robb himself 143 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 Central Division 1.Red Wings 2.Blues 3.Blackhawks 4.Predators 4.Blue Jackets Western Conference 1. Kings 2. Red Wings 3. Wild 4. Canucks 5. Blackhawks 6. Oilers 7. Sharks 8. Avalanche Hart - Crosby Richard - Stamkos Vezina - Quick Norris - Doughty Calder - Brunner Lady Byng - Eberle Selke - Datsyuk Jack Adams - Ralph Krueger Masterton - Eaves Ted Lindsay - Crosby Messier - Zetterberg GM - Steve Tambellini Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 Calder - Brunner He's not eligible....too old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robb himself 143 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 He's not eligible....too old. oh snap you are absolutely right. I will take the easy way out and go with Yakupov Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amato 3,210 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="toby91_ca" data-cid="2340645" data-time="1358363547"><p> He's not eligible....too old.</p></blockquote> Would smith be eligible? Not sure how that works, since he wasn't up much last year, is this year still considered his rookie season? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jaymister 71 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 1. Chicago 2. Vancouver 3. LA 4. St.Louis 5. Minnesota 6.San Jose 7. Nashville 8. Detroit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zetterling 16 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 Central: 1. STL 2. CHI 3. DET 4. NSH 5. CBJ WEST: 1. STL 2. MIN 3. LA 4.CHI 5. PHO 6. SJ 7. DET 8. ANA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,485 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="toby91_ca" data-cid="2340645" data-time="1358363547"><p>He's not eligible....too old.</p></blockquote> Would smith be eligible? Not sure how that works, since he wasn't up much last year, is this year still considered his rookie season? Yes, he would have to play a minimum 25 games (not sure if it's less for a 48 game season) or 6 games in two consecutive seasons. Smith has done neither, Smith for Calder!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 Yes, he would have to play a minimum 25 games (not sure if it's less for a 48 game season) or 6 games in two consecutive seasons. Smith has done neither, Smith for Calder!! The only way you'd consider whether the 25 games would need to be shorter because of a shorter regular season would be if last season was a short season. Since it wasn't, the 25 game rule applies and he only played 14. This year has nothing to do with it. Even if last year was a shortened season though, you would still use the 25 games as the limit, so it really doesn't matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,485 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 The only way you'd consider whether the 25 games would need to be shorter because of a shorter regular season would be if last season was a short season. Since it wasn't, the 25 game rule applies and he only played 14. This year has nothing to do with it. Even if last year was a shortened season though, you would still use the 25 games as the limit, so it really doesn't matter. Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by that my fault. I meant I'm not sure if it is 25 games for this 48 game season for any upcoming rookies that play. As long as smith plays at least 6 games (which he most likely play all 48 unless he gets injured) he will not be a rookie next year, and I know last season doesn't matter because he only played 14. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amato 3,210 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Euro_Twins" data-cid="2340694" data-time="1358367571"><p> <br /> Yes, he would have to play a minimum 25 games (not sure if it's less for a 48 game season) or 6 games in two consecutive seasons. Smith has done neither, Smith for Calder!!</p></blockquote> Smith for Calder sounds good to me! Haha thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted January 16, 2013 If we're just talking about last season, then maybe I can see it. But overall? Stuart was great for us. Colaiacovo misses about 90 games a season, and, when healthy, he wasn't exactly a top-4 fixture on the Blues' back-end.I'm expecting good things from him, don't get me wrong. I guess I'm looking more in Quincey's direction, re: filling Stuart's void. Actually, he played on St Louis' top pair with Pietrangelo last season in St Louis. The guy is a very good player when he can stay on the ice, as far as comparisons to Stewie, based on last season, as long as he isn't flat out dreadful, he'll be better. Overall we'll have to wait and see, but Stewie had checked out by midseason last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) I don't understand why people are ranking the Wings so low, just because of Lidstrom. I mean, I know he's great and all, but he's not the whole team. There are plenty of teams that won the Stanley Cup without Nick Lidstrom in their line up, we can too. We have more depth and speed up front. While other teams are cramming in as much training camp as they can before the season, Datsyuk is already in midseason form and Zetterberg and Brunner have been playing together, developing chemistry for the past few months over in Switzerland. IMO, Kronwall can be the next Scott Stevens. That hard hitting, stay-at-home defensive style with a big shot from the point every now and then. Colaiacovo is a very solid pick up for us. I think he's an improvement over Stuart. Plus, we have Brendan Smith, who is really motivated and excited to be playing in the NHL this year. People complain so often during the season that the Wings looked lazy or "unmotivated" out there. We have plenty of new blood in our lineup that should change that perception.I think the pessimists and the critics who have been predicting the Wings downfall for over a decade now are going to be surprised/disappointed. Just because of Lidström? Have you watched the team, when he was hurt it was a free downfall. Sure as great as he is, he wasn't the entire team but he ran our powerplay, Holmer deflacted shots and screened goalies,who is running our powerplay or deflacting shots now? Kronwall has huge steps to go to be mentioned in the same sentence as Stevens, not saying he is bad but for sure not a 1 defenseman. Colaiacovo - what a name - was a depth signing so Iexpect him to come in and contribute defensively. There is a difference between being a critic, realist or pessimist. After the Yzerman era we already had Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidström and later Hasek in place now we are down to Zetterberg, Datsyuk with a lot of question marks on the blueline, goaltending and defense so forgive me for being worried. Edited January 17, 2013 by frankgrimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaman 713 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 With Holland already in damage control mode about the Wings possibly not making the playoffs, I think 7-9 is the safest bet for the Wing's landing spot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilzyme 769 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 Just because of Lidström? Have you watched the team, when he was hurt it was a free downfall. Sure as great as he is, he wasn't the entire team but he ran our powerplay, Holmer deflacted shots and screened goalies,who is running our powerplay or deflacting shots now?Kronwall has huge steps to go to be mentioned in the same sentence as Stevens, not saying he is bad but for sure not a 1 defenseman. Colaiacovo - what a name - was a depth signing so Iexpect him to come in and contribute defensively. There is a difference between being a critic, realist or pessimist. After the Yzerman era we already had Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidström and later Hasek in place now we are down to Zetterberg, Datsyuk with a lot of question marks on the blueline, goaltending and defense so forgive me for being worried. I'm sorry but I absolutely HATE when people try to argue that the team will resemble anything of what it was when Lidstrom was injured. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between losing someone during the off-season and losing someone to an injury in the middle of the season. In the middle of the season you have to rely on your depth, and you have to rely on those pieces to magically pick up the system and play to their full potential. Not going to happen. When you lose someone during the off-season, you get to train people to take spots, pick up new roles, exercise and get them equated to the system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shoobiedoobin 138 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I'm sorry but I absolutely HATE when people try to argue that the team will resemble anything of what it was when Lidstrom was injured. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between losing someone during the off-season and losing someone to an injury in the middle of the season. In the middle of the season you have to rely on your depth, and you have to rely on those pieces to magically pick up the system and play to their full potential. Not going to happen. When you lose someone during the off-season, you get to train people to take spots, pick up new roles, exercise and get them equated to the system. Stop it with this silly rational thinking and sound logic. We need more panic! We need to assume Holland is in damage control mode and freaking out with doomsday predictions of no playoffs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
