toby91_ca

Well, I've been living in Toronto for the past 11 years and had I grown up here, things would probably have been different, but I didn't, I grew up in Nova Scotia. There is no local team out east, so most people I know there are either Montreal, Toronto or Boston fans. I became a Wings fan back around 1990 when I collected hockey cards and Fedorov's rookie card was worth more than most of the cards in that deck. I figured, if he does well, his card would increase in value, so I startd cheering for him and the Wings....usual reason I know....but I was young, at least I wasn't brain washed into cheering for some other team because of someone else.

To be fair, you mention a 13 year stretch for Yzerman in which he only missed a point per game 2 times.....Sakic had a 17 year stretch (1989-90 to 2006-07) in which he only had 2 seasons of sub point per game play (63pts in 64 games and 79pts in 82 games). Apart from those 2 years, there were only 3 other seasons (rookie year and last 2 years) that he was sub point per game, but still very close, 62pts in 70 games, 44pts in 40 games and 12pts in 15 games. They are not at that level yet, but it is probably silly not to recognize how special they truly are. Barring something crazy, they are both already HOFers (maybe they've already done enough to get there). These two players now have 4, 100pt seasons in their first 5 years in the league. Crosby would be 5 for 5 if not for injury. They have done this in a much lower scoring era then when Yzerman racked up his points. I'm not going to start comparing either to the likes of Yzerman and Sakic yet, but when all is said and done, these two could very well be amongst the all time greats.

Really? I have Yzerman as having the better career, but only by the slightest of margins. I can see why others may take Sakic: - Better career ppg (without a signifcant different in totals as well) - More playoff points and much better playoff ppg - Hart trophy - +/- award I have always considered these players to be very, very comparable, almost strange how comparable they are.

Looking at Puck Daddy's odds. I don't get Lindros at 25/1, considering Bure is 2/1. Looking at stats and awards: Bure - 702gp, 437g, 779pts (Calder and Rocket*2) Lindros - 760gp, 372g, 865pts So, I get that Bure was the better goal scorer and I could even understand why some might consider that he had the better career (not my opinion though), HOWEVER, how does Bure have 2/1 odds and Lindros have 25/1? Both have far better stats and awards than Neely (who played in a higher scoring era as well), so both should easily get in if you are comparing to Neely, but it doesn't work that way.

It's not a Crosby thing, it's a logic thing.

Help me understand, Toews has an award that Crosby doesn't have.....so technically he now has more accolades than Crosby? How does that work. So if Crosby has 1,000 awards and Toews has 1 award, but it's one Crosby doesn't have = Toews technically has more accolades?

was already on here quite awhile ago, someone did the same thing with Zetterberg.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, this isn't true. He's only picked up the pace from the regular season in the playoffs in 3 of his 13 years in Detroit and hasn't done so in the past 7 years straight.

I agree with the draw backs and complaints about Holmstrom, but the reason for re-signing him is simple: he has a highly specialized skill set. As the OP suggested, in today's game with many big speedy wingers, those guys are easy to find, but finding someone with Holmstrom's skill set is not. It's more than just skillset though, as I wouldn't say there is a ton of skill involved, I think it's more willingness, that most other players simply don't possess. He works his ass off in practice at redirecting pucks as well. He can definately be a liability in many ways, but I think that specialization that he brings continues to outweigh any liabilities. He was signed to a pay cut and he will go downhill, but I don't think his value is gone just yet.

He'll be 20 later this year.

I don't get it. GMs and other members of management ask for permission to speak to other team's personnel. If you really want someone, that's what you have to do. It would such if you had to simply accept who's out there, out of job and looking. People ask for permission to speak to certain people all the time, sometimes the team says no, sometimes they say yes. Do I have this correct...some people on here are okay with other GMs doing this with the wings, but not Steve? Makes no sense. He needs to fill positions, he can speak to the other 28 teams, but not the Wings? That's just stupid.

I don't care either way. Why would anyone care if Pronger won the Conne Smythe or not?

How is it that you conclude Kenny had the best ideas? I'm all for going to 10 minute OTs and eliminate the shootou all together, end in a tie if you have to. I'd keep it 4 on 4 for the entire 10 though, I don't want 3 on 3.

Also, that was aroudn teh same time Michael Jordan retired.

Probably around 1994 when the Rangers won the cup.

Detroit and Pittsburgh were the biggest draws on the road, drawing 98.4% and 98.5% respectively. This is not surprising at all. Detroit is down around 17th in terms of filling their home arena, which is not good, but at the same time, not surprising. What I do find really bad is that Phoenix only sold at 68.5% capacity and that's considering the fact that they practically give away tickets. It's embarrassing.

I think you may be missing the point. Example: Year 1: - USD vs. CAD exchange rate = 1.5:1 - USD revenues = $1 billion - CAD revenues = $1 billion - Total revenues expressed in USD = $1.67 billion Year 2: - USD vs. CAD exchange rate = 1:1 - USD revenues = $1 billion - CAD revenues = $0.9 billion - Total revenues expressed in USD = $1.9 billion Based on those facts, total revenues increased from year 1 to year 2 from $1.67 billion to $1.9 billion. However, revenues in "real dollars" (which is actually both US and Cdn dollars) decreased from $2 billion to $1.9 billion. When he refers to the Canadian dollar, he's referring to the strength of the Canadian dollar vs. the US dollar and when he refers to "real dollars" he's referring to both currencies.

Let me put it another way then. Here are the average goals per game, per team for the past 20 seasons: 1990 - 3.68 1991 - 3.34 1992 - 3.48 1993 - 3.63 1994 - 3.24 1995 - 2.99 1996 - 3.14 1997 - 2.92 1998 - 2.64 1999 - 2.63 2000 - 2.75 2001 - 2.76 2002 - 2.62 2003 - 2.65 2004 - 2.57 2005 - no season 2006 - 3.08 2007 - 2.95 2008 - 2.78 2009 - 2.91 2010 - 2.84 So, I still fail to see how scoring has gone through the roof in the past 10 years. Scoring started to decline in the late 90s due to the success of defense first teams (in my opinion), reaching a low in the year before the lockout. Coming out of the lockout, new rules were implemented with a goal of increasing scoring...which did result, but as you can see, scoring has started to come down since then. In the post lockout world, scoring is still a far cry from where it was even only 15 years ago. You don't even want to know how current scoring compares to the 70's and 80's.

Scoring has gone through the roof? Have a missed out on when that happened? 2006 - 7 players with 100+ pt. seasons, leader = 125pts 2007 - 7 players with 100+ pt. seasons, leader = 120pts 2008 - 2 players with 100+ pt. seasons, leader = 112pts 2009 - 3 players with 100+ pt. seasons, leader = 113pts 2010 - 4 players with 100+ pt. seasons, leader = 112pts This is not a heck of a lot different than where we were 10 years ago and a hell of lot worse in terms of scoring than where the NHL was even less than 15 years ago.

I didn't find it that bad....similar to other conversations they've had in the past and actually not as bad as others. Up to about the about the halfway point, I didn't see any problems and Bettman actually made very good points, I'm not a fan of the way he goes about explaining things, but he was right in what he was explaining. He seemed to get really defensive about talking about this stuff, suggesting the fans aren't interested in listening to this......that is where I think he's dead wrong, the fans are definately interested in it. Later on he goes off about where Ron is getting his information about what the players want. I was disappointed with Ron's response though (getting it from Forbes and other journals....maybe Gary has a point here). I would have thought that Ron would have had more first hand discussions with players before throwing around what all the players want.

So, after Chicago's win last night, I was thinking about the possibility of them ending the longest Stanley Cup drought in the league (49 years I think), leaving Toronto with the distinction (43 years now). Then I thought to myself, I remember when Detroit won in 1997, then ended something like 40 years and New York ended something like 54 years in 1994. So then I looked back and realized that prior to the Rangers winning in 1994, no original 6 team (other than Montreal) had won a cup for at least 22 years and the droughts looked like this: - Boston - 22 years - Toronto - 27 years - Chicago - 33 years - Detroit - 39 years - New York - 54 years Toronto might not only be left with the longest drought, but they may end up being the only original 6 team that hasn't won the cup since expansion.

Yeah, but look at the rest. Detroit is the only team that has had recent success and before that, they were in the midst of a very long drought as well. Boston - 2 cups in the last 69 years, last one came 38 years ago New York - 1 cup in the last 70 years (ouch) Chicago - 1 cup in the last 72 years (ouch, but good chance to get one this year) Even Montreal, as storied a franchise as they have been and they have had more recent success, they haven't gone through the long droughts every other team has, but still, they only have 1 cut in the last 23 years with their last cup coming 17 years ago....never know how big that number 17 may become.

Was that actually something you saw for the first time when Pavel did it? I see people to it all the time, before and after Pavel. Heck, I did it as a kid a few times as well. It's a pretty standard move if you ask me and certainly done long before Gretzky as well.

As already noted, it's Montreal. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=322828

I understand the wait, they want to start on the weekend, etc., but I think the layoff (i.e. no hockey games at all) starts to make fans interest wander away, especially with the warm weather.