toby91_ca

I think the situation is different with the Canadiens. No one is going to want to see them moved. I say this, knowing full well that you shouldn't look differently at that franchise than you would with Nashville....it's not fair, but oh well. There is also the major difference in the Canadiens frachise actually working out in its current location for 80 years or so and Nashville, well, not so much.

There's also a big difference between $80-90 million (which the Rangers are committed to) and $8 million (which the Ducks are committed to).

If I had to pick which one was the "better" goal, I'd probably go with the first one. While the defenseman made an absolutely terrible play (not a play an NHL defenseman should make), it was a great shot and looked good. The 2nd one I liked most due to his determination. While it wasn't pretty and he got alittle lucky with the puck bouncing back to him, you have to like the effort he put in. I think in his younger days, the play would have just fizzled when he wasn't able to get through the defense, but he stuck around and fought for the puck. You have to like it when your highly skilled guys score hard working goals like that. Same thing on the 2nd goal though, there is no reason why Dats shouldn't have been on his ass, rather than the D looked around for the puck. My theory has always been that around the net, it doesn't matter where the puck is, eliminate the players on the other team and they can't score. There are exceptions of course, but this wasn't one of them.

Isn't it the NHL that is the group that needs to be convinced about removing the instigator penalty? News that the NHLPA would like it removed is not surprising as I always assumed they didn't like the rule. In order for the rule to be changed, both sides would need to agree. Rule changes normally start with discussions amongst the GMs and eventually get recommended to the NHL, which I believe they would either agree to the rule change or not and if they agree, they would need NHLPA approval (I'm not 100% sure on that). So, until someone at the NHL (Bettman, Campbell, etc.) say they want the rule gone, I won't get my hopes up.

No doubt Burke put himself on the line here. There is huge risk with the signing, but there is also potential upside. $4 million could prove to be a very good deal, but there is plenty of risk that it would be a complete waste of money. The good news for Burke is that it's only $4 million for 2 years and not something like $14.5 million per year for 6 or 7 years that the Rangers have tied up in 2 players.

I know all that and agree with it for the most part. If Basillie wanted a team, he could have a team, but what he wants is a team in Canada and the league will do everything they can to avoid that. I don't know all the specifics, but I suspect Basillie could have owned and moved the Predators to Canada if he took a different approach. Making it very public that his intentions were to move the team was not good from the perspective of the league and what I suspect happened is that a "binding agreement" that he would have had to enter would involving something that would require him to keep the team there, at least for a longer period than he wanted.

He's also attempted to get a franchise team in the past and has been shot down because he wanted that team in Canada.

I know what your position is on the situation, but I don't think you have all the facts...neither do I, but from a logical point of view, if the only thing keeping him from getting a team is his failure to put any money down I would be shocked. Why would the guy waste all the time he has put into the process of trying to a buy a team to only have it fail by not putting money down, it makes no sense. I could understand this if it was an isolated incident and he attempted to try and buy a team and failed, but he's been looking to be an NHL owner for years now.

My disagreement is that I don't think Phaneuf even came close to "jumping" into the hit. I can see where you might think that, but it's just the natural flow of a hit like that, especially against a smaller guy. I don't think you'd find any ref in the league that would call that a penalty and thank god, we need more of those hits.

It would make for a stronger league as a whole, but doesn't fit in with Gary's plan to grow the game in the US. This is one of the main reasons Basillie hasn't been able to buy a team yet. If you think the head office of the NHL has nothing to do with this, you are dillusional. I think it will happen eventually, but the NHL will do what it can to avoid it (i.e. won't happen with expansion).

Needless to say, I don't agree at all.

You must have slept through the past few days, you should be able to find lenghty discussions on this topic in other threads. For the record though, it's Pedd ie and he was the guy keeping JFJ emplyed, but had the backing of the Board. His admission to the hiring being a mistake raises a few eyebrows, but he did tame the comments a little by suggested that JFJ has learned a lot since then.

I was only able to catch the fist two periods. In those periods, I thought the game was called pretty even, the refs missed some calls on both sides. However, the missed call on Chelios was a little baffling, I can't think of any reasoning for that one. Anyone think Chelios may be getting the benefit of calls in his older age? In terms of the Phaneuf hit on Hudler and ensuing fight, I watched the replays. What a monster hit and what the hell was Hudler thinking, you can't do that sort of thing in the NHL....especially at his size, he'll get killed. As far as complaining about no instigator call....well, here's the rule: 47.11Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player or goalkeeper who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season. I don't see where there would be an instigator call there, simply looked like Lilja challenged and Phaneuf accepted, normal fight.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The only difference between the Canadian teams and the American teams is that their revenues are generated in Canadian dollars. Their payrolls are all in US dollars and they were not compensated. The answer to your question is quite simple though. With the large proportion of revenues coming from Canadian dollars, the increased value of the Canadian dollar will increase the US dollar based cap. Of course, it works both ways as well. If the dollar goes back down to 80 or 90 cents lets say, then the cap will decrease. 2 main factors as far as I can tell: 1 - strong dollar 2 - broadcast revenues (TV revenues in Canada dwarf the comparison in the US).

What salaries are coming off the roster so the Wings can afford it? I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to Pittsburgh. He gets booed there all the time as his departure was less than pleasant, but he did mention last week that he wouldn't mind finishing his career there.

Yzerman wears it because Trottier was his favourite player. Thornton wears it because of Yzerman, but not because Yzerman was his favourite player, his favourite player was Gretzky......his brother liked Yzerman and suggested the number. You would have to go case by case.......

I take it you do not spend a lot of time in the business world? Acquisitions are not simple transactions. I'll give you one example: A client of mine spent about 2 years working on a deal to acquire another company, which eventually ddin't happen. These things happen all the time.

Yeah, I often heard people comment that Management is concerned about winning they are only concerned about the bottom line, but I don't buy that at all. Prior to the lockout, they were one of the highest spending teams in the league and they are now spending to the cap. If they weren't concerned about winning, why would they spend so much on the team? If they spent less, they would make more money.

That's how I feel. Stevie is currently in a "make work" role right now with the Wings. He's certainly getting some good experience and is probably quite content, but what are his aspirations? Maybe the Leafs can offer him a position that the Wings currently do not have available. Still, I think it is unlikely that he leaves Detroit. With Bowman, he's been with 5 different NHL teams and had most of his success with Montreal. I don't see any reason why he would be adverse leaving the Wings. The only thing I can think of is that at his age, he may simply be content in his consulting role and isn't interested in taking on a large role with the Leafs. That said, if he wasn't at all interested, he wouldn't have met with them.....then again, no harm in listening.

As far as I know, he's the only one that has had any contact with the Leafs.

Chances are, they won't sign an offer sheet, it's very rare.

Ask yourself this question: If the Wings only offered Zetterberg $1,000 per year for 10 years, would he have to accept? If you can answer that, you should be able to answer your question.

Sure, no one can force him to sign a contract with the Caps, but they would still hold his rights and he wouldn't be able to paly with anyone else in the NHL.

If I had to guess, I'd say that quite a few people outside of Detroit would make the comparison. I'm not sure what Stevie being captain for 10 years before the Avalanche came into existence means. Yzerman was captain at the age of 21 and Sakic has been captain since he was 23. Yzerman is currently 6th in all-time scoring, Sakic is 8th and will likely finish ahead of Yzerman before he retires. (although, I know you are talking about all-time best players, not where they fit in the scoring list). For the record, I think Yzerman ranks ahead of Sakic, but I think Sakic deserves way more credit than you are giving him.

They actually had a pretty decent team for the 6 years leading up to the lockout. Problem is, they were only able to ice a strong team due to their spending, which they can't do anymore. You can't place all the blame on JFJ, but you can face facts and realize that he isn't the right guy for the job.