Calder Finalists Announced

[softshoes 83]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if Green wins the Norris, just to see the haters whine.

There is nothing to whine about, it just sucks that a forward might win the Norris.

[Mors 201]

It's not that I don't think Nick's good, it's just that right now, in spite of the reality you stated, Mike Green is the sexy pick 'cause he has that ******-bag hipster faux-hawk.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

There is nothing to whine about, it just sucks that a forward might win the Norris.

It's true, but one thing you'll notice about Shoreline if you stick around here long enough is that he's the internet equivalent of a drunk that picks fights with everyone else in the bar. You can stand around and argue with him but it won't change the fact that he's just trying to make a scene and get attention (although it's debatable whether or not he's doing it deliberately).

[Chunkylover 26]

Ryan is younger than Versteeg and had less NHL+AHL experience coming into this season than Versteeg.

Hm. I did not know that. So my point was more correct than even I knew: Versteeg was overshadowed by Stamkos and Turris.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Hm. I did not know that. So my point was more correct than even I knew: Versteeg was overshadowed by Stamkos and Turris.

True story. Of course he ended up looking much better in the NHL (obviously no one's counting Stamkos or Turris out just yet, though).

What's sadder? The Bruins traded him to the Blackhawks for Brandon Bochenski. Bochenski was a certified journeyman at the time... and nothing much has changed since. Interestingly, the Hawks got Bochenski for Tyler Arnason and a 2nd rounder from the Sens. So the Hawks turned a crappy deal into a sweetass deal.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out for me, I did not know there was an age limit.

Sergei Makarov rule.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Sergei Makarov rule.

In that situation it was definitely much different. It's silly that they created that rule without stippulations to keep guys like Rinne from slipping through the cracks. The problem with Makarov's winning the Calder at age 31 was he was already an international superstar by the time he entered the NHL.

Before entering the NHL Makarov had the following on his resume:

-> 2 World Junior Championships (not unreasonable for an NHL rookie! Otherwise they'd be disqualifying many Canadians)

-> 1 World Junior MVP

-> 8 World Championships

-> Part of the famous KLM line (the most dominant line in international hockey history)

-> 2 Olympic Gold medals

-> 1 Olympic Silver medal

-> 11 USSR hockey league championships

-> 8 Player of the Year awards in the Soviet league

-> 3 MVPs in the Soviet league

-> 9 time point leader in the Soviet league

-> 3 time goal leader in the Soviet league

So I can definitely see why a 31 year old Makarov winning the Calder felt wrong in hindsight!

The problem is that age limit is that it doesn't just weed out players like Makarov, it hurts guys like Rinne who hasn't really had a huge advantage compared to some of the Canadian players that have been groomed by Hockey Canada since their early teens.

[Guest Shoreline]

There is nothing to whine about, it just sucks that a forward might win the Norris.

He's actually a very good defenseman, just not in the right that some people prefer one to win a Norris. And as you can see, Drake_Markus has an awful short memory, and can't remember how many times he's eaten crow. Maybe he could be like the guy from Memento and tattoo it on his forehead.

[zettie85 106]

Norris candidates will be Lidstrom, Chara, and Green. Green will most liekly win it

I will be really upset if Green wins it. If anyone should win it it should be Nik or Chara. I hate how they will give away a Norris to an offensive defencemen. Then need to create an award like that and leave the Norris for real Defencemen.

[Guest Shoreline]

I will be really upset if Green wins it. If anyone should win it it should be Nik or Chara. I hate how they will give away a Norris to an offensive defencemen. Then need to create an award like that and leave the Norris for real Defencemen.

I can agree to this. Maybe it'll quiet down some of the bitter people that an offensive-like defenseman (especially one not named Lidstrom or Coffey) is the most likely to win the Norris, even though it isn't that big of a deal. I imagine it won't though.

Here's an article from someone who clearly knows nothing about hockey: (just to stir the pot with a few certain other posters who are vocally whining the most)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=rm-n...o&type=lgns

Where voters are going to have to decide is throwing potential favorite Mike Green of Washington and even San Jose’s offensively tilted Dan Boyle into the mix. Obviously both Green and Boyle are highly skilled in the offensive zone; Boyle more of a creator while Green a deadly goal-scorer. If you have to narrow the twosome to one, it’s Green (more goals, more points and a better plus-minus).

Can Green unseat Lidstrom? Well, we say yes, this year he does. Green’s record consecutive-game goal-scoring streak and the fact he bettered Lidstrom by 14 points while playing 10 fewer games, and didn’t lag that far back in plus-minus (plus-24) suggests it’s time for new blood at the top, at least for one year.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Shoreline

[Drake_Marcus 890]

He's actually a very good defenseman, just not in the right that some people prefer one to win a Norris.

By all means- continue to tell yourself that. I've shown the stats- I've backed my opinion up with reality. Green is a subpar defenseman who can't even break the top half of his own team's defensive core when it comes to defensive ability (otherwise he wouldn't be dead last in defensive penalty minutes per game- or do you think the coach puts the worst defensive players on the PK the longest?).

You? You'll just cherry pick another opinion piece from some internet pundet that only proves the very thing I've been arguing- that hockey writers are enamoured with Green's offensive stats. Finding someone who shares your view (especially when you're picking the most popular viewpoint) is hardly challenging, nor is it something that makes your point any more valid. You'd have a blast screaming your opinions into the Grand Canyon.

The best part is that you'll think you were proven correct if Green wins the Norris. All that will prove is that you've failed to grasp the substance of the argument you're trying to refute.

And as you can see, Drake_Markus has an awful short memory, and can't remember how many times he's eaten crow. Maybe he could be like the guy from Memento and tattoo it on his forehead.

Being unable to force you to see reality isn't close to "eating crow". It just means your delusions are more persistent than expected. Parroting your personal views of me doesn't make them real- it's just talking point bulls***. The facts still back me up and not you. Once again- I'm correct and you're reduced to petty name calling and similarly inane tactics.

If I've really eatten so much crow recently you would've mentioned the specific situations when I was wrong. But that's not your style- you don't mess with 'facts' when you can just 'think' with your gut.

Once again it bears repeating:

one thing you'll notice about Shoreline if you stick around here long enough is that he's the internet equivalent of a drunk that picks fights with everyone else in the bar. You can stand around and argue with him but it won't change the fact that he's just trying to make a scene and get attention.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Shoreline- don't bother trying to argue your point with me unless you can back it up with something quantitative than cheery-picked quotes and links to other opinions that agree with you. Here's an idea- go to NHL.com and dig through the stats then form an opinion that has a basis in reality.

[Guest Shoreline]

Blah blah blah, Drake_Markus doesn't sway the votes. These media pundits that keep posting articles saying Green has the edge, they are the ones who have the most pull. You can conjure up any podunk "stat" you wish.

Now, if we try reading comprehension, you'll notice key words like "if", or "it's Green's to lose", meaning it isn't for sure he will win, but clearly he is the front runner, regardless of who your self-righteous smarmy attitude wishes it to be.

Edit: I wonder what makes you think the voters actually sit around on the stats page of NHL.com like you? Maybe they actually watch the games or pay attention. And even then, Green has the numbers that matter most. You're humorous assertions are easily defeated, and without your precious stats.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Shoreline

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Blah blah blah, Drake_Markus doesn't sway the votes. These media pundits that keep posting articles saying Green has the edge, they are the ones who have the most pull. You can conjure up any podunk "stat" you wish.

Now, if we try reading comprehension, you'll notice key words like "if", or "it's Green's to lose", meaning it isn't for sure he will win, but clearly he is the front runner, regardless of who your self-righteous smarmy attitude wishes it to be.

Again- you've just backed your opinion up with cherry-picked opinions from the pool of voters. Unless you think Green will win by a landslide (in which case your cherry-picked links and quotes are representative of the average voter's opinion) you've failed to advance your argument (yet again).

Edit: I wonder what makes you think the voters actually sit around on the stats page of NHL.com like you? Maybe they actually watch the games or pay attention. And even then, Green has the numbers that matter most.

Perhaps the voters don't live in a world where knowledge of statistics and astute hockey viewership aren't mutually exclusive concepts? It boggles my mind that you honestly believe Green being his coach's last choice on the PK doesn't reflect very poorly on his defensive ability. Maybe you feel like he's doing good defensively when you watch him, regardless of his coach's obvious distrust in his defensive ability (see defensive PK minutes played). Maybe you feel like his extremely high turnover rate isn't reflective of poor defensive ability (he's top 3 in the league for defensive turnovers and he played fewer games than both players above him on that list). These feelings you have aren't necessarily reality.

And even then, Green has the numbers that matter most.

The NHL tells the voters to list their top three choices for the "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position".

I have to assume that you either don't understand what "all-around" means. Or maybe the NHL doesn't understand their own intentions? You should definitely let them know that they gave the wrong instructions to the voters!

You're humorous assertions are easily defeated, and without your precious stats.

If they were then you'd do it. Instead you flail about, repeating your original point and barking insults and insinuations.

You are R. Kelly in "Fishsticks".

[Guest Shoreline]

Again- you've just backed your opinion up with cherry-picked opinions from the pool of voters. Unless you think Green will win by a landslide (in which case your cherry-picked links and quotes are representative of the average voter's opinion) you've failed to advance your argument (yet again).

Perhaps the voters don't live in a world where knowledge of statistics and astute hockey viewership aren't mutually exclusive concepts? It boggles my mind that you honestly believe Green being his coach's last choice on the PK doesn't reflect very poorly on his defensive ability. Maybe you feel like he's doing good defensively when you watch him, regardless of his coach's obvious distrust in his defensive ability (see defensive PK minutes played). Maybe you feel like his extremely high turnover rate isn't reflective of poor defensive ability (he's top 3 in the league for defensive turnovers and he played fewer games than both players above him on that list). These feelings you have aren't necessarily reality.

The NHL tells the voters to list their top three choices for the "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position".

I have to assume that you either don't understand what "all-around" means. Or maybe the NHL doesn't understand their own intentions? You should definitely let them know that they gave the wrong instructions to the voters!

If they were then you'd do it. Instead you flail about, repeating your original point and barking insults and insinuations.

You are R. Kelly in "Fishsticks".

Weird, how I cite likely voters, and you cite the NHL.com stats page. Maybe you should be citing some barrage of hockey writers who would be voting for Chara or Lidstrom. The only one that comes close is Chara. And as I iterated numerous times before your borish, obsessive rants came along, for someone who is as solid offensively and defensively as Green is, with the company he's in, it's going to come down to attention. Green has all the attention, and now it's up to the writers, who look like they're favoring a scorer this year, to decide who they think is the best defenseman. It doesn't matter what Douche_Markus thinks or some off-the-wall NHL.com stat says. It's clear you spend way too much time wanking to stats. Maybe you might think that because Green also scores way the hell more than his other defensive counterparts, perhaps that's why they choose to have him there. Are you the coach? Has the coach said that Green sucks on the PK? In fact, I bet you I can find an article with the coach praising Green's defensiveness. These s***ty stats you love to harp on don't tell the the entire story, someone who actually watches the game might figure out, and that's why I don't fall for your crap. Your attitude only makes it funnier.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Weird, how I cite likely voters, and you cite the NHL.com stats page. Maybe you should be citing some barrage of hockey writers who would be voting for Chara or Lidstrom. The only one that comes close is Chara. And as I iterated numerous timesbefore your borish, obsessive rants came along, for someone who is as solid offensively and defensively as Green is, with the company he's in, it's going to come down to attention. Green has all the attention, and now it's up to the writers, who look like they're favoring a scorer this year, to decide who they think is the best defenseman. It doesn't matter what Douche_Markus thinks or some off-the-wall NHL.com stat says.

Amazing- you still don't understand the argument you think you're arguing against. It's fascinating to watch you argue with your strawman while completely ignoring the point I, and many others, have been making.

Do you even read the posts you think you're arguing against?

As for the bold part, well you obviously lack the insight to understand how amazingly ironic that is.

It's clear you spend way too much time wanking to stats.

No, I just have a math degree so I don't struggle to place those frustrating little numbers in context. Anyone who understands statistics must be beholden to them and utterly obsessed with them. Everyone around you must seem like a fetishist.

Maybe you might think that because Green also scores way the hell more than his other defensive counterparts, perhaps that's why they choose to have him there. Are you the coach?

Oh yeah, that must be it! Green is so above and beyond Lidstrom, Chara and Neidermayer offensively that his coach dare not waste his ice time on something as meaningless as the PK. I guess Lidstrom must've played almost no PK time when he scored 80pts in '06. Surely no one can contribute that much offensively while still playing on the PK!

Has the coach said that Green sucks on the PK?

Yes he has. He puts Green out on the PK the least out of the top 6 defensemen. When you're the top d-man on your team and your coach puts you on the PK the least that's not a vote of confidence.

In fact, I bet you I can find an article with the coach praising Green's defensiveness.

Ok, do it then.

These s***ty stats you love to harp on don't tell the the entire story,

Given how quickly you dismiss them they must not tell any part of the story. Apparently statistics are all just a bunch of gibberish because you don't understand something as simplistic as average PK minutes played per game.

someone who actually watches the game might figure out, and that's why I don't fall for your crap. Your attitude only makes it funnier.

I'm able to work on my grad studies on my own schedule so I've always considered myself lucky to get to watch so many hockey games. I only watch 1-2 NHL games per day in the regular season and 2-3 per day in the playoffs. Apparently that's a paltry total compared to you. I had no idea you were so well informed of my watching habits.

What's the arbitrary level of games watched that allows one to suddenly comprehend the games at the amazing level you do? Based on your posts I'd guess the answer is 5 games per year, but go ahead and enlighten me.

f*** this pissing contest BS. Your presumptions of my hockey knowledge are as imaginative as your hockey analysis.

How about you quietly wait and see what others say about our respective viewpoints in this thread? I know that reading and analyzing is counter to your ignorance-based believe system, but give it a shot nonetheless.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

I think the rookie of the year should go to someone who played a vital role in a team taking a large leap in the standings, and should not only have put up a solid point total but also played well on both ends of the ice, having a highlight reel goal nominated by NHL.com for "goal of the year" would also be a solid attribute.......the fact that this guy was leading the NHL in plus/minus at the all star break and finished in 2nd place (by only one and it was to a teammate) is even more impressive.....I know that Steve Mason will win this award, but i think it is ridiculous that my guy Blake Wheeler didn't at least receive a nomination

[Guest Shoreline]

Amazing- you still don't understand the argument you think you're arguing against. It's fascinating to watch you argue with your strawman while completely ignoring the point I, and many others, have been making.

Do you even read the posts you think you're arguing against?

As for the bold part, well you obviously lack the insight to understand how amazingly ironic that is.

No, I just have a math degree so I don't struggle to place those frustrating little numbers in context. Anyone who understands statistics must be beholden to them and utterly obsessed with them. Everyone around you must seem like a fetishist.

Oh yeah, that must be it! Green is so above and beyond Lidstrom, Chara and Neidermayer offensively that his coach dare not waste his ice time on something as meaningless as the PK. I guess Lidstrom must've played almost no PK time when he scored 80pts in '06. Surely no one can contribute that much offensively while still playing on the PK!

Yes he has. He puts Green out on the PK the least out of the top 6 defensemen. When you're the top d-man on your team and your coach puts you on the PK the least that's not a vote of confidence.

Ok, do it then.

Given how quickly you dismiss them they must not tell any part of the story. Apparently statistics are all just a bunch of gibberish because you don't understand something as simplistic as average PK minutes played per game.

I'm able to work on my grad studies on my own schedule so I've always considered myself lucky to get to watch so many hockey games. I only watch 1-2 NHL games per day in the regular season and 2-3 per day in the playoffs. Apparently that's a paltry total compared to you. I had no idea you were so well informed of my watching habits.

What's the arbitrary level of games watched that allows one to suddenly comprehend the games at the amazing level you do? Based on your posts I'd guess the answer is 5 games per year, but go ahead and enlighten me.

f*** this pissing contest BS. Your presumptions of my hockey knowledge are as imaginative as your hockey analysis.

Besides your whiny strikethrough text garbage, I love how you feign like you're on some high road while taking pot shots. You're retarded Shoreline, f-this pissing contest BS! You might do well at politics -- forget math. At very least, I'm sure you'd get your own vote.

As for Boudreau:

Sure, he may not launch booming 105.4 mph point shots or deliver crushing checks on every shift, but as Caps coach Bruce Boudreau says, "the numbers don't lie."

The green light Boudreau has given his star 23-year-old defenseman is one where there is still a dedication to being responsible defensively. What Boudreau did to immensely help Green is explain to him what the green-light situations are, how to recognize them, and then he set him free to attempt to capitalize on them.

"He scores like a forward," Boudreau says. "It's not just getting back and overpowering you with a shot. He can put it into areas that other people couldn't."

"One of the things that Boudreau harps on is that the best position defensively is going to be the best position offensively," says Capitals forward David Steckel. "Not that [Green] didn't care about defense, but I think he's concentrated more to the point where he knows where to put his body, where he can get up the rush and still get back."

Which is interesting to me, since if someone is simply a high risk forward-like defenseman who sucks defensively, he'd be getting burned an awful lot and like Markov, have a rather s***ty plus-minus to show for it. Instead, as Boudreau and Steckel both know (being coach and teammate) is that he has the ability to pinch in and at the same time get back.

Now that this has been taken care of, yet again, let's get back to your fruitcake stats. Simply put, none of these writers are going to be as obsessive-compulsive about every little statistic you are. They are well aware that Green does not play the PK like every other defenseman, and Green does not NEED to be like every other defenseman in every little way like you obviously believe. There is no correlation between Green's PK minutes and him being a shoddy defenseman not worthy of the Norris trophy.

The reason you harp on stats so much is for your own personal benefit (you've shown excessive amount of zeal and spending time toward trivial stats which is nothing new), or personal bias of what constitutes a good defenseman (which I ask yet again why guys like Hatcher or Commodore are never on this list, which means the media [i.e. writers] pays attention to scorers first and foremost), and this humorous one-upmanship attempt which is just you kicking dirt right in your own face. If, by all means, Paul Coffey can win this race, and stay-at-home defensemen have obviously a significantly less chance at the Norris, while top scorers with a plus-minus just to show they're not an extensive defensive liability (read: Souray/Markov) also happen to be Norris winners, given the intangible, which is attention, Green is absolutely the front runner. As for a vote of confidence, how about confidently putting a guy like Green with extremely offensively aggressive forwards for over 25 minutes a game? I'm sure that's more than enough time for a shoddy defenseman to have frequent lapses which it looks like Green is just as susceptible to as any other top candidate defensemen this year. Your only argument all along has been some subjective jab about poor PK minutes, and it's blatantly a horrible one. Lastly, regarding games I've watched.. *points to GDTs* (easily dismissed) -- and be sure to make some more strikethrough text saying how you're above arguments. That one was classic.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Shoreline

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Now that this has been taken care of, yet again, let's get back to your fruitcake stats. Simply put, none of these writers are going to be as obsessive-compulsive about every little statistic you are. They are well aware that Green does not play the PK like every other defenseman, and Green does not NEED to be like every other defenseman in every little way like you obviously believe. There is no correlation between Green's PK minutes and him being a shoddy defenseman not worthy of the Norris trophy.

Once again- you're trying to pin me as an obsessive compulsive stat freak simply because I understand and appreciate the use of statistics to support opinions. So we come full circle to the "I don't understand it it must be trivial" argument on your part. You don't understand the significance of the statistics so you call me a obsessive nutter simply because I understand something the meaning of something you dismiss.

Your argument to dismiss the validity of PK minutes played relies on following assumption:

--An NHL coach doesn't put his best defensive players on the PK the most.

Think about that for a second. My "harping" on about that stat is based on my faulty assumption that you would understand who a coach puts out on the PK and why.

If only Babcock understood how wasteful it is to be using Lidstrom and Datsyuk on the PK! He could be saving them so he could double shift them on the PP

Your only argument all along has been some subjective jab about poor PK minutes, and it's blatantly a horrible one.

Again, if you understood how hockey is played you'd understand how flawed your argument is.

Not surprisingly, you've missed another point I made:

Green has the second highest number of turn-overs for defensemen (behind Markov) and the 4th highest number of turn-overs in the entire league.

Ok. Time for you to try convince us that turn-overs have nothing to do with defensive skill. This will go nicely with your theory that the best defensive players aren't the most likely players for a coach to put on the PK.

EDIT: Don't forget that his rate of turning-over the puck is higher than Markov when you factor in that Markov played more games.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Drake_Marcus

[Drake_Marcus 890]

This is too tedious.

I can't stand you and you can't stand me.

I think Green fails to meet the expectation of defensive excellence inherent in the definition of a Norris winner. You strongly disagree with that.

Neither one of us is going to change their position and nothing is going to bridge that gap, so who ******* cares?

Let's go back to ignoring each other again. (god knows I wish I could find the ignore function for these forums)

[softshoes 83]

While this discourse is amusing, I'll try not to get in the middle, I only have one question.

Which Norris caliber defender on a 2nd seeded team is more likely to be playing golf next week?

P.S. I know it really doesn't matter if a guys team loses, I just thought some gas on this fire would be fun.

[Guest Shoreline]

Once again- you're trying to pin me as an obsessive compulsive stat freak simply because I understand and appreciate the use of statistics to support opinions. So we come full circle to the "I don't understand it it must be trivial" argument on your part. You don't understand the significance of the statistics so you call me a obsessive nutter simply because I understand something the meaning of something you dismiss.

Your argument to dismiss the validity of PK minutes played relies on following assumption:

--An NHL coach doesn't put his best defensive players on the PK the most.

Think about that for a second. My "harping" on about that stat is based on my faulty assumption that you would understand who a coach puts out on the PK and why.

If only Babcock understood how wasteful it is to be using Lidstrom and Datsyuk on the PK! He could be saving them so he could double shift them on the PP

Again, if you understood how hockey is played you'd understand how flawed your argument is.

Not surprisingly, you've missed another point I made:

Green has the second highest number of turn-overs for defensemen (behind Markov) and the 4th highest number of turn-overs in the entire league.

Ok. Time for you to try convince us that turn-overs have nothing to do with defensive skill. This will go nicely with your theory that the best defensive players aren't the most likely players for a coach to put on the PK.

EDIT: Don't forget that his rate of turning-over the puck is higher than Markov when you factor in that Markov played more games.

Two things:

1. Where in the Norris trophy requirements does it list a player must play more than any other teammate on the PK? This is obviously a criteria you made up. Wonder why.

2. Secondly, if not playing these PK minutes causes negative press, obviously Green would have no shot at the Norris. Where's the negative press about him sucking on defense? It very well could be Boudreau wanting to save Green's minutes for the power play and even strength, while utilizing more strictly defensive defensemen for the PK, which is something that can easily be rationalized. NHL.com statistics is not going to teach you coaching strategy, which is why it's strange that you speak for Boudreau based on your own personal criteria, despite Boudreau himself saying that Green is more than capable of pinching in and getting back on defense.

What's interesting is despite having Lidstrom, Rafalski, and a rather elite core of defensemen compared to other teams, the Caps as a team allowed one more goal than this team did, and was, IIRC, right behind the Wings in scoring, or damn close. Then we factor that Green had been on the ice for far more goals for than against. He had as many points as Zetterberg and had two times a better plus minus. Here's why focusing so extensively on stats is dumb. The bad news is, half the season Nick was quite a defensive liability, and early on where people were going apes*** over Osgood or Filppula, it was defenseman, including Lidstrom, who were burned pretty often to give up quality scoring chances on Osgood. The media just hasn't really been on the Nick bandwagon so if he's on the list it's mostly out of respect for his previous Norris trophies. Chara is the only other reasonable contender, but Green definitely has the media attention and that's ultimately what wins the trophies. The media looks more than ready to crown Green, whether or not some haters like it.

While this discourse is amusing, I'll try not to get in the middle, I only have one question.

Which Norris caliber defender on a 2nd seeded team is more likely to be playing golf next week?

P.S. I know it really doesn't matter if a guys team loses, I just thought some gas on this fire would be fun.

I actually was humorously musing about the playoffs in a post earlier in the topic and some poster (too lazy to bother looking back now) mentioned they already voted, so kinda killed the fun in that.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

Why don't both of you bickering school-girls dry your eyes, take a Midol and learn HOW TO READ! This thread is about the CALDER trophy which is for the ROOKIE OF THE YEAR discussion, the award for the best defenseman is called the NORRIS trophy and believe it or not, it actually has it's own thread! Please take your pissing match there!!

[Guest Shoreline]

Why don't both of you bickering school-girls dry your eyes, take a Midol and learn HOW TO READ! This thread is about the CALDER trophy which is for the ROOKIE OF THE YEAR discussion, the award for the best defenseman is called the NORRIS trophy and believe it or not, it actually has it's own thread! Please take your pissing match there!!

Believe it or not, that Norris discussion that "has it's own thread" was just made a few hours ago, this one made yesterday, and you just bumped this one to comment on that despite the fact that both of us had posted in the Norris one. Seriously, you didn't do yourself any favors here.

(Btw, in the OP's article it also mentioned, yesterday, the Norris finalists would be tomorrow so some were musing on it)

Edited April 23, 2009 by Shoreline