• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

kickazz

Should any of #91, #13, #40, #30 be retired? Poll/Discussion

Rate this topic

Should any of #91, #13, #40, #30 be retired?  

130 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

On 4/1/2017 at 11:55 PM, kickazz said:

Well steering back to the topic though.

Zetterberg's jersey is going to be retired. Called it. And so did Kliq and a few others. Everyone who called it is a good prognosticator. Pat yourselves on the back....

Following my post about Montreal's retired numbers. It seem kind of rude. 

On 4/2/2017 at 10:48 AM, kickazz said:

Away from Montreal.

responding to Lefty's question about what was off topic.

11 hours ago, kickazz said:

Lol are people seriously not reading the reason for the thead bump.

Assumedly because we weren't talking about the right thing.

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

Where exactly did I say that we should only be talking about that? PVD don't tell me your sinking to the level of putting words in my mouth. That's pretty disappointing. 

Quote me.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part, but it seems like all these bolded parts are you saying that I and others aren't the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already explained the Montreal situation, read above; was in reference to the Montreal sarcasm in those 2-3 posts by people. I was engaged in the Roy point (even quoted you!) and talked about Fedorov a couple of times (quoted Rightwinger). Ya'll gotta relax. 

 

And the comment "Lol are people seriously not reading the reason for the thead bump." was a part of the following conversation. 

19 hours ago, puckbags said:

I say not a single one of them will go up. 

 

18 hours ago, kliq said:

 

Do you mean with the exception of Zetterberg? Because Holland literally said his is going up.

 

11 hours ago, kickazz said:

Lol are people seriously not reading the reason for the thead bump.

As you can see my comment was an add-on to Kliq's response to Puckbags.

Come on guys. I feel like Regina, having a convo with Bill Berzeench. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, kickazz said:

BTW when I was "steering" us back it wasn't directed at you or PVD. It was directed at someone who made the sarcastic comment about Montreal.

Okay, that clears it up. I hadn't seen this when I quoted you. You should understand why I thought you meant me, though. You're post was right after my long one on Montreal. I did seem the most likely target. I thought it was an interesting angle to question whether the Wings' standards are really different and I put some time that post. Then I thought it was like a version of saying "so, anyway..." Then I did quote you a page back and asked what was so off-topic about what I posted, but you didn't respond.

It did seem out of character and I should have private messaged you to clear it up. Anyway, it's all good with me. And sorry then with my wrong paraphase - It was just a misunderstanding. Bear hug?

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Okay, that clears it up. I hadn't seen this when I quoted you. You should understand why I thought you meant me, though. You're post was right after my long one on Montreal. I did seem the most likely target. I thought it was an interesting angle to question whether the Wings' standards are really different and I put some time that post. Then I thought it was like a version of saying "so, anyway..." Then I did quote you a page back and asked what was so off-topic about what I posted, but you didn't respond.

It did seem out of character and I should have private messaged you to clear it up. Anyway, it's all good with me. And sorry then with my wrong paraphase - It was just a misunderstanding. Bear hug?

Yeah I didn't respond because I didn't want to make it "a thing" but after some more posts I knew conflict resolution was imminent. 

Also yes on the bear hug, except I'm Tigger. 

 

57 minutes ago, kliq said:

Come on guys......no civil war needed. Who is going to rid the pool of bacteria if the lifeguards are going at it.

The only bacteria on this page right now is the guy in the pic below: I think he needs another dose of antibiotics, he's been acting up lately. Call in the poolside medic I say. 

 

209ec97133ax.jpg

 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*comes into thread and makes mom face*

You know who you are getting the mom face. You're lucky you made up on your own. Don't make me take you out to the pool and drown... I mean spank you goddammit. 

Lots of PMS (Playoff-Missing Syndrome) going around. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BottleOfSmoke said:

*comes into thread and makes mom face*

You know who you are getting the mom face. You're lucky you made up on your own. Don't make me take you out to the pool and drown... I mean spank you goddammit. 

Lots of PMS (Playoff-Missing Syndrome) going around. :lol:

We need you to keep us in check :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Okay, that clears it up. I hadn't seen this when I quoted you. You should understand why I thought you meant me, though. You're post was right after my long one on Montreal. I did seem the most likely target. I thought it was an interesting angle to question whether the Wings' standards are really different and I put some time that post. Then I thought it was like a version of saying "so, anyway..." Then I did quote you a page back and asked what was so off-topic about what I posted, but you didn't respond.

It did seem out of character and I should have private messaged you to clear it up. Anyway, it's all good with me. And sorry then with my wrong paraphase - It was just a misunderstanding. Bear hug?

Bears rule, kickazz drools 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fedorov for sure. The best player in hockey for a season, and one of the top 10 for many seasons.

Datsyuk for sure. Widely regarded by his peers around the league as the most talented two-way player and the most dangerous to play against.

Zetterberg yes. Captain of a Stanley Cup champion and a warrior for 15 years and counting.

Osgood no. Never close to the best goalie in the league. Two Cups is nothing to sneeze at but he wasn't the main reason either Cup was won.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paulwoodsfan said:

Fedorov for sure. The best player in hockey for a season, and one of the top 10 for many seasons.

Datsyuk for sure. Widely regarded by his peers around the league as the most talented two-way player and the most dangerous to play against.

Zetterberg yes. Captain of a Stanley Cup champion and a warrior for 15 years and counting.

Osgood no. Never close to the best goalie in the league. Two Cups is nothing to sneeze at but he wasn't the main reason either Cup was won.

 

Zetterberg was never Captain of a Cup champion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Zetterberg keeps going like this, where it really feels like he's giving it all to put the team on his back, I'd say he would deserve it. Datsyuk is probably my favorite player of all time, but I think he would've had to have stuck around a bit longer for a jersey retirement. As it is there's just a funny taste from his leaving prematurely, even if I personally am not that upset about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Zetterberg was never Captain of a Cup champion. 

 

1 hour ago, kliq said:

I'm guessing he was thinking "led the '08 team" due to his Conn Smythe.

Well assistant captain technically speaking. Him and Datsyuk/Draper. They were all part of the leadership group. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

...so using your logic Fedorov captained a team to a Cup victory. That's awesome, yet another reason his number must go up!

I didn't come up with any logic. I pointed out that Z was assistant. You could say that both Z and Fedorov were both part of the leadership core in the stanley cup victories. Unfortunately for Feds though he was stripped of his title. That's not a good thing. Bringing up how Feds was an "A" doesn't work in his favor. He got stripped of that title. The things to focus on would be stuff like his accomplishments and franchise records with the team. I did some of that stuff in the initial pages of this thread in the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I didn't come up with any logic. I pointed out that Z was assistant. You could say that both Z and Fedorov were both part of the leadership core in the stanley cup victories. Unfortunately for Feds though he was stripped of his title. That's not a good thing. Bringing up how Feds was an "A" doesn't work in his favor. He got stripped of that title. The things to focus on would be stuff like his accomplishments and franchise records with the team. I did some of that stuff in the initial pages of this thread in the summer.

Ur just butthurt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now