imisssergei

Here is a scenario that I like. Tampa send the first overall pick and Holmqvist to Toronto for Kubina, Raycroft/Toskala, and the Leafs 1st round pick. Leafs really want Stamkos, and it's rumored that he wants to play in Toronto. The Leafs want to get rid of one of the two goaltenders, IMO Raycroft is the guy they want out, but Toskala is the better of the two. By trading for a solid dman, and a decent goaltender to fight for a starting job, the Lightning address two needs. Then with the Leafs pick at 7th overall the Lightning can take a solid prospect either on d or up front. The only real issue is the salary that the Lightning would take on.

Stats prove Campbell is more effective. He isn't much older, a little over a year. And he can stay healthy. If fact, he played 83 games this year, Kronwall has never been able to play 70 games in the NHL. Regardless, it will take between $5-$7 to get Campbell no matter who it is that signs him.

Here is what I'd do if the opportunity to sign Campbell came about. Sign him to a 7 year deal, $5-$7 per. Trade Kronwall for a young, affordable second liner player with a decent scoring touch. Possible to L.A. for O'Sullivan.

Stamkos is no Ovechkin or Crosby. I think Tampa Bay has to consider moving the pick for a package that would help them in areas that are more pressing, such as defense. Outside of Boyle, the Lightning don't have a dman on the squad that is a true top pairing dman.

Both he and Miller are UFA's after 08-09.

I hate to rain on this parade, I really do. However, Bergeron has only been cleared for full contact practice. He still is a long way away from playing.

Are you serious? I don't think any team wants to see the Caps right now. They have all of the key ingredients to make a deep playoff run. Most importantly, they are playing their best hockey at the perfect time. The East is wide open as well. There isn't a team that I would be surprised to see represent the East in the SCF.

I love Sergei. I wish he would have never left. I see both sides of this argument. However, I just don't think Sergei will get his number retired. At the end of the day I think ti comes down to the players he played with. That is, playing with Shanny, Stevie, and Nick would put him about 4th on the list of consideration for jersey retirement amongst players in his era. I don't think it'll happen. Should it? I'm not sure. But then again, I'm not sure anyone outside of Lidstrom will see their number retired for the Wings in the next 20 years.

What a game, eh? I can't imagine any team feeling good about their chances against the Caps right now.

Laraque Brashear Boogaard Simon Parker

In that scenario, in order for the Caps to meet the Pens, Montreal meeds to get one more point as well. I want the Caps in. I love watching OV. Even if it's just for four more games, I want to see more of him.

Until he can complete a full season injury free, we will never know what he is capable of.

From the NHL Official Rulebook, 84.4 ...."The losing goalkeeper will not be charged with the extra goal against. The player scoring the game-winning goal in the shootout will not be credited with a goal scored in his personal statistics." I've searched and searched, and I can't seem to find anything that says if the SO goals count in the teams GA or not. I guess the only way to find out for sure it to tally up all 81 games played and find out. Any volunteers?

You know, the more I read about these posts, the more I wonder if this could be one of those stats that is dependent on the scorekeeper. Example: We all remember that devistating hit Clearly put on Fanooof in the playoffs last year. The official scorekeeper didn't rule it a hit. So maybe, just maybe, it's up to the scorekeeper to decide whether or not to round the time up or down?

This could also eliminate situations where you know the puck crossed the line, but it can't be proven with conclusive visual evidence.

Since the NHL doesn't round off scoring times to the tenth of a second mark, anything scored with less than 1 second on the clock, it would be at the 20:00 mark. Penalties given out at the 20:00 mark of a period are actually called after time has expired in that period. I think....

I haven't read most of the posts, so sorry if this has been said. At first I thought about shortening the regular season to expand playoffs, but if you do that then you might not be able to fit every team into each others schedules. Then I thought about maybe adding one more round. Add one more team from each division, bottom two teams play first, a min 3 game series. Playoffs would then resume as normal. Then I though. Hmm, the playoffs are something the NHL has got right, so please please please do not change anything.

I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm just merely pointing out the faults in your logic. I don't remember who brought it up, but Toby said something to the effect that mandating visors would drastically change the game, and you agreed. I'm not trying to turn this into a visor or no visor thread. But your argument for no touch icing, at least the only on that holds any water, is that injuries are not worth the few negated calls. Yet, you don't want to institute visors. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a reduction in needless injuries are what you are after, then how could you be against mandating visors? As I've pointed out, many more injuries happen as a result of players not having facial protection. Just ask Stevie what a puck to the eye feels like. If Draper was wearing a cage, he doesn't have a rebuilt face. But it's risks the players take. My point isn't visors or not. My point is that you can't use injuries as an argument to change the icing rule when you seemingly throw that out the window when it comes to visors. And I'll talk about whatever it is I wish to talk about, especially when other people bring it up first.. Who made you the thread police anyhow? Grow up Sparky, there is no need to use vulgarities just because you've got nothing better to say.

Someone else made the comparison, but both you and GST had the same viewpoint on it. All I am doing is making a comparison between two very similar situations. You and GST seem to think that mandating visors would somehow drastcially change the game. It won't. As I said before, every player starts off wearing full facial protection, and many players don't have the option to not wear a visor until they reach the NHL. It's a fact that more injuries occur from stick and pucks to the face. This is an injury risk that can be greatly reduced by wearing a visor. Now on one hand you both are arguing that the touch icing rule needs to be changed because of the injury factor. You have already agreed that far less injuries occur from the touch icing than from sticks and pucks to the face. So there is a severe flaw in your logic. You can't argue to change one rule based on a slim chance of injuries, when there are other rules that allow the players to be exposed to far more injures. You see what I'm saying? BTW, I'm very interested to hear how, and why you think visors being mandated will change the game so dramatically. EDIT: We aren't talking about players being 18+ or not when speaking about visors. I'm merely pointing out that every player that comes into the NHL has played his entire career with facial protection. In some cases, the player has had the option of playing without a visor, but in most cases, this isn't the case, regardless of age.

With a loss last night to Minny, the Oilers are all but finished. It would be a great story, but it won't happen. They are stuck in the same boat as Toronto, mediocre finishes for the past few years not helping them out with attracting ufa's or getting good draft picks.

Making visors mandatory would not change the game. In fact, for many players, the NHL is the first league they play in where they aren't required to wear a visor. Regardless of opinion, it is fact that until a player is 18+, he doesn't even have the option of wearing anything but full facial protection. So it isn't like the players aren't sued to playing with something. Personally, I don't think visors should be mandatory, it's a players choice. However, to argue that icing should be changed because i might prevent 10 injuries a year, but not change something like the visor rule which would prevent 100 fold more injuries is simply ridiculous.

I think what happened here was someone at ESPN was reporting what happened in their NHL 08 franchise.

I'm not missing the big picture, I'm just seeing a serious flaw in arguments. It makes no sense to say that by changing one rule you can prevent 10 injuries a year, so it should be done. Then to turn around and say, by changing this rule we could prevent 1000 injuries a year, but changing this rule isn't a good idea. What's good for the goose...

Rule 64 – Diving / Embellishment 64.1 Diving / Embellishment – Any player or goalkeeper who blatantly dives, embellishes a fall or a reaction, or who feigns an injury shall be penalized with a minor penalty under this rule. A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for diving / embellishment. 64.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who attempts to draw a penalty by his actions (“diving / embellishment”). 64.3 Fines and Suspensions - Regardless if a minor penalty for diving / embellishment is called, Hockey Operations will review game videos and assess fines to players or goalkeepers who dive or embellish a fall or a reaction, or who feign injury. See also Rule 29 – Supplementary Discipline. The call on the ice by the Referee is totally independent of supplementary discipline. The first such incident during the season will result in a warning letter being sent to the player or goalkeeper. The second such incident will result in a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine. For a third such incident in the season, the player shall be suspended for one game, pending a telephone conversation with the Director of Hockey Operations. For subsequent violations in the same season, the player’s suspension shall double (i.e. first suspension – one game, second suspension – two games, third suspension – Straight from the rulebook, I thought I heard Mic and Ken talking about it! And it's interesting, the bold text leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but it looks to me as if no penalty needs to be given to the player in oder for teh league to look at it.

You are contradictng yourself. You are saying that in one situation, one injury is enough to warrant a rule change. While in another situation, numerous more career threatening injuries aren't enough. Regardless of the topic, that is a contradictory stance. The fact that you have repeatidly said there are very few injuries attriuted to icings (btw, I have read every post in this thread) just further adds to the level on contradiction in your stance. The only real argument you have for changing the rule is injuries, yet you admit there are very few. Furthermore, you ignore that same argument for making visors mandatory, which would prevent much more injuries than changing the icing rule would even have the chance to impact. You want to use other leagues as an examples? Every leagues requires players under 18 to wear full facial protection, as does the CCHA. Every Jr. league I've seen play requires a full cage or visor. Many minor leagues also require a visor. The game marches on. As you always say, you can manipulate the data to show whatever it is you want. Lastly, please explain the bolded statement. It's impossible for the team on offense to ice the puck. Ever icing is attributed to a team on the defensive side of the red line.