Would you want Crosby on the Wings?

[Adidarw 35]

In response to all the "so and so gets more points" and blah blah blah...

You can have all the points you want, but in the end all that matters is the Stanley Cup. Detroit made it happen, Pittsburgh didn't. If winning the Cup means all of our players can only have 10 points each. Then I'll take it!

For everyone saying "Hossa will not be back": ok...and? Should I feel threatened? Was that an insult? Thanks for your opinion.

Would I change our current team in any shape or form to fit in Crosby? No.

Would I consider Crosby if we had to start fresh? (fantasy draft) Yes.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Adidarw

[norrisnick 1]

I've seen some dumb posts on this site, but the people that are saying that they wouldn't want Crosby are just idiots.

Out of curiosity, who got the better end of the Lindros trade?

[therock48880 14]

I'm not running. Just waiting for someone to respond who actually has facts statistics etc. I'm not talking about the past, i'm talking about this season. If we had Gonchar all season and a healthy crosby all season we would be #1 in the east. Also therrien is a terrible coach. 22-5-4 under Blysma.

I read some of your posts and you guys are a joke. I'm wondering if you really understand hockey or if you just think you do because you're bandwagon detroit fans? prove me wrong...

Dear Troll,

Here are two stats and I hope you get to read it before you are banned.

11 Stanley Cups.

You can spew all the stats about Crosby and Malkin you want, but until they win a cup, it's a useless argument.

You also stated in this thread that Crosby isn't a whiner. 52% of the players in an espn poll rated him the top whiner in the game. No one else even came close.

http://ballhype.com/story/espn_com_nhl_pla..._players_lists/

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Just because you're parroting the stupid opinions of others doesn't make you any less culpable for the stupidity of said opinions.

So what you are saying is believe what you read...........only if it isn't something negative about Sergei Fedorov.

Those opinions are only stupid if you don't agree with them. Conversely, I could say you are just as stupid for thinking otherwise. Does that make me more factual than you suddenly?

They were opinion pieces, written at the time. Likely all written prior to 95. What he did after that definitely changed those opinions I am sure. But it was what it was in 92, 93, etc...

Oh no, somebody had something bad to say about my man lover. Get over it already you big baby.

[toby91_ca 620]

So what you are saying is believe what you read...........only if it isn't something negative about Sergei Fedorov.

Those opinions are only stupid if you don't agree with them. Conversely, I could say you are just as stupid for thinking otherwise. Does that make me more factual than you suddenly?

They were opinion pieces, written at the time. Likely all written prior to 95. What he did after that definitely changed those opinions I am sure. But it was what it was in 92, 93, etc...

Oh no, somebody had something bad to say about my man lover. Get over it already you big baby.

To be fair, Fedorov had 33pts in his first 32 playoff games (91-94). Any writer that suggested he was a playoff bust was surely a bit of an idiot.

Edited April 28, 2009 by toby91_ca

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

To be fair, Fedorov had 33pts in his first 32 playoff games (91-94). Any writer that suggested he was a playoff bust was surely a bit of an idiot.

I'm sure it had alot to do with the overall success of those playoff team's Toby. Obviously the talent was there. But it took 5 playoff years for Fedorov to really help carry the load for a deep playoff run. If memory serves, he slowly but surely started to ratchet up the PPG numbers after 95, but it was more the consistency and being able to get us deep into the playoffs that made the transformation. A better goal producer, better face off man, better defensive player. In the end he had a fantastic playoff career. I'm just rehashing what I remember from years gone by.

If you ever had a subscription to the hockey news you know how much info was packed into that paper. I had a subscription for years. And for many of those years I kept issues and clipped articles having to do with the Wings. I can't recall a single cover to any issue except for 1.

It had a large image of Feds on the cover and the title read: The Enigma of Sergei Fedorov. It was not the most flattering article.

It doesn't really matter. Feds was an unbelievable hockey player and great playoff performer. I made a comment about Crosby showing up for the playoffs right away and compared it to some Wings who didn't exactly light it up early on and NorrisNick is personally offended. Like I've insulted his mother and kicked his dog or something.

It was a benign comment but some people apparently have tissue paper for skin.

Edited April 28, 2009 by GordieSid&Ted

[toby91_ca 620]

I'm sure it had alot to do with the overall success of those playoff team's Toby. Obviously the talent was there. But it took 5 playoff years for Fedorov to really help carry the load for a deep playoff run. If memory serves, he slowly but surely started to ratchet up the PPG numbers after 95, but it was more the consistency and being able to get us deep into the playoffs that made the transformation. A better goal producer, better face off man, better defensive player. In the end he had a fantastic playoff career. I'm just rehashing what I remember from years gone by.

I'm not disputing that there may have been poor press during those first 4 years, my point was that, if there was, it was unwarranted. I don't recall, because back then, I didn't spend much time reading what others were writing (I don't think anyway), I think I just watched.

Even in his first 4 years in the league, NO ONE on the team had more points in the playoffs as him, why should he take the heat for the team not going anywhere, why not Yzerman, who scored less?

In terms of ppg increasing thereafter....no, not the case. In his first 4 years, he had 33pts in 32 games, he had a big year in his 5th (24pts in 17games), but in general, he's simply been consistent from the get go (33pts in first 32 games) and 130pts in final 130 games with the Wings.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'm not disputing that there may have been poor press during those first 4 years, my point was that, if there was, it was unwarranted. I don't recall, because back then, I didn't spend much time reading what others were writing (I don't think anyway), I think I just watched.

Even in his first 4 years in the league, NO ONE on the team had more points in the playoffs as him, why should he take the heat for the team not going anywhere, why not Yzerman, who scored less?

In terms of ppg increasing thereafter....no, not the case. In his first 4 years, he had 33pts in 32 games, he had a big year in his 5th (24pts in 17games), but in general, he's simply been consistent from the get go (33pts in first 32 games) and 130pts in final 130 games with the Wings.

Probably because Fedorov showed the talent to be the best player in the league at that point and not Yzerman. I can only guess that they expected him to carry the Wings further in those earlier years. We didn't exactly have stellar playoffs prior to 95.

Edited April 28, 2009 by GordieSid&Ted

[KronwallCRUNCH 5]

Out of curiosity, who got the better end of the Lindros trade?

What does Crosby have to do with Lindros?

[DatsMyWings13 4]

You have to be pretty bias to say you wouldn't want Crosby on your team.

He's big, young and talented. Every team would be happy to have him. He'll never be a Wing but I wouldn't be upset if he was.

[BlakChamber 8]

What does Crosby have to do with Lindros?

If the Wings (or any other team) were to actually acquire Crosby, it would be in a break the bank, Lindros style trade.

[norrisnick 1]

If the Wings (or any other team) were to actually acquire Crosby, it would be in a break the bank, Lindros style trade.

Close, but not quite. Even if we could magically acquire Sid without losing any assets, I'd still rather have what we could get for him in a trade. Much like I'd rather have the package the Nords got rather than Lindros.

[norrisnick 1]

I'm sure it had alot to do with the overall success of those playoff team's Toby. Obviously the talent was there. But it took 5 playoff years for Fedorov to really help carry the load for a deep playoff run. If memory serves, he slowly but surely started to ratchet up the PPG numbers after 95, but it was more the consistency and being able to get us deep into the playoffs that made the transformation. A better goal producer, better face off man, better defensive player. In the end he had a fantastic playoff career. I'm just rehashing what I remember from years gone by.

If you ever had a subscription to the hockey news you know how much info was packed into that paper. I had a subscription for years. And for many of those years I kept issues and clipped articles having to do with the Wings. I can't recall a single cover to any issue except for 1.

It had a large image of Feds on the cover and the title read: The Enigma of Sergei Fedorov. It was not the most flattering article.

It doesn't really matter. Feds was an unbelievable hockey player and great playoff performer. I made a comment about Crosby showing up for the playoffs right away and compared it to some Wings who didn't exactly light it up early on and NorrisNick is personally offended. Like I've insulted his mother and kicked his dog or something.

It was a benign comment but some people apparently have tissue paper for skin.

You're a blowhard that flings about judgements of intellect (hockey related or otherwise) at the drop of a hat. Expect to get blasted for any idiocies you may post. Regardless of how benign you thought they may have been.

I'd rather have a package of quality players and bluechippers than Sid. Same had someone proposed Lindros 17 years ago (remember the Wings were rumored to be involved and names like Fedorov, Lidstrom, etc... would have come up). If believing that is stupid, then I don't want to be smart.

And you've got some of the thinnest skin on these boards. You can dish it out, but you sure pitch a fit if ANYONE dares toss some back your way.

And the point remains that hockey writers may have been quick to blame the young Russian for playoff failures, but he was without fail our best guy up front.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Hahaha i knew you would all have pathetic responses. Argue with me? The fact is everyone in here knows there is no argument for Datsyuk and Zetterberg owning The Kid and Malkin...

Watch carefully, son, because I'm only going to do this once.

Malkin v Datsyuk.... Malkin is not ONLY number 1 in points...but he led the league in takeaways...

Malkin was number 1 in points, but he also played more than 3 minutes/game than Dats, in addition to an entire extra game that your boy Bettman decided to suspend Dats for. That adds up to about 246+60=306 extra minutes worth of ice time. In addition to that, most of Malkin's minutes are idealized for when it will be easiest for his line to score. That is, Malkin is rarely used as a shutdown man (does he even see penalty killing time?). In comparison, Datysuk is a part of the top PK like for the Wings, so a handful of the 19 minutes he sees per game is already by design going to severely limit his scoring capacity. Despite that, as well as constantly being played against the opponents top lines as the shut-down foward, he still managed 97 points. Oh, and Malkin also may have lead the league in takeaways, but he was also number one in giveaways, further exemplifying his already obvious defensive liability.

Crosby v Zetterberg.... Do i even need to go there? Zett and his staggering 73 points... UH OH!

Lets go there. Just for fun.

I will give you Crosby is better at racking up assists than Zetterberg is in scoring, but Sid is also a defensive liability. He was only three spots behind is buddy Malkin for give-away leader, and I also don't remember seeing much of Crosby on the PK this year, meaning once again that he is a "forward-only" type player. That may work fine in Pittsburgh (heck, it got you so far as to see the cup last year), but I'll take well rounded players over that any day. Those are the ones that bring the cup home. Crosby is also only a +3, which considering he has 103 points says one of two things about his character. 1) Either he needs the man advantage to score the vast majority of his points, or 2) He plays absolutely terrible defensively.

Average Time on ICe

Crosby 21:56 GP 77 PTS 113

Malkin 22:30 GP 82 PTS 103

Datsyuk 19:12 GP 81 PTS 97

Zetterterd 19:52 GP 77 PTS 73

You screwed up some of those numbers, but besides that, the TOI further reiterates the point I was trying to make earlier about you boys having about 3 minutes more per game to score (as well as only PP time, little/no PK time, and little shut down 5v5 time), compared to our boys, who spend a good deal of their TOI keeping others from scoring goals. You may remember this from last year's Finals. Any play from the first two games will work, and that 5-on-3 where Zetterberg robbed your boy on a wide open net will also do. By the way, Crosby and Malkin were also outscored by Dats and Z in the finals last year.

Also...Crosby and Malkin had never been to a cup before last year. We didn't have the necessary experience to win the cup...but guess what...we do now.... good luck once again...you are going need it.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. Peace *****

You can say all you want about Crosby and Malkin having enough experience to win the Cup, but its still nothing compared to what Datsyuk and Zetterberg have. Besides, experience isn't going to prevent them from shutting your team down again, should they happen to get that far.

[BlakChamber 8]

^^^

There's probably no point in arguing with people who have lost their posting ability

[Echolalia 2,961]

^^^

There's probably no point in arguing with people who have lost their posting ability

I told everyone I was only going to do it once , but that's for pointing that out as I did not know

[KronwallCRUNCH 5]

Close, but not quite. Even if we could magically acquire Sid without losing any assets, I'd still rather have what we could get for him in a trade. Much like I'd rather have the package the Nords got rather than Lindros.

I was just talking about Crosby, not who we could trade him for. Love him or hate him, he's still one of the top playmakers in the NHL, and if he was a Red Wing, (almost) nobody on these boards would be trashing him.

[norrisnick 1]

I was just talking about Crosby, not who we could trade him for. Love him or hate him, he's still one of the top playmakers in the NHL, and if he was a Red Wing, (almost) nobody on these boards would be trashing him.

And I wasn't talking simply about Crosby. I posed a question for you that centered around the last "golden child" to enter the NHL before Crosby. That being Lindros. Back when the trade happened would you rather have had Lindros? Or would you rather have had Peter Forsberg, Mike Ricci, Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall, Kerry Huffman, Chris Simon, two 1st round picks, and $15M?

Now trading Crosby away won't quite garner that much, but would most certainly fetch you a top shelf forward, a top shelf blueliner, and a couple bluechippers and/or picks.

[Electrophile 3,554]

I dunno, but Bing Crosby was a helluva guy!

"I'm dreaming of a White Christmas......"