you've shown any evidence to back it. Instead of just cherry picking years, let's just have a look at their NHL careers in total. Shanahan - NHL career goals per game without Detroit = .44 (.43 with Detroit), points per game without Detroit = .91 (.88 with Detroit). Also, the time he played with Detroit was probably the lowest scoring period in the NHL during his career. Lang - NHL career goals per game without Detroit = .27 (.25 with Detroit), points per game without Detroit = .72 (.75 with Detroit).

Actually, there wasn't really a significant amount of 100pt scorers that year. Only 3 other guys had more than 112pts (Gretzky, Dionne and Bossy - they were pretty damn good players). Only Gretzky (164) and Dionne (135) had more pts than Nilsson's 131. I think Gretzky's stat that year was pretty impressive, not only 29 pts better than #2, he had 164pts and the number 2 guy on his team (Kurri) only had 75pts (89pt difference....wow)

Perhaps with some of the lesser role players on Detroit, but even then, it's very hard to say and would only be speculation. With guys like Zetterberg and Datsyuk, they are stars on this team and are out there in all situations, it would be no different with another team. If I were to look at each guy you mentioned, I'd have the following comments: Shanahan - 36g, 75pts 2 years before coming to the Wings (prorated to 82 games due to short season), 44g, 78pts the year before coming to the wings and 46g, 87pts his first year with the Wings - I don't see a nose dive in production. Lang - his production is pretty damn consistent in the years before coming to the Wings and after he left with that while he was here (apart from the partial season during the year he came here) Williams - he's had 42pts in 63 games with Chicago so far. I don't see how that's any better than what he did while with the Wings. Also, with him, he's still developing, him doing better would be expected, he was just breaking into full time duty in the NHL with the Wings. Hull - he produced at least as well, if not better, with the Wings than he did during the several previous seasons before arriving here. Whitney - he was only here for a very short period, so it's hard to judge, but if you pro rate his totals over 82 games, he would have had 64pts. That's not all that much of a difference and you also have to consider that he came over here with a much reduced role that he would have played on other teams. Robitaille - hasn't done much (now retired) since leaving the Wings either that shows he produces more elsewhere. He's a terrible example anyway. He was a star on previous teams and came to the Wings to win a cup and played on the 4th line most of the time.

It kinda pisses me off when people suggest that certain Wings players would score more on other teams as well....since there really isn't any supporting evidence to suggest that would be true.

You're right, I forgot to go back to him. I checked earlier to see if he ever had more than 50 goals, but forgot to go back and check his point totals.

Hossa's only impressive playoff came while playing with Crosby? Yes, his most impressive, but not ONLY impressive. Unless you don't consider his 16 pts in 18 games in 2003 and 10 pts in 12 games in 2002 to be impressive. I think 2007 is really the only disappointing playoffs he's had and it's really hard to say that after only 4 games. Truth is, it's not like Zetterberg has a long history of playoff success anymore than Hossa. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, even if Holland thinks Hossa is the better player and would be better for the team, he still likely ends up keeping Zetterberg instead (if it came down that, which it likely will). Reason being, loyalty. While he might think keeping Zetterberg isn't as good for the team in isolation, by showing the loyalty, he's able to build a stronger team overall (i.e. attracts more players to come for lower salaries and makes current players on the team want to stay for lower salaries).

Mats had 114, which is probably the highest, I'd have to check. Mats Naslund had 110, Loob had 106 and Markus Naslund had 104. Edit - I forgot about Forsberg, he had 116 in 1996, so that would put him as the highest.

My problem with what you are saying is that you present it as fact. Not only is it not fact, I don't believe it to be true at all. From a technical perspective, I would agree that no binding agreements have been entered, etc., etc., but if you really want to state facts, you'd have to admit that you truly do not know the facts and neither do I, but I would be willing to bet that Leipold and Basillie were happy to make a deal....it never got finalized, but I think there was some fishy stuff going on that caused that not to happen. That deal gets nixed for someone else to come buy the team, which somewhat guarantees a future in Nashville and Leipold ends up owning another team very, very quickly. Also, I highly doubt Basillie was holding off signing a binding agreement until he got assurances he'd be able to move the team. He's smart enough to know that if he completes the transaction and he's the owner, he could do whatever he wants with the team. Yes, there are NHL bylaws, etc. that woudl require approval to move and various other things that would get in the way, but at the end of the day, I believe Basillie, in consultation with his legal team, are pretty confident they would be able to move the team regardless of what the NHL tried to do (they'd likely win the court battle if it came to that).

As you already said, it really doesn't matter. It's good that he is doing well, but it really doesn't mean anything. I've seen guys lead the league in scoring during the preseason who never ended up even making the NHL team for the regular season. Notice that Sammy has 3 goals in 3 games and has a shooting % of 37.5%? Andy MacDonald, based on preseason stats, is on pace for 62 goals and 226 points.

Not sure he is proven wrong, I think that's tough to do, nothing is black and white, everyone has opinions. My beef is that he suggested the comment was debateable (i.e. produces based on his salary). I agree that this point is not debateable, but if someone is going to suggest it is, at least give some reasons to back up the claim.

How the hell is Washington going to get under the cap?

I'm not sure Holland had to work any magic to acquire Hossa either. Magic will be enabling the team to keep him longer than 1 year.

Ummmm, weren't you the one that brought it up? You can't really make a comment and leave it at that. Did you expect everyone to just bow down and not dispute your comment, which I felt is completely off-base? If you didn't want to get into a debate, then don't make a comment that you know would be debated only to turn around and plead for it to stop.

I'd have a hard time supporting a side that suggests he stats are not great for the salary he is earning. 74pts in his last 126 regular season games (translates to 48pts over 82 games) + 24 pts in his last 40 playoff games (about the same, slightly better production than regular season) and he only makes $1.2 million? Oh, he was also +21 during the last regular season (3rd on team in terms of forwards) and +8 during the playoffs (4th on team in terms of forwards). I guess if he didn't shoot so much people would cut him some slack (of course his shot totals are a little inflated due to his point position on the powerplay.....but whatever). Not my favorite player in the world, but I can sure find a few other guys that I'd prefer to crap on.

Samuelsson was actually a +1 But why focus on round 1 anyway, what about the Finals, which really matters? Sammy - 3 goals, 4pts +3 Dats - 1 goal, 4pts +1 Z - 2 goals, 6pts +1

See page two of threads, this was discussed a couple days ago.

Hudler had 14pts to Sammy's 13, not much of a difference. Also, Hudler had 6 pts on the power, leaving his even strength pts to 8, comparing to Sammy's 11. Hudler played more on the power play than Sammy. Not sure why I feel the need to defend Sammy since I don't think he's that great, but I guess I just feel he gets bashed more than he deserves. I also truly despise ice-time arguments, I mean, if you get 10 minutes a night and average 1pt per game, it's not like you are all of a sudden going to average 2pts per game if your ice time is increased to 20 minutes a night. It doesn't work that way. Lastly, I don't think the suggestion is that Hudler replaces Sammy, so I'm not sure why the comparison is relevant anyway.

If it's not Nashville, Basillie will own an NHL team, it's only a matter of time. I've heard that no fewer than 8 teams have contacted him (either to purchase the team outright or to take some form of equity interest).

While no one truly knows what is going on beyond those directly involved, I would be absolutely shocked if there are no discussions happening between the current owners and Basillie (contrary to the public denial). This, of course, means nothing in terms of what may or may not happen, but I'm sure there are discussions. What I heard yesterday is that a deal is very, very, very close and an announcement could be made at pretty much anytime - this is likely an exaggeration, but to suggest the news isn't credible is probably a stretch as well. If nothing ever comes of it, it doesn't mean the story wasn't credible.

Doesn't LA need to pick up about $8-9 million in salaries? Granted, their roster currently only includes 16 players (based on the one I'm looking at.