toby91_ca

I know and agree on the points around a Hamilton team not biting too much into the MLSE market. In fact, I think a lot of people think it might actually be good thing for Toronto. It would at least be a good thing for the team in terms of being a fan...it might force management to be as competitive as possible. In terms of Boots, apparently he had to borrow money from existing govenors to get the deal done, which is against NHL by-laws, but I guess Bettman overlooked that since he had no plans of moving the team to Canada.

Bettman's probem is that Jim's plans do not involve keeping a team in the US long term and Bettman is dead set against a team moving from the US to Canada. MLSE ownership wouldn't be thrilled about Jim becoming an owner because they figure he'd end up trying to move the team to southern Ontario and eat into a bit of their revenue (not sure how big a deal that would actually be). It's pretty incredible all the things I have heard about how the Nashville deal went down (shady if you ask me).

Big difference is that when Dats signed his contract, he wasn't worth the money he signed for (he grew into the contract, but at the time, I certainly questioned the amount). You see a lot of players signing for big dollars now, with the hopes that they turn out to be better players in the future and their contracts turn out to be great deals. In Zetterberg's case, if he signed for the same money as Datsyuk's contract, he'd be signing below current market value, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Well, he could accept a hometwon discount, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view that Datsyuk is making "x" so Z shouldn't really get much more.

He/she must have been thinking that the logo (with the wheel) reflects the industry. In terms of the name "Red Wings" which is the topic of discussion, I have no idea how it relets the industry in Detroit. It likely doesn't. Here's where the name came from:

I'm not sure if this person is serious or not, but assuming he/she is, he/she is obviously in the minority. The guy is a decent player, but by no means a standout in Toronto. In the 2006/07 year he was part-time between the Leafs and their minor league team. He's a fringe guy, he's getting paid $575k (cap hit), so I doubt anyone is truly gushing over the guy.

In reading a lot of preview magazines out now, Crosby is pegged to be the scoring leader in pretty much all of them (Ovechkin is normally #2) with his point total ranging anywhere from 112 or so, to 127 or so. The 112, which I read earlier today, assumed he only plays 75 games. Another one I read the other day suggested he had a top end potential for "this year" of 145. He was on pace for close to 150 at times during the 2006-07 year.

I think Hossa's comments are a bit of a cop out, but completely expected from most hockey players. He obviously respects both players, so he isn't going to clearly say who he thinks is better. "They are different players" is a cut and paste comment you'll hear all the time. Crosby is a better skater, so stating that really doesn't mean much. Interesting the way he put it though, Crosby is a skater and Datsyuk is a playmaker. He probably means that Crosby creates the plays he does with his superior skating ability, while Datsyuk uses creativity. Not sure I'd totally agree with that as I have seen some pretty incredible plays from Crosby that have nothing to do with skating. I guess the other thing is that it's tough to compare a 30 year old to a 21 year old. I think Crosby makes some plays at the wrong time (behind the back, etc.) rather than making the simple play, but I think he'll actually get more effective as he matures into the league. Datsyuk is an amazing player, but I do think Crosby is on a different level, even at such a young age.

I know Crosby didn't play the other night. I think a lot has to do with jumping back into the grind after being off for awhile and your body not quite being ready. Some of it also relates to the fact that this is really just preparation and the games are not that important to guys like Crosby and Datsyuk, they are not in battles to make their respective teams, so they take time off for cautionary reasons. Lidstrom's is just fluke. With Crosby and Datsyuk for example, I bet if we were in the middle of the regular season, they'd be playing and you'd never hear about these injuries.

NO, no, no, no, no. The $750-1,000 on that page was just sample pricing. You have to subscribe to Beckett to get the actual pricing. The $750 has absolutely nothing to do with the Hasek card. As someone already mentioned, I'd be very surprised if you would be able to sell it for more than $1.

The thing is though, it would work better if we were looking at a bunch of guys in their early 20s. Ericsson is really the only young guy there and even he will be 25 later this season.

Not possible. Lidstrom and Hasek rookie cards were in the 1991-92 set of upper deck and Fedorov and Jagr rookie cards were in the 1990-91 set.

I think the technical requirement in the NHL to be considered a rookie is that you would not have played 25 or more games in a major professional league (I guess with Hasek, you'd need to consider whether the IHL was considered a major professional league). However, even if number of games was not an issue, Hasek might not have been eliglbe for the Calder back in 1991-92 due to age as he would have been 26 prior to September 15th of that season (but rules might have been different then). So that's whether he would have been considered a rookie or not in 1991-92 in teh NHL, but in terms of cards, I always view a player's rookie card as being the first card produced for such player, so I think the card you are referring to would be considered a rookie card.....but pro set was not a great brand. I think I stopped collected cards around the 91-92 season, so I wouldn't call myself up to speed on the topic.

I'm pretty sure they played some games together last year in Grand Rapids as well.

Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen....those are the guys that had more goals in the playoffs than Sammy last year. I think we can all find faults with his game, but when people start talking about being able to replace him with cheaper players, I think that's where some people just aren't getting it. The guy makes $1.2 million, that is a bargain for what he gives you.

How many guys do you think are out there that make less than $1.2 million and put up 40-50pts a year?

He has eluded to this and pretty much has used the same words to describe his thoughts several times in the past. No one should be surprised by the potential of him leaving the organization at some point in the future.

My first reaction was: didn't I hear about this donation a long, long time ago? Then I read the article and figured that this appears to be the official ceremony to celebrate the building, which was built, in large part due to the donation. The actual donation was made about a year ago.

No kidding. Unless he has a complete bomb of a year, he'll become the all-time winningest goalie this year. Also, he might pass Sawchuk for most shutouts as well.

Yzerman has made it quite clear that he is interested in being a GM someday and tha the understands that it probably won't be in Detroit, at least not in the shorter term. He'll likely leave at some point and it definately won't be for money. He'll want to get paid an appropriate amount, but he'd be going to run a team as you say, not to make more money.

double

Tretiak, here's what I can say about him: The guy must have been good, real good. The reason I say that is this. As a young kid, growing up in Canada and playing ball hockey, I knew who Tretiak was, to the point that if I played goal, I might call myself Tretiak. I remember it vividly. At the time, I considered him one of, if not the best goalies in the world. For a Canadian kid, if you even heard of a player outside the NHL, you know they must be something special, but to put them up there with one of the best, they you can imagine how good he must have been. I guess that's all I have to say, I've got nothing beyond remembering at a time when I was much, much younger, he was probably the ONLY player outside the NHL I had ever heard of.

But someone else didn't question the validity that he was playing with the Tampa prospects, he questioned the part about Stamkos, since he isn't supposed to be there. I've read, as recent as today, that Stamkos is not there. Now, I guess there is a chance that Stamkos was there for practice, but just isn't playing in the prospects tourney? Possibly, but I'm not sure why he'd be there practising, but not playing.

Being Canadian, it's hard for me to agree to that, due to NHL = best bias. But I will agree that the leagues were at least competitive as you put it, but I think the NHL was the better competition. Also, I don't place too much on him beating out Jagr as best at the time. Would he have been 24 or 25 and Jagr 17 or 18?

Keep Hossa and trade him for 2 Franzen's then.

I think you can make the argument for Lemieux to have won the 1997 Hart and Pearson seeing as he scored 122 pts, with number 2 coming in with only 109. Also, I think you can build an argument for Brodeur winning the Vezina that year. Even if you think Hasek deserved the Venzina, the fact that Brodeur was so close tells me that Hasek was not dominant enough to deserve Hart and Pearson honors. Same goes for 1998 Hart and Pearson. I think you can also make a case for Chechmanek winning the 2001 Vezina.