Zetts

I imagine I'll sound like a pedantic ******* here, but oh well. I did a term paper for one of my Econometrics classes on the NHL's ticket sales in the 2008-2009 season. Having "star players" had no statistically significant impact.

*sigh* If only we could all be as amazing as the United States.

Kopecky is such a good player he made the Slovakian Olympic team.

It's crazy to suggest that Ericsson is even vaguely close to Kronwall's level. If you mean in the future, will Ericsson develop to that level, then that's more of a debate. Right now it's no contest though. It's not even a fair debate either as has been mentioned. Kronwall has had much more time to develop. Also, I disagree that Ericsson hits hard...or much at all. Maybe he could with his size, but I sure haven't seen any. That's not a knock, it's just his style.

I hesitate to even say this, as I know there's a good chance it'll set off a s***-storm. However, I have to REALLY disagree. Thomas won the Vezina last year and was on the First All-Star team. He had a 2.10 GAA and 0.933 sv %. Osgood had a 3.09 GAA and 0.887 sv %. Needless to say, he did not win the Vezina and did not make any All-Star team. Relating that back to this thread a little bit, I don't really think Rask is getting hosed. I mean, I haven't followed Boston really carefully, but he's played about 20 games I believe. And he's playing behind a great goalie. It's reasonable. It will however, hurt his chances of a Calder, which is good for Howard. Of course, who's to say that Rask's numbers are only so good because he hasn't played more? The one thing I haven't checked, is the types of teams he's played against, if people remember that whole argument from the Osgood/Howard thing. If anyone knows the sorts of games Rask's been getting, it would be interesting to look at.

Cherry is in the public eye, he gets criticized, it happens. But since it seems you think we can't criticize him because he's more successful than all of us in the hockey world, you can't have it both ways. You never get to criticize Brett Lebda again.

I do have to agree with this somewhat, the USA has to win sometimes, it's a rivalry. It makes it exciting. Otherwise, it would be like the Blues/Wings "rivalry" that St. Louis is so sure we have. It's better this way. Although I do have to disagree about the Latvia thing. That was just fun to watch.

To create ill-will between LGW members?

Am I the only one who's noticed how high-strung these forums have generally seemed recently?

You forgot the obligatory, "Get 'er done Kenny!".

Watching it at the time it looked like a pretty weak goal. But if you look at it here, that is impressive.

...yes and I fixed it. Let it go big guy. Like I said, 2am and mildly intoxicated. The underlying point of the post is still quite valid though (particularly as I did go on to later back it up). Now maybe it's time for you to contribute something valuable to the thread?

Haha, poor Helm and Abs. Maybe Draper and Maltby are just jealous the two are taking their jobs. Just jokes.

That is a fair argument. There's no way of knowing how that would work out. Finland does have this ability to exceed expectations, but certainly looking at it on paper, Canada's team here should be able to beat them. There will always be those intangibles that can change things though.

See edit. My bad, the Czech Republic. And if you look at that team and honestly don't think it would have a very good chance of running through them, I don't think I'll take your post seriously. Allow me to elaborate. This version of team Canada's FOURTH line has a total of 55 goals. Finland's FIRST line (which I'm taking to be M. Koivu, Selanne and O. Jokinen) combine for 34 goals. (I know Selanne's injured, but he's still not making up that difference to Canada's FOURTH line.) Slovakia's does fair quite a bit better (Gaborik, Hossa, Demitra) but they have VERY little depth. Kopecky is on their freaking team. Enough said. The Czech Republic (first line of Hejduk, Elias, Jagr) total of 25 goals from the first two, plus whatever Jagr's putting up in the KHL, similarly compares to Canada's fourth line. Obviously you don't have to agree about the "first lines" exactly, but I think the point is quite clear. And there's different ways to analyze the teams obviously. The goal scoring isn't the only aspect. But honestly look at the rosters and tell me why you think any of those teams could beat Canada's second team. And why not throw in goaltending, Canada's biggest handicap on that team. Since only one goalie can actually play, I'm going to stick with the starter for each team. Finland: Backstrom, 0.908 save % (career 0.920) Slovakia: Halak, 0.927 save % (career 0.917) I don't know if I find that indicative of how he'd play, he's a backup, but I'll give it to him, not bad numbers. Czech Republic: Vokoun, 0.924 (career 0.916) Canada: Turco: 0.908 (career 0.910) Canada's not doing great there, but they'd certainly survive especially given the depth of the rest of the roster.

I think Babcock has always liked players like May (and hated players like Leino). It's more Holland that thinks the opposite. That's my impression anyways. Babcock seems to like the hard working/grinding/physical type players who go to hard areas.

Even our second team could beat Finland, Slovakia and Czech Republic so easily (barring some complete fluke). And it would likely beat the US too. Speaking of which, is it just me, or have the quality of players coming out of Finland, Slovakia and Czechoslovakia been declining? Edit 2: my apologies, Czech Republic And to add to that, my further apologies that this post came off kind of douchy. It was 2AM and I was mildly drunk. I do still stand by that statement though, however obnoxiously worded it was.

I genuinely don't believe we'll be entirely healthy by the end of the season. And then roster restrictions come off, do they not?

Osgood for Kovalchuk straight up! Get it done Kenny!

Howard's playing well, but the Wings still need Osgood, at the very least as a back-up. Besides, who would we trade him to, and for what? Any top teams have a goaltender, and any teams struggling to make the playoffs would want someone who can play in the regular season too, to help them make the playoffs. And then who would our backup be? Larsson? That's not a tandem that inspires confidence in me for the playoffs, regardless of how good it looks like they'll be in the future. Edit: By which I mean that Larsson is a relative unknown playing at the NHL level, and we still don't know how Howard will be doing later in the season, as he is a rookie. And of course, we don't know how he can handle the playoffs. Far too much uncertainty.

Despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of your arguments comparing Osgood and Howard, you're probably right about your underlying point. Howard isn't/shouldn't start every game for the rest of the year, and we do have to throw Osgood a bone. And I'm sure that time will come. I think first, Babcock just wants to close that gap and get into the eighth seed. Osgood hasn't been completely benched, if he'd been given two or three more games over the past month we wouldn't be having this conversation. Presuming the Wings string together a few wins (which based on tonight isn't looking too great), I'm pretty sure Osgood will start getting those extra few starts.

What. The. f***. Ugh. Get better soon Ryan, we need you!

Osgood isn't winning. The Red Wings are. Osgood just happens to be in net sometimes. Edit: If you don't believe me, I think Pucks' post of stats a few posts up nicely summarizes it.

That has to do with the past. That's why I said "anymore". Now, as I also already said, the team wins (in the regular season anyways) DESPITE Osgood, NOT because of him. What are talking about? His way? I suppose, if you consider successfully stopping pucks to be "his way" then yes, Osgood DOES have to do that. In. The. Past. He had a .887 save percentage last year. Yeah, he stepped it up for the playoffs. But now, we have to get into the playoffs first. There's no time to cater to Osgood's needs anymore. We have to win. Now. And Jimmy Howard's save percentage (and goal against average) are both MUCH better. I know your tired arguments for that, and I don't want to bring them into this thread as well. Which leads me to my next point. Please. I've framed several arguments in the other thread which you ham-handedly dismissed. As you have also done with many other people. There's nothing left to bother saying in this thread about that, as it would just be re-hashing the same arguments, which have proved to be a waste of time with you. It's based on empirical observation of the now 24 (I think?) pages in that other thread. You use the same arguments which have already been successfully defeated. ...and no, I don't know what they say about opinions? For the purpose of THIS thread though, as this is about Howard, not Osgood, what I think this conversation should come down to is this: Osgood may play better in the playoffs. It doesn't matter though. We have to get there. Which means we have to win. If the two alternatives are making the playoffs and throwing in a cold Osgood, or not making the playoffs at all, but having Osgood in top form at the end of the season, guess which one I'll take. And if you actually try to say that Osgood is playing as well as Howard right now there really is no reasoning with you.

I think it was more a thing that was contingent on health, I don't recall him ever explicitly saying he'd retire. But I could be wrong.