Everyone is getting all worked up but it is true. Does anyone here actually not think Ozzie is done? And he really did outplay Howard in Grand Rapids. Maybe he shouldn't have said it but what he said is true
Larsson was hot for his first 20 games or so in the AHL. Then he cooled off and never got back to that level in the next season and a half. Howard had better stats for the year (except W/L record) and started for GR in the playoffs.
Ozzie has been solid in 5 of 6 starts this year. He was good at the start of last year with a couple exceptions. Even after Howard took the starting job, Ozzie wasn't as bad as most think.
... The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.
There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.
Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.
My point was that it doesn't matter.
Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one.
Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 200th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.
I have no idea where you get that idea from. If we trade him for someone his cap goes off the books whether it is today or at the deadline. ...
The cap is calculated on a day by day basis. There's 96 days until the trade deadline. Hudler's daily hit is $15,457. That's $1,483,872 in cap space we could bank for later use. Assuming no other roster changes, that money plus the $618,280 for the last 40 days after the deadline would be worth the equivalent of $9.775M in yearly salary. More than three times the space we would have if we waited.
Statistic's tend to sharpen with the amount of information gone in, using a hockey season is a lot different than judging hundred's of thousands of people. I probably should have used "practically" instead of "literally", that's my fault on the word usage concerning third world countries. But the amount of corrupt behavior I've seen in the active government, the lack of law-enforcement, the lack of basic modern human needs in the area just left me with very few comparisons. The homeless/crime etc. rate are worse in Detroit than those other cities, and there ARE less people, which makes it that much more depressing. It's not a matter of too many people for shelter, it's a matter of basic human survival needs for an area with room too support a large number of people, it's just been a complete mismanagement of local government.
I'm not making light of a third world control as I'm focusing the light on the real problems of the city, and to say I'm trolling about a situation that I care so much about is offensive.
I applaud my friends for their efforts, but I almost feel it's wasted energy when the real matters of the city lie in the government and schools. Sure having a nice downtown is great, but I almost see the problem spreading outwards from the city. Lincoln Park, and Dearborn for example have become even more dangerous the last 10-15 years, it's not just Detroit, it's spreading to surrounding border area's. Warrendale for example has been completely trashed, I went to a Catholic school right off Warren, and it's now just a complete disaster area. I just feel the pockets of perfection have no impact on the roots of the problems, I suppose it doesn't hurt, but to act like it's a gigantic leap and a huge victory for the city is sad and hurting the city more than it's helping it.
To think that Detroit isn't as bad as it's made out to be because you can walk a couple blocks in the downtown to me is besides the point, and almost masks the major problems within the city. That's all I mean by that, I'm sincerely not trying to be offensive, but basing this on my experiences and observations from growing up in the city. I'm not being a hater, I'm being realistic, and doing what I feel needs to be done so the area can become what it once was.
Highlighting the positives is a lot less damaging than those who act like stepping across 8 mile is akin to storming the beaches of Normandy.
Statistically speaking, there are far more safe areas in the city than there are dangerous ones. And even in the most dangerous areas, it is statistically unlikely that you'd be victimized, assuming you take the same simple precautions you'd take in any public place, and assuming you're not engaged in any shadiness yourself. In 2008, there were about 20,000 violent crimes reported, and about 60,000 property crimes. 900,000+ live in the city and who knows how many of the 5 million+ from the greater metro area visit or work there every day. Statistically, the danger is similar to driving a car.
I know several people who are afraid to go to the city, even in the day time. People who wouldn't even consider something like a hockey game at night. Accentuating the negative aspects of the city only serves to foster the stigma of fear attached to the city, and keep away the people and money that could help improve the area. Bad politicians are a problem, sure. But even the best politicians couldn't help anything if people are too afraid to visit.
The root cause of Detroit's problem is poverty, same as pretty much every 'bad' place on the planet. We need people with money to invest in the area. We need those people to not be afraid of making the investment. For that we need the regular people to not be afraid of visiting or relocating downtown. We need people to realize that while it may be relatively dangerous compared to some suburban areas, it isn't all that bad, and with more people and more money infused into the area it will improve. There's evidence of that in Foxtown, several riverfront communities, the new condos and townhomes along Woodward...and most of that happened under the reign of one of the worst mayors/city councils Detroit has ever had.
We don't need people visting the projects or sight-seeing around abandoned buildings or touring vacant lots and parks at night. Unless you're looking for crack or a $5 BJ there isn't any reason to anyway. So the worst areas are largely irrelevent. We want people coming to the best areas, the safest areas. The more people that visit and spend money in those areas, the more those areas expand and as a matter of consequence the worst areas shrink and are driven farther away.
Sorry for getting so political, and yeah, this thread should probably be moved now.
Are we really going to have one of these threads for every penalized hit this season?
Just to save time, here's the Reader's Digest quotable quotes:
"End of hockey as we know it"
"Blindside headshot, what's the problem?"
"Clean hit, should have kept his head up"
"Clear elbow, 2 games"
"Soandso is dirty"
"Players today have no respect"
"Get rid of the instigator rule, problem solved"
There, that pretty much sums up the 200 threads we'll have on this subject throughout the season.
It's a new rule, there's going to be a period of adjustment for the refs, the players, and the fans. Deal with it.
No offense, but that's stupid. Relying far too much on goalie chemistry for that third line. I know Ozzie is tied for third all-time in goals by a goalie, but he can't carry a line by himself. Swap Stuart and Howie, and McCollum needs top-line minutes in GR to develop. Salei is a stud, no idea why you left him out. And why on earth would you have a dinosaur like Homer starting in goal when we have Miller? Do you not know who Miller's brother is?
...As for the Hjalmarsson hit. It was called boarding on the ice. If it was a hit from behind, why wasn't checking from behind called? I don't know how you can hit someone from behind with your feet in front of the player while playing the puck at the same time. Pominville looked at him coming twice(TWSS). But he didn't brace for the hit at all which caused his dome to bounce off the glass. Which btw, is seamless and I'm sure didn't help... And he clearly didn't charge or leave his feet or elbow him. There is no way in hell this was a dirty hit, btw. Not af****** chance. No malice whatsoever. It is quite obvious that Hjalmarsson is not a dirty player, with no previous notorious behavior. I don't see how it is anything but a knee jerk reaction. I'm not trying to sound biased(I know I though) but it honestly just doesn't look like a hit that is worthy of a 2 game suspension. ...
His upper arm was squarely between Pominville's numbers. Pominville wasn't wearing his jersey backwards, so that is a hit from behind. It wasn't called checking from behind because it was called a boarding major. Checking from behind is rarely called in the NHL, since it is normally superseded by a boarding call. I'm not sure why you seem to think boarding can't happen on a hit from behind. Checking from behind and a boarding major both have the same on ice penalties, and both are subject to suplementary discipline. Both are among the most serious penalties. This hit could have been called either way, not that it makes any difference. Boarding is still a dirty hit worthy of suspension.
And just because Pominville saw Hjalmarsson coming (assuming he actually noticed him) doesn't mean he knew the hit was coming. Perhaps the reason he didn't brace himself is because Hjalmarsson was coming from behind him, and he knew he shouldn't have been in danger of being hit like that. 'He should have protected himself' is not an excuse for a cheapshot.
It was a dirty hit. That's why everyone outside Chicago has been calling it a dirty hit. That's why he was suspended.
There is no fantastic irony. My argument was and is for shared blame. Guess you shouldn't have intruded.
Janik plays a little defense and the game does not end up tied.
Your initial response called out only Janik. Exactly the same thing as Doc calling out only Howard. That's irony.
That you chose to infer something from Doc's post but not apply the same standard to your reply does not make them different. Your reply wasn't an accurate representation of your full opinion on the subject. Why then assume that Doc's post was of his, and even insist that it was despite Doc's later clarification?
...The facts are simple: you posted about how Howard was solely at fault, ...
Normally I wouldn't intrude on a nice argument, but I just had to post my appreciation of the fantastic irony of your complaint when your initial response to him was to do the exact same thing, just calling out a different player. Bravo.
i want to respond to this in hopefully a thoughtful and respectful way. let me first say, i am not as far out as many of the people that were sick of maltby. however, i was against the signing this summer. also, i definitely do not advocate any bashing of lidstrom because he is still very important to the team. if anything, i think any negative comments were over the summer wishing he had taken a bigger pay cut.
to me, the reason many people get upset when these guys keep hanging on is because it is not for the good of the team. had maltby stuck around this year it would have meant losing another player. while someone like drew miller might not be the key to stanley cup success, he has more long term and short term upside than maltby.
the problem is that the wings organization will be loyal. so if players aren't willing to accept their best days are behind them, then they linger on for longer than they need to. when this happens, many fans can turn against the player. chelios lingered, maltby lingered, and draper is getting pretty darned close.
i am appreciative of what kirk maltby has done to help the wings over the last 15 years. it doesn't mean i had to be happy over his contract this summer. to say anyone who disagreed with your opinion is a moron is just silly and juvenile.
with all that said, i wish maltby a happy retirement. there ended up being no negative impact to the signing, so no ill will on my part going forward. (not that maltby or anyone cares about my ill will!)
Sorry, but anyone coming into a retirement thread to bash the retiree is a moron. Regardless of your opinion of the player, now or in the past, this isn't the right place to express it. Maltby played a significant role in establishing the standard of excellence to which so many Wings fans now feel entitled. We should all repect the man enough to wish him well now, or at the least, not say anything bad about him in his retirement thread.
I don't really want to make this any more political, and for the most part I agree that the NHL shouldn't be suspending people for gestures, but in this case I wouldn't mind.
If I were to make a similar gesture at my work, I'd be fired on the spot. The same is probably true for anyone who works in an even semi-professional atmosphere. He'd for sure be suspended if he called someone a ****** or made any other racist remark, and this is really no different. I understand it was a joke but it's also hateful at its core. Consider that the city of New York just recently saw three men tortured and beaten for essentially the same homophobic sentiment. Pretty sad that in this day insinuating that someone is *** is still considered an insult.
I guess I'd still say the NHL shouldn't suspend him, but the Islanders should.
[Case in point. The N-word is apparently considered so offensive it has to be auto-censored on an internet forum. But you all think ***-bashing is appropriate for live TV.]