Buppy

i saw a good post in a gdt thread on this topic the other day, and it was replying to pierre whining about this issue. pierre said its a stupid rule because no one ever intentionally clears it over the glass anymore and the post replied that the reason no one intentionally does it now is because of the rule.

 

im not crazy about the penalty myself, but the constant whining about how its just an accident when it happens is total b.s. most penalties are accidents. when do you see someone purposely high stick someone in the face for a 4 minute penalty? its always a missed stick lift or something that causes a high stick;an accident. same with slashing. like a player goes in and says to himself 'im going to break this guys stick in half and take a penalty'... once again, the player is attempting a clean play and through bad luck, a penalty occurs.

 

most penalties are accidental. players dont go around trying to put their team shorthanded. these rules are there to keep players responsible for their actions on the ice. just as its the players responsibility to keep his elbows down when hitting, just as its a players responsibility to keep his stick down, its also a players responsibility not to clear the puck out of play. is that too much to ask?

True, "it was an accident" isn't a good argument against a penalty, but that doesn't make it a good rule. Not every rule violation has to be a penalty. Imagine if they made icing a penalty, or a hand-pass, or offsides, or shooting the puck out of play in the offensive zone...

Back when this used to only apply to the goalie, I don't recall any notable issues with players flipping the puck out of play all the time. Nor do there seem to be any problems in leagues that don't have this rule. This rule needs to go.

Id like to see our number of playoff games and playoff series won and lost during those 22 years.

90-91 Lost 3-4, St.Louis

91-92 Beat Minnesota 4-3, lost to Chicago 0-4

92-93 Lost 3-4, Toronto

93-94 Lost 3-4, San Jose

94-95 Beat Dallas 4-1, San Jose 4-0, Chicago 4-1, Lost to New Jersey, 0-4

95-96 Beat Winnepeg 4-2, St.Louis 4-3, Lost to Colorado 2-4

96-97 Beat St.Louis 4-2, Anaheim 4-0, Colorado 4-2, Philadelphia 4-0

97-98 Beat Phoenix 4-2, St.Louis 4-2, Dallas 4-2, Washington 4-0

98-99 Beat Anaheim 4-0, Lost to Colorado, 2-4

99-00 Beat Los Angeles 4-0, Lost to Colorado, 1-4

00-01 Lost to Los Angeles, 2-4

01-02 Beat Vancouver 4-2, St.Louis 4-1, Colorado 4-3, Carolina 4-1

02-03 Lost to Anaheim, 0-4

03-04 Beat Nashville 4-2, Lost to Calgary, 2-4

05-06 Lost to Edmonton, 2-4

06-07 Beat Calgary 4-2, San Jose 4-2, Lost to Anaheim, 2-4

07-08 Beat Nashville 4-2, Colorado 4-0, Dallas 4-2, Pittsburgh 4-2

08-09 Beat Columbus 4-0, Anaheim 4-3, Chicago 4-1, Lost to Pittsburgh 3-4

09-10 Beat Phoenix 4-3, Lost to San Jose 1-4

10-11 Beat Phoenix 4-0, Lost to San Jose 3-4

11-12 Lost to Nashville 1-4

12-13 Beat Anaheim 4-3, ...

 

Not true. They nearly produce nothin during the Anaheim series. Never enough altough they had to neutralize Getzlaf and Perry. They scored only on the PP. But what happened in Game 7 when Babcock separated them? Pav played much better because he need two grinders who win the board battles for him. Z-line scored twice.

For the record, it was Franzen-Filppula-Cleary that was matched up against Getzlaf and Perry for the majority of that series. Pav and Hank were together in Game 6, which was arguably their best game. They were also separated for the majority of Game 1 against Chicago.

The lines can work either way, or they can fail either way.

 

Amen!

 

That season, not only was Holland debating which one to keep, he also was holding $3.5M aside for Hudler to decide what he wanted to do.  OF course we all know Hudler turned down the $3.5M offer and ran off to Russia only to get awarded a lessor contract of $2.8M.  We also lost Sammy to Vancouver for $2.5M per season. Then they had to sign Bertuzzi and J. Willy later that summer to try to make up for losing both Hossa and Hudler.  Bertuzzi an Williams both signed for $1.5M for one season so technically they could have signed Franzen for his $3.9M cap hit and instead of holding out $3.5M for Hudler and giving Bertuzzi and Williams $1.5M, they could have had Hossa for his $5.2M hit...

 

So, Franzen and Hossa would have cost $10.1M combined...

 

Hudler (offer) Franzen. Betuzzi, Williams cost us $10.4 and probably another Cup.

 

The only thing I am not sure of is whether or not Bert and Willy were signed using Hudler's money after he bolted or not...if that were the case then no, we could not have had both Franzen and Hossa. We just didn't have the Cap space...I know Holland always wanted Bertuzzi back so I think he was going to sign him anyway.  But looking back in the archives at capgeek, the Wings had $0 available in cap space that year so, I do think that Bert and Willy were signed using Hudler's offer.

 

Too bad too, could you imagine this team with BOTH Hossa and Franzen still on it? As a matter of fact, that year the Wings finished with 112 points they were 3rd overall in points and Franzen had a career year with 34 goals among 59 points and Hossa had 40 goals among 71 points. Would have been great to keep both! Damn you Uncle Gary!!!!

 

Of course if a couple of other happened, Maltby retired early, we didn't sign Brad May, maybe, just maybe it could have happened...the World May Never Know©!

You should be sure, seeing as you've been told several times. We were over the cap for the entire 2009-10 season, using the LTIR excemption. Fitting even the extra $1.3 for Hossa instead of Franzen would have been difficult. Keeping both would have required something like not signing Bert or Willy and somehow losing Cleary and Draper. Then you could afford Hossa and fill the remaining spots with players near league minimum. Plus then we'd have three potential problem contracts in later years.

 

Oh, I agree and that would be in my perfect plan as well! But my response was to his complaining about me trading players and not keeping our team together PLUS re-signing Val...there just isn't enough money to give Val $5M, re-sign all the kids AND improve this team's scoring...

 

People can be delusional, they want to improve this team but they do not want to make changes in order to do so.  Go ahead Z and D, give Val $5M, give all your kids raises and then try to improve this team to turn it into a Stanley Cup contender, I will even give you the $5.00 you earned from me as a start.

 

edit: Problem is, you have to ask yourself (not you personally Axe) do you want to same team moving forward in the East or do you want a better team? Same team gets you nowhere.  A better team involves trades, buyouts and demotions.  You trade Franzen and Filppula, buyout Sammy and Bert, bury Coliaicovo in GR.  They only way you are going to get a #1 scorer is via trade, unless you can nab someone off the buyout list. If that happens then you wouldn't have to trade both Franz and Fil. But people want assets without giving up assets. The 90's are over, you cannot just sign players every year and keep all your favorites on the team.  You want this team better, you need to make sacrifices...and giving Val $5M does NOT make this better, it makes it worse because now you are giving Brunner at least $3M and leaves you $3M to re-sign Kindl, Nyquist, Smith, Andersson AND a scorer...Please Z and D, let me know how you manage that and I will stop requesting to trade Franz and Fil.

That's not really accurate. You're trying to pay for 15 forwards, 8 defensemen, and 3 goalies. Obviously, if we want to keep all the players you mention, and add someone new, some other guys have to go. Depending on how we make the roster room, it could clear enough cap space to pay Flip and add someone, potentially someone in the $3-6M range. Furthermore, "moving forward" is more than just next summer. Even if we can't add anyone for next season, we may still be better off holding onto Flip and trying to improve the following year.

Of course, upgrading Flip is an option we should look in to, but keeping him should be too.