barabbas16

We have no way of knowing who would have won the 2007 Stanley Cup if Schneider and Kronwall had been healthy, but it definitely would have been Detroit.

Obviously, he has proven that he CAN do that..... but he CAN'T do that without sounding like a hypocrite. Why can't you just accept that some people don't see things exactly the way you do? You think they're wrong, clearly. But that doesn't mean that they ARE wrong. Maybe to that person or to the 8 other people you've had similar posts responding to, it IS that simple. Maybe that's what's really the main point above all points to them and the rest doesn't really matter in comparison. Each and every player that was signed was told under no unceratin terms that the owners would pay them (the player) X amount of dollars per season for Y number of years. And now, assuming that they are trying to rollback salaries, it seems to me that they're saying "Psyche! We're not REALLY going to pay you what WE said that we would! Joke's on you clowns!"...which makes them liars. Now, generally, I stand on the owner's side of the fence. It's their league and their teams. No one is forced to play hockey for them. The players have every right to go play hockey somewhere else. Or, to go NOT play hockey somewhere else. It's their league and it should be their rules. And I am with the owners on every other concern.... and if they find a way to get everything they want WITHOUT altering current contracts (i.e. without going back on their word), great! - I am all about it. However, if they are trying to 'rollback' salaries, then I think they are damned liars and I don't stand with them. The rest doesn't matter to me. It is exactly that simple, whether you think it is overly simple or not. You sound like those people that say a person can't or it is foolish to vote solely based on one issue. Yes you can and no it isn't if that issue outweighs everything else for that person. And that person's vote counts just as much as yours. Just like this, my opinion counts just as much as yours (which, of course, is.... not at all).

I hope some of you guys are right. I don't see it, though. Too much and too long, imo.

I don't know if it makes me feel better or not, but it reinforces my good feeling about the lack of an extended period of playoff drought that would be likely to follow overspending. When, let's face it, overspending is a far cry from a championship guarantee or even a playoff success guarantee.

Anyone want to guess where this guy is from? Apology not accepted. Ass.

Yeah.... Minnesota just quickly went from a team I couldn't have been more indifferent about to a team I will have trouble not rooting very hard against this season. I know it's sour grapes and all that, but I don't much care at this point. You still have the stupidest mascot in the league, Minnesota.

13 gold gloves vs. 4.... 15 All-Star games vs. 6.... that's probably the difference. Well, that and the fact that WAY more people know Ozzie Smith even now than Alan Trammell and that's not because one is in the Hall and the other isn't. It IS the Hall of FAME, after all, which is the only reason Jeremy Roenick has any chance to get in imo - going back to hockey. Yeah, and Shanahan got snubbed. I don't disagree with any of the selections, really. But, the arguments for the other three over Shanny seem to be pretty thin to me. Sundin didn't have as good of a team.... yeah, but he didn't WIN anything with his crappier team. Sundin was better in international play.... Yeah that's true statistically... So, I'll take that question to Adam Oates ..... did he even play internationally? Oates had more points... but they were like 80% assists..... and he didn't WIN anything. Bure was the arguably the best player in the league for a few years - you could never argue that about Shanahan.... A legitimate point, if best SCORER automatically = best PLAYER..... AND he didn't WIN any Cups More goals. More points. More Cups. Could beat the crap out of the rest of them. Yeah, he played on good teams, but Detroit had good teams before that and they didn't win until Shanny got there. I think the Hall got it wrong, but I'm not that bitter about it. He'll get in... and I like the guys that they picked. Oates and Bure have waited, so I'm fine with that. I guess the part that miffs me the most is that if someone else besides Sakic was going to get in 1st ballot, it should have been Shanahan over Sundin.

Are we considering Holmstrom as not on the team anymore already? There always seemed to be a general consesus of dislike among opposing teams/players when it came to old Homer.

I do not understand why players in the situation that Suter and Parise are in right now do not take more control of their future. If they are not going to resign with their current teams, they should just say "I'm not signing anywhere until 7/1 so don't trade for my rights." Most likely, both of these guys will be signing deals for the remainder, or at the very least the vast majority of the rest of their careers. Why would they want to hurt the franchise they will spend the rest of their career with right off the bat? They are in the driver's seat.

I am not sure of what my actual answer to the question would be. Possibly Dino or Chaisson, as some others have said. While this wouldn't be my answer, there's another name that I didn't see mentioned - Mathieu Schneider. I know he won the cup with Montreal, but I would have liked to have seen him win here.... specifically in 2007. I really felt like that team should have won, but the injuries to Schneider and Kronwall were the reason they didn't. And then they won the next year with Rafalski basically just filling Schneider's role. Of course, he subsequently signed with Anaheim and that pissed me off, but still... Also, from that year, I liked Danny Markov quite a bit... even though he was only in Detroit for that season. Robert Lang was already mentioned, although I didn't like him quite as much as the other two. I guess I just really thought that team would win. And I really hated Anaheim.

I disagree with basically everything in the first paragraph of this post except that we are aware of the ankle injury and that he isn't playing on the PK. The PK really hasn't been the Wing's biggest issue in the series, though. I disagree that he has been lacking in any way while on the ice in even strength or power play situations. I guess I do agree with one more thing that you said in that paragraph.... he has been "effective" on 5 on 5. I think "effective" would describe Nick Lidstrom to a T. Most would not usually use the word "spectacular" when discussing Lidstrom at first glance. No big hits, magnificent dekes, etc. Just effectiveness. I think his constant effectiveness is what makes him spectacular. My thoughts on his decision... I don't want to think about it yet, because I think it will be a sad moment this offseason. I hope not, but that's what I think. And it will be a sad moment, not just because we won't see the name on the back of the jersey that has historically earned so much respect on the ice anymore.... but because Detroit will be down one currently effective and spectacular defenseman that they will not be able to replace.

Well, it certainly can't be argued that he was not 'targeting the head' or that the head was not the 'principal point of contact.'

If Weber is playing in game 2, which he sould not be, I hope there is an implant of his face into the glass also. Or, I'd be satisfied with an extremely hard two hander to the knee. You know, whatever it takes to remove him from the game that he shouldn't be playing in. As long as he misses a game one way or another.

Odds are, if they win the 1st round, they'll be playing St. Louis or Vancouver on the road in the 2nd round anyway - a coin flip in my mind. And then, if they win there, they will be on the road the rest of the way no matter who they play. If it is LA or San Jose, I could argue either way so I'm not sure I have a preference.... the travel sucks, obviously. But, I think Nashville is more likely to beat Detroit than LA or San Jose. However, if Phoenix wins their last game, they get the 3 seed. If that happens, I think the 6 seed is the best spot as far as chances to move forward. They've beaten the Yotes in the 1st round of the playoffs the past two years (and this year they won't be playing San Jose in the 2nd round if that happens!). As well as he has been playing, I'd rather face Mike Smith than Quick or Rinne. And, Niemi/Smith is a little closer, but the Sharks lineup is scarier than Phoenix's overall. That said, I will not be rooting for Chicago this afternoon and we get who we get.

Get Kindl off the ice. Kid can't play. So, don't play him.

I am tired of watching this team suck. One of two things needs to happen.... either 1) This team finds a way to stop sucking or 2) This team needs to ice some significant different players next season

I am not 100% sure what you mean by 'all on a cap hit,' but no one will have to leave because that will never happen. It would be an absolute miracle (seriously - act of God) for the Wings to end up with even two out of those three players this offseason. I would certainly prefer Suter and Parise, but throwing Semin in really doesn't reduce the act of God necessity any. And, we should all be thrilled if they get one of them - again, see aforementioned preferences. This is 2012, not 2002.

This team, with it's play for the last month, is an embarrassment to the winged wheel. Injuries and other excuses aside, there are guys out there that are supposed to be playing hockey. Supposed to be showing some sort of will to win. Supposed to care about what they are doing. I see none of those things and I find it unacceptable.

That's not the Petr Sykora you are thinking it is.

Yes, and Hudler has NEVER scored 30 goals - with anybody. And I never said Samuelsson is what this team needs, did I? Does anyone actually read posts around here? The guy was making an argument that Hudler was leagues better than Samuelsson ever thought about being. I disagree with that line of thinking so I used some statistics to make the other side of the argument, much more convincingly than he did, in my opinion. I didn't say Samuelsson was the best thing since sliced bread. Or that he was what this team needs. Or that we should trade for him. OR that he is better than Hudler. I said - Samuelsson and Hudler are different types of players and I was making the argument that they are of comparable value and skill level. Hudler is a better playmaker and is younger. Samuelsson is bigger, a better defender and (I think) has a better shot than Hudler. I think that 'Jiri Hudler is WAY better than Mikael Samuelsson' is a false statement.

Look at the standings again. Winnipeg is currently LEADING what is a race between three mediocre-at-best teams to win by far the worst division in the league. I didn't say anything about their record, though, or where they sit in the standings. I was referring to team offense. You were using this season's statistics to support your implication that Hudler and Samuelsson don't belong in the same conversation. I pointed out that their ppg for the season is actually pretty close AND that Hudler plays on a much better offensive team. I gave you the goal amounts... but maybe this will clear my point up for you - Detroit is currently 4th in the league in goal scoring, and Florida is 26th. So, the points would be fewer and further between for Sammy than they would for Hudler because Hudler's team scores much more often. Let's go back to last year when Samuelsson was also on a team with a good offense.... Hudler - 73 GP 10 G 27 A -7 Samuelsson - 75 GP 18 G 32 A +8 Sammy scored 30 goals the year before that. Hudler's career high is 23. Kind of makes the argument the other way... but the stats from those seasons aren't really the whole story, are they? Neither are the stats from this season. As for the use of the word 'sniper'.... I didn't say he was Brett Hull. I was talking about his style of play. You said Hudler was a better playmaker - I agree, but Samuelsson is not a playmaker. I would also probably agree with you that Hudler offers more to this team that Samuelsson and that, at this point, "Hudler > Samuelsson"... probably mostly because of the age difference. All I am saying is that it is not that clear cut who is better. It seems to me that you just jumped on the 'I hate Sammy' bandwagon and now you are just regurgitating the Sammy bashing that was commonplace on LGW from 2005-09. Sammy and Hudler each have advantages over the other. They are different types of players. I like both of them

So... they have scored points at relatively the same pace this season. Hudler is playing for a good offensive team in Detroit (194 goals thus far) and Sammy has been playing the majority of the season in Florida, a mediorce offensive team at best (146 goals) Hudler is a better playmaker, but playmaker was never really Sammy's game - he's more of a sniper. Hudler is younger, but Sammy is bigger and probably still faster. I'm not arguing either way as to who is better, but they are clearly comparable players, in my opinion and I disagree with your implication to the contrary.

Well, piss. I hate the Canucks... almost as much as I hate the Sharks. May those two teams forever remain tied in number of Stanley Cup Championships. On the game... I thought it could have gone either way. Vancouver definitely outplayed us in the 1st, but other than that it was pretty back and forth. It's a heartbreaker for sure, though. I thought the wrong call was made on the icing, but I can see it being made as well. I thought the interference call should have been made in OT, but I can see it not being made as well. I could have easily seen either team winning the game, obviously. But, Detroit was missing arguably its best player and Vancouver was fully staffed. It sucks for several reasons, but it was FAR from the worst game they've played this season. They are still in the lead in the Conference and the Division (ugh - just checked the score and St. Louis won). I don't want to think about this game anymore. I'm going to bed.

He scored 26 goals last year. He's not going to score that many this year. And, every player on the team absolutely must improve their statistics each season or they are most obviously a complete disappointment. Open your eyes man.

Is it just me, or does the style of writing here remind anyone else of those emails that you'll get randomly from someone in 'another country' giving you a 'lucrative' offer? Something like - 'if only you would give them you bank account information, they would send this sum of money to you so you can help them out of their terrible situation and THEN, of course, you get to keep some of the money...' Anyway, it is entirely possible that the Sharks will win. Either way, though, if anyone is laughing at the Red Wings... they need to take a closer look at the standings and then promptly shut their mouths.