Abdlekader in, Osgood to start again.

[ilmickeyli 40]

Abdlekader will stay in the line-up vs the Flames. Babcock's not sure who'll sit.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2010/11/red_wings_chris_osgood_injures.html

Hudler again?

I'm sure... Poor Huds still get's the short stick from Babs. There's no way that they lure Mo here and sit him (yet)

[Shady Ultima 40]

I have a feeling Babs will keep rotating who sits amongst the bottom 6. With 7 players and 6 spots, we'll have more competition among those players. Especially if whoever plays WORST gets benched the next game.

Hudler is most likely to be benched tomorrow, but it's possible that it could be Miller as well.

[redwingfan19 293]

miller should sit. he brings nothing, huds and modano need all the ice time they can get to hopefully get going

[newfy 695]

I would say Mikey gets the benefit of the doubt because:

1. He is a veteran

2. He actually scored a goal

3. Babcock isn't a petty idiot

Modano had a better game last night, so it appears that the right decision was made.

No Mikey gets the benefit of the doubt because he isn't a 5'7 softie getting knocked over every time he touches the puck.

If Hudler doesn't show loyalty then why should Babcock show him loyalty back anyways? Modano is learning the system, Hudler should've been here the past 4 years but isntead he bolted for a year and it really hurt his game. Too bad so sad for Hudler, have fun in the press box

[St. Michael (the Red Wing) 422]

Abdlekader will stay in the line-up vs the Flames. Babcock's not sure who'll sit.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2010/11/red_wings_chris_osgood_injures.html

Hudler again?

Good to see Abs back. Awesome... Hudler or Miller is my guess on who sits. Unless someone ends up with the flu or something....

[Guest Stolberg]

No Mikey gets the benefit of the doubt because he isn't a 5'7 softie getting knocked over every time he touches the puck.

he's just a 6'3 softie that waits for the 5'7 softie to get the puck out of the corners for him

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

No Mikey gets the benefit of the doubt because he isn't a 5'7 softie getting knocked over every time he touches the puck.

You would respond to me with more rehashed crap about soft Euros.

You are trying too hard.

If Hudler doesn't show loyalty then why should Babcock show him loyalty back anyways? Modano is learning the system, Hudler should've been here the past 4 years but isntead he bolted for a year and it really hurt his game. Too bad so sad for Hudler, have fun in the press box

Unlike you, Babcock looks for results. Modano has produced more than Hudler, and I guarantee you his "loyalty" (yeah how dare he get more money for a year then come right back to the team that drafted him) has nothing to do with Babcock's decision to scratch him.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

You would respond to me with more rehashed crap about soft Euros.

You are trying too hard.

Unlike you, Babcock looks for results. Modano has produced more than Hudler, and I guarantee you his "loyalty" (yeah how dare he get more money for a year then come right back to the team that drafted him) has nothing to do with Babcock's decision to scratch him.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with an arbitration deal either.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I'm sure that has nothing to do with an arbitration deal either.

Point being?

He knew what was going on and knew he would be under contract with Detroit if he came back to the NHL. He didn't have to come back.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

Point being?

He knew what was going on and knew he would be under contract with Detroit if he came back to the NHL. He didn't have to come back.

My point is you were exaggerating in order to prove your point.

He had to come back here legally, when in reality we have no clue if, given the choice, he would have returned to Detroit or not.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

My point is you were exaggerating in order to prove your point.

He had to come back here legally, when in reality we have no clue if, given the choice, he would have returned to Detroit or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Hudler had no obligation to come back to the NHL after fulfilling his contract with the KHL.

His contract (once again, you can correct me on this) stated that if he was to come back to the NHL he would be Red Wings property.

And even if I am incorrect and he was required to come back, he still agreed on the terms of the contract, did he not?

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Hudler had no obligation to come back to the NHL after fulfilling his contract with the KHL.

His contract (once again, you can correct me on this) stated that if he was to come back to the NHL he would be Red Wings property.

And even if I am incorrect and he was required to come back, he still agreed on the terms of the contract, did he not?

His only choice in the NHL was the Wings. His team in Russia folded. What choice did he have?

Note: I'm largely playing devils advocate, I mostly agree with your statements.

Edited November 2, 2010 by CaliWingsNut

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

His only choice in the NHL was the Wings. His team in Russia folded. What choice did he have?

Note: I'm largely playing devils advocate, I mostly agree with your statements.

Sign with another team in the KHL.

He would absolutely make more money there than he would here.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

Sign with another team in the KHL.

He would absolutely make more money there than he would here.

I'm unsure he could have.

However you're fighting for your opinion on this tooth & nail, when the point is that he didn't have a ton of options.

He had a year extension clause with Moscow-Dynamo, and I'm unsure if he was bound to stay with UHC Dynamo (the new club) because of it or not. With the team folding, he may have been forced to stay with them (if staying in KHL), but make a new $ agreement.

Edit: in any case, I'm going to go vote. So you can continue to fight me over something rather unimportant to the topic of this thread, or just realize you were exaggerating to try and make a point.

Edited November 2, 2010 by CaliWingsNut

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I'm unsure he could have.

However you're fighting for your opinion on this tooth & nail, when the point is that he didn't have a ton of options.

He had a year extension clause with Moscow-Dynamo, and I'm unsure if he was bound to stay with UHC Dynamo (the new club) because of it or not. With the team folding, he may have been forced to stay with them (if staying in KHL), but make a new $ agreement.

Edit: in any case, I'm going to go vote. So you can continue to fight me over something rather unimportant to the topic of this thread, or just realize you were exaggerating to try and make a point.

You are the one who initiated the argument with me, and even admitted you were playing devils advocate. That's on you, not me.

Also Hudler agreed to a contract that would put him back on the Wings if he chose to come back, which he did.

He made a wise financial move and came back to the team that drafted him. I fail to see how that is disloyal.

[titanium2 867]

If we're going to call Hudler soft then what is Modano? Semi soft?

[Konnan511 1,736]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Hudler had no obligation to come back to the NHL after fulfilling his contract with the KHL.

His contract (once again, you can correct me on this) stated that if he was to come back to the NHL he would be Red Wings property.

And even if I am incorrect and he was required to come back, he still agreed on the terms of the contract, did he not?

Technically he didn't agree to the terms. The arbitration was for the Wings to decide to agree to a contract. Since the Arbitrator awarded him 5.75, the Wings could either agree to it or not (thus Hudler become a UFA instead of being an RFA), the Wings agreed to it.

Anyways, if Hudler was here last year, it would have seriously eaten into our depth with his contract hit. With him here we would have either had to trade Hudler, or not to have sign Big Bert.

What Hudler did was the smart thing to be gone for a year while we cleared cap space and made a playoff run. All in all, Hudler leaving for the year was the best thing for this club, you can't argue with it.

You are the one who initiated the argument with me, and even admitted you were playing devils advocate. That's on you, not me.

Also Hudler agreed to a contract that would put him back on the Wings if he chose to come back, which he did.

He made a wise financial move and came back to the team that drafted him. I fail to see how that is disloyal.

He's been quoted as saying he was unhappy in Russia (who wouldn't be) and the only way he could play in the NHL again was to play for the Wings in which he had a contract with. There was no loyalty on either side, it was just business.

If we're going to call Hudler soft then what is Modano? Semi soft?

Malleable

[chrisdetroit 189]

A small goalie wearing a fat suit proves your point lol? Most goalies in the NHL are decent sized and ozzie is a midget out there prettym uch. And to top it all off, Ozzie doesn't have quick reactions or mobility so that argument doesn;t work either

My point is that I will take a small goalie with great mobility over a big goalie anytime. Big does not necesarilly mean better.

[chrisdetroit 189]

You're telling me that a bigger goalie doesn't have an advantage on some shots?... lets say the shots that would normally slide right by one goalie's side, but actually hits and bounces off the bigger goalie?

to say that size doesn't help when you're trying to block an open area with your body is ridiculous. and one test subject doesn't prove anything, you would need to test your theory more than once with different variables.

how many shots did they take? what kind of shots went in? a bigger goalie would have more time to get used to his body/become more mobile than a smaller goalie that just gets some extra baggage packed on right there.

if Discovery channel insinuated that their "experiment" proved anything then please tell me the name of the show so I can never watch it

You missed the point. An NHL shooter (even George Parros) can easily score on a big goalie that isn't mobile. Take 2 goalies with the same mobility one big and one small and the results are almost the same. The size makes little difference.

How many shots. 10, 15, 20.. I don't remember but George was able to score on almost every shot against a goalie that was so big he was blocking almost the entire net. And this wasn't Alex O, it was George frickin Parros.

You are right, it was not a scientific experiment and nobody said that it "proved" anything but it's pretty hard to dismiss.

[cjm502 165]

You missed the point. An NHL shooter (even George Parros) can easily score on a big goalie that isn't mobile. Take 2 goalies with the same mobility one big and one small and the results are almost the same. The size makes little difference.

How many shots. 10, 15, 20.. I don't remember but George was able to score on almost every shot against a goalie that was so big he was blocking almost the entire net. And this wasn't Alex O, it was George frickin Parros.

You are right, it was not a scientific experiment and nobody said that it "proved" anything but it's pretty hard to dismiss.

Im Ozzy was 6'3 im sure he would stop a lot more shots.

[Guest Stolberg]

If we're going to call Hudler soft then what is Modano? Semi soft?

flaccid?