toby91_ca

Apparently there is a warrant out for his arrest.

Goalie's being able to use a broken stick makes "some sense", but it is still dangerous, so I'm not sure why they are allowed until stoppage in play. I guess the rationale is as follows: They aren't allowed to go to the bench to get a new stick like other players (this doesn't address the safety concern though + why not let them go to the bench....if they want to take the risk and leave their net....their problem) There is much less risk with the goalie using a broken stick than other players, this is clearly true, but still, there is a risk so why not have the same rule for everyone?

I'll take your word for it that 5 leads the league....makes sense, 5 or 6 normally would...which puts what the 1978 Bruins in perspective. They had 11 guys score 20 or more goals that year.

There is no argument, the goal shouldn't have counted, it was missed, take the gift and move on. Those arguing that it should have counted anyway are wrong. In terms of clearing the ice quickly as if you got away with something...they may do that, but if there is a review.....the team having left the ice would have 0% bearing on any decision. If the wrong call was made (and the play is reviewable, in this case it's not), the team would be called back to the ice....even if they are all showering.

55fan....why would you be watching some Devil hockey? The most boring form of hockey on the planet. Even when the Wings are playing them, I think about whether I want to watch.

Penalty on Fil???? Referring to the play on Gus? Disgusting dive.

I've been thinking about this for a long time now. Offense has been plummeting again and many subtle hooks and holds and interference infractions go ignored (in some cases, not so subtle). I used to complain about this type of thing being incompetence of the refs or inconsistency, but I actually think it is one purpose now. True, there still is a lot of inconsistency between games, which is extremely frustrating, but in general, I'm confident that the refs aren't being asked to call it by the book like they were 10 years ago. Power plays are likely around 50% of what they were back then....which on one hand is good....I hate all offense coming off PPs, but it's only good if the reason is because there are no infractions. You now get left with stars not being about to shine as bright as they can because lesser skilled players are able to hold them back by interfering. I honestly believe the league made a call here to allow stuff to go uncalled to slow down the play again a bit in the hopes of limiting the head injuries that they have largely blamed on the speed of the game. Concussions are down, but is it because of this or is it because players are getting it and knowing they can't target the head? Probably a bit of both, but I do detest all the non calls that have been seemingly getting more and more.

I don't like awarding points for losing either, but awarding a point when you lose in a shootout...I don't see that as getting a point for losing. I see it as getting a point for the game ending in a tie. The "game" ended in a tie....the shootout has nothing to do with the game, it's a separate event/gimmick and the loser of that event gets nothing. Now, if the shootout didn't exist and teams were given a point for losing in OT, I could see more of an argument. No one likes that, but the reason it is there is because no teams would try to win in OT if they get nothing if they lose, they'd just sit back and wait for OT to end. In that scenario, why even have OT, just end that game after regulation and give each team a point. It's a very tough issue to deal with, but I think the best solution is to go to a 3pt system.

DickieDunn....sure what you mean by I lost...makes no sense. But anyway, even if no other league gives credit for losing, why would that matter? If I think of the major sports in N.A., no other league decides games on gimmicks either, no other league uses a points system, etc. Anyway, they should have stuck with ties, because they changed that and are using a shootout to decide the game you'll remove the point from a team that would have gotten it with a tie? NFL has ties. You wan to talk about winning and losing the argument....this much is guaranteed....as long as the shootout exists, no team losing in a shootout will EVER not get awarded a point.

Getting no points for losing in a shootout would be idiotic.

With 14 games to go, it doesn't seem possible for either Gus or Tats to catch up (10pts behind). It will depend on whoever stays healthier is my bet. With D missing the next 2 games and Z already 1pt up, my guess is that Z will lead the team in scoring, but he's more streaky, but has remained fairly healthy this year.

What data is he drawing on over the past 10 years for 3 on 3 play? I honestly can't remember seeing 3 on 3 play. I'm sure I've seen 3 on 3 before, but it would be so rare, it escapes my memory. With that in mind, the amount of data on this must be very, very small. Not sure why you don't simply look at the AHL results and that's the data....why do hypothetical modeling based on very small data points? I hate the shootout as well and I believe almost everyone in the game dislikes games being decided by the shootout. The problem they are in now is that it was introduced as a way to eliminate ties, but I think games are going to shootouts way more than they originally thought and they are probably stuck and not able to go back to ties. I'm not a big fan of 3 on 3 either. 4 on 4 I don't mind as it is a regular occurrence in almost every game at some point, but 3 on 3 is almost as much of a gimmick as the shootout (it's slightly better though).

Greenrebellion.....reasons you cite make sense when comparing today to the 80s perhaps, but not when you compare today to 2006.

Hammond will get 0 consideration for any awards. Maybe not 0 as you often do have silly voters, but 0% chance he'll end up as a finalist for anything. His stats are gaudy right now, but very small sample size. He's played 12.5 games. Agree with what others have said about Dubnyk, I don't think he has any chance at the Hart or Vezina. Probably a finalist for Vezina, but not Hart. I think Theodore and Hasek are the only goalies that have won the Hart in the past 50+ years (I could be wrong)....it's so rare for a goalie to win. Plus, when they won, it was during a very low period of scoring in league history, so less big stars putting up big numbers which would get consideration.....now, if there is a year, this might be it since scoring is pitiful. We may see the leading scorer have below 90pts. Anyway, he can't win anything because of Price, as someone mentioned, he leads in every category over Dubnyk. Games played is an important one too, he may play close to 60 games, which is fine, but Price will likely be closer to 70.

One of the funniest things I've read in the past couple days is that the Pens' coach talked to Downie before the game about avoiding penalties...he then goes and piles on 22 minutes. Gotta wonder if they'll regret the signing or like it. I understand bringing him in, but so far this year, the sense I get from their fan base is that he's been a net negative for them. It will all depend on what happens in the playoffs though. I've I'm them, I'm thinking I really need that type of player for the playoffs, but I'm also worried about him taking penalties which could kill them at the wrong time in the playoffs. That type of player you will expect penalties due to the type of game he plays, but I don't think they were expecting the volume of stupid and useless penalties he's taken so far.

My less than 10% number was guys 35 or older, not 30. Absolutely mammoth difference between 30 and 35 for an NHLer. Isn't assuming he'll be fine and come back fine just the same wild speculation as assuming he will retire? Granted, there is probably more "stats" to back up the former, but in all the stats pulled up, how many have been in his situation (age and severity)? Anyway, I'm not assuming he'll retire, I'm actually assuming he'll be back. However, speculating that there is a risk he retires is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. Also, I honestly worried about Zetterberg's future last year, not from the perspective of him never playing again, but at how effective he could continue to be going forward and how much longer he could continue playing.

Number9....just a few observations on your crazy stats and percentages. - I know your numbers are completely made up, which you agree as well, but I think you feel they are skewed low....however, what's missing is how much time those guys are out. Sometimes concussions are very minor and guys literally miss a game or two. Whenever it is gets pretty lengthy, there is reason for concern....or maybe not in that we think the team is taking the right approach. - Your made up numbers assumed a "measly" 30% would have occurred to guys in their mid-30s. What logic did you use to suggest 30% would be to guys in their mid-30s? Then suggest that you have skewed that lower than the likely actual? Considering that under 10% of the league is 35 or older, not sure how 30% makes any sense. - But even using that, you've suggested that 18% is a low number of them that had their careers finished because of concussions. Firstly, 18% is a pretty significant number if you ask me, but ignoring that, it was only derived from the 3 high profile guys that were mentioned off the top of someone's head....there are likely many more. Bottom line, whenever someone has been concussed many times and has missed significant time because of it, there is reason to be concerned and speculation of career limiting impact is not going overboard. There was quite a bit of speculation with Crosby that he was considering retirement during his concussion issues and he was only 23 or something at the time. I understand a lot of that was because of his high profile and I don't believe he and his family were discussing retirement, but the speculation was there. I'm guessing Franzen will come back, but that doesn't mean the people speculating that he might not are idiots....it is a real concern. A real stupid analogy for you.....a lot of trade rumors go around and never end up happening, doesn't mean those rumors are baseless, e.g. Phaneuf potentially coming to Detroit. That may never, ever happen, but the discussions were serious. Some rumors are made up, some are exactly as what occurs and some are very valid, but never transpire to reality.

Hey, I don't want to sound like I'm ragging on the guy, I think there are plenty people carrying that torch. What I would say, which is what was expected when he signed his contract, is that it would be way too much money towards the end of the deal. The guy will struggle to get back and stay on the ice and even if he is able to overcome the injuries and play 82 games a year, he's not going to start producing more, he's going to continue to decline, it's pretty close to fact without being so....it's simply what happens to professional athletes as they age. Very few guys stick around into their late 30s and beyond and continue to be effective, so it's not like I'm suggesting he'd be an outlier by not coming back and producing a lot of offense. There are examples of guys that seem to defy the odds and continue to produce at older ages (Selanne and Jagr for example), but even with them, their production later in their career was still a far cry from their prime.

I wasn't including the 09/10 playoff year, so my use of for "5 years" may have been off, but I mean that you have to go back 5 years before getting to a time when he was really effective in the playoffs. Since then, he's scored 7 goals and 5 assists in 32 games.

I heard the main issue is that the Leafs didn't want to take Weiss. The Leafs would be utterly stupid to dump Phaneuf for the players being mentioned in this thread. It would be different if we are talking about a salary dump here...meaning, yeah, swap bad contracts, take Weiss and his cap hit will be gone much sooner, but that's not a concern for the Leafs. They need to rebuild, cap room is meaningless for them, they need to get prospects back for Phaneuf, otherwise trading him makes zero sense. Also, reason to expect that they'll at least revisit the trade possibility in the summer is something that I think Draper said. I can't remember the exact comments, but it was something like it just being too much to try and get done in a couple hours.

Well, one thing is for sure....he hasn't been clutch in the playoffs in 5 years. For me, he's just easy to complain about. It's very frustrating that he's been out of the line up a lot and a lot of players take heat for that too, but I just don't like the way he plays, dives, etc. Because of that, I'd start complaining about him for something I wouldn't complain about Datsyuk or Zetterberg for. Yes, it's a double-standard, but simple human nature.

Pierre LeBrun is a Canadian and TSN guy who happens to contribute articles to ESPN....he's legit...wouldn't write it off just because it's from ESPN. I

Since trades are at a bit of a lull right now... The top 6 teams in the East are all over 80 points and only 3 teams in the West are at that level. Is this mostly due to more high end and low end teams in East vs. more parity in the West? For what it's worth, East vs. West games have been almost a dead heat....with the West having a very slightly better win percentage (175-130-42 for East vs. West and 181-140-35 for West vs. East). Maybe it's just me....but I haven't really noticed any big and scary, consistently dominating West teams yet this year. Nashville is the obvious team to point to (1st overall), but for some reason I just don't see them as dominating....maybe that's just history and I'll just need to get used to it...we'll see.

Not sure how Tampa could be considered a "small budget" team.

Wings are 16-3-3 against the West, Rangers are 13-3-5 and Pens are 12-4-2.