toby91_ca

I think I'm more shocked that people actually take the time to go see who was voted 3 stars in the building after each game. I doubt most people do that, I think people are simply looking at this game and finding something else about Crosby to ***** about, kinda pathetic if you ask me. The 3 stars is a stupid, in building thing that no one cares about. What I find silly about it is that when the game goes to a shootout, the guy scoring the deciding goal in the shootout is ALWAYS a star. I may be wrong in the always part, but it certainly seems that way.

This is one thing the Wings will have to overcome this year: Nationality of captains for those teams that have won a cup since the NHL took over awarding it: Canada - 78 US - 1 Euro - 1 (Johnny Gottselig was born in Russia, but moved to Canada as an infant, so this one doesn't really count). Before anyone flames me, I am no way suggesting Lidstrom as captain is bad and they need a Canadian, just an interesting stat. Also, I'm well aware that prior to 1990, something like 70+% of the league was Canadian, so it was much more likely to have a Canadian captain.

I have no problem with Crosby getting the 3rd star. You can't always go by stats. Umberger's 5 pts, you can't ignore and he should have been 2nd star over Richards, but Crosby as 3rd seems fair. I actually heard that they gave him the 3rd star to give the crowd one last chance to boo him. The 3 star selections from the games are normally pretty biased to the home team actually.

Terrien got pissed off too as Philly, while up 7-2 late in the 3rd had their top powerplay unit out with an extra forward on the point.

This isn't a new idea, I think we discussed the lack of being able to relate to Euros a couple months ago.

Just for fun, if those teams were so bad, why is it that Ozzie's backups had better winning percentages for those teams? I know, you can't really compare due to the lack of games played, but when the team is still winning when you are not playing, I would at least be thinking about not saying the team was horrendous. Edit: Congrats Ozzie, if all goes well, he may have a shot at # 400 next year.

Shorten pre-season and start regular season earlier. There is also no need for 5 to 6 day layoffs that I have seen some teams go through. I know making a schedule is difficult, but surely they can put something together that gets 82 games in quicker, even if the start date isn't moved. The obvious solution is to shorten the regular season, which makes a lot of sense, but I don't necessarily like it. I'm saying this from a fan perspective. I love stats and they wouldn't be as comparable anymore. Scoring 100 points a season in 70 games is more difficult than in 82 games. Of course, seasons used to be only 70 games in the not too distant past. Even 50 games if you go back far enough. The thing that would really keep that from happening is lost revenues. While revenues may likely stay the same, or potential increase (I won't get into the logic), those running the league are probably too closed minded and they will look at "less games to sell tickets to = less revenues"

The NHL needs to get working to ensure what a team does in June is limited to contract negotiation, etc. (i.e. Stanley Cup awarded in May)

Honestly, I think everyone is subject to bias with respect to announcers. You get used to listening to certain people over the years and you don't like listening to others. I'm not from Detroit, so I probably don't get to hear these guys as much as some, but when I do, I can't say I'm their biggest fan. I enjoy them, but in terms of calling the game and adding excitement, I just don't feel it. Just a quick example, I was watching one of the games last week and my wife says "these announcers suck!" I wouldn't go that far, but that is just to illustrate the bias. My wife is not a diehard hockey fan, so being from Toronto, the only games she really would have ever watched much of would be Toronto on Hockey Night in Canada and she is probably used to hearing those guys.

To be honest, I couldn't care less. They are going to get into the playoffs and whether they are in position #1 or #8 makes no difference to me. They may get a weaker opponent by finishing better in the regular season, but they have to get through the toughest teams at some point. If they go out in the 3rd round, that wouldn't be anymore satisfying than a first round exit for me. If they lose in the Finals, I suppose that would be a little more satisfying, but I think we all know what the goal is. I'd be lying if I said I didn't care at all about the regular season, I love watching and I love tracking stats, but whether the Wings win 10 in a row, etc., doesn't really matter unless they are going to break some records, which I don't think is happening.

The blade of Hasek's stick might have gotten within 6 feet of the puck, but maybe I'm being generous.

I did catch Lidstrom flexing his left knee at some point during the game yesterday, can't remember when though. Know one really said anything about it, so I assume he's okay. He did play the rest of the game, I wonder if it wasn't until after he cooled down and took the gear off that the pain set in. Anyway, don't want to speculate....

I made no comments suggesting St. Paul should be hockeytown over Detroit or anything at all about Detroit for that matter. Someone commented "let's see what happens when the team sucks" or "when other teams in the area win" - I was simply commenting on the fact that the Wild have been pretty bad pretty much all the time and the other teams in the city have had quite a bit of success and they have still been selling out. So the previous comments didn't make sense to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about Detroit.

You know, I'm not sure I have a big problem with charging more for more popular teams. I think you charge what the market will pay. I think they are making a mistake in charging too much though. If I can sell out a building against Team A for $50 a ticket, but not $60 a ticket and I can sell out a game against Team B for $90 a ticket, but not $100 a ticket, you better believe I would want to be charging $50 a ticket for games against team A and $90 for games against team B. Of course, you'd have to consider opportunity cost in not selling out by raising ticket prices (you may be able to still make more money, but not sell out)

My main point was this: Penalty - yes, dirty - no. I can think of plenty of illegal plays that I would consider to be good plays in certain game circumstances. They would pretty much all involve taking down a guy who has a very good chance of scoring. The thing that makes it clear to me is that Hasek didn't actually make an attempt to play the puck with his stick, this is when you would generally look to see if he made contact with the puck first. I this case, I don't even think you look at whether he got the puck first or not. Oh, my position would probably totally change if both players were racing towards a loose puck.

For reference, during a time that in the Wild's history that saw the following: - Wild miss playoffs 4 out of 6 seasons - Twins win 4 division titles, 6 winning seasons, with the only non-winning season having a record of 79-83 - Timberwolves have 6 straight seasons of 44 or more wins last 2 haven't been good though... So, during that period, the Wild have sold out every game.

When making jokes with the use of dictionary words, it is more effective to spell the words correctly....syphilis has only one "l"

I don't want to extend this thread any longer, but I will. 1 - the play resulted in a penalty, which was the right call, no matter how you want to argue it. Think about it, if a defenseman made the same play, would you think it was within the rules? Goalies shouldn't be any different. A play within the rules would have been to poke check at the puck and perhaps take the player down on the follow through, but diving at a players feet and maybe hitting the puck first because it happens to be in front of the players feet does not make the play legal. 2 - All that said, it was not a dirty play and was actually a very good play. It was dangerous from the point of view that had Gabby had his head up, Hasek would have looked like a complete fool. It worked for Hasek and no goal was scored. Some, I think, are looking at the spectacular flight through the air as a reason to suggest it was dirty. Had Gabby simply bumped into Hasek and fallen down, no one would be talking about this right now.

I think you'll need to explain that a little further....for me anyway, since I saw Fedorov as the more important player.

Where the hell do I start? Let's discuss the Selanne situation first. Number 1, he did get hype, but no, not to the extent Crosby has been receiving, but why should it be? Crosby is consider by many to be the best player in the game, Selanne wasn't that rookie year. Yes, he scored 76 goals, but so did another player. There were 5 guys with 60+ goals, 12 players with 50 or more, 21 players had 100 point seasons. Oh and there was one guy who had 69 goals and 160 points in 60 games. Maybe he took some of the headlines away from Selanne. Leauge was simply different then. Oh, by the way, by the time Crosby is the same age Selanne was when he was a rookie, Crosby will be entering his 5th year in the league. All the players that are better than Crosby? Like who? If you took a pole of everyone in the league (players, coaches, GMs), I can't imagine you would have too many on the list that get more votes than Crosby, certainly not as many as the "all the players" comment would suggest. Can you please refer me to the article that says "Crosby leads pens to vitory" when he goes scoreless, no PIMs, etc.? I don't remember that game.

Oh, I didn't mean next year, I just meant in general.

Definately a chance it can be lowered and if the Canadian dollar weakens against the US, good chance of it lowering.

If by "several" you mean "one" then I agree.

Because you can't have goalies wondering around the ice to communicate with the officials.

The Hockey Operations Department, which is run by Colin Campbell selects the remaining spots....in consultation with the 30 GMs. Like so many others it seems, you are misstaken.