Jump to content


sibiriak's Photo

sibiriak

Member Since 07 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 02:12 PM
-----

#2302514 The truth of our decline.

Posted by sibiriak on 21 May 2012 - 08:23 PM

Correct. The US and canada could have multiple international teas if all their top players showed up-hell Canada could have 3 or 4. But most don't go play. Most are looking forward to the time off and take it. The Olympics are the main international comp., and the top player show for it. Which is why the US and Canada win the gold and silver.

Correction, US and Canada won gold and silver only twice since 1998, and coincidentally, when the Olympics were held in North America. In Nagano and Turin Czech Republic and Sweden won gold, and Russia and Finland - silver. So Canada won some and Europeans won some. There's no clear advantage either way, and the sample size is too small anyway. As to the fact that Canada is deep, so what. There still are only 6 players on the ice at a time. In Turin, all that depth didn't help, did it? And if you actually look at Canada rosters at the Worlds, at least in the last 7-8 years, those are some pretty impressive rosters.

Are you kidding?

No. Do you even know who did play for Canada and the US this year?


#2302510 The truth of our decline.

Posted by sibiriak on 21 May 2012 - 08:09 PM

I'm just saying better teams are more likely to lose games with less scoring and bigger goalie equipment internationally or in the NHL.
Anybody paying in the AHL regardless of NHL experience weren't deemed good enough to make their respective teams
The best veteran North Americans don't participate in the tournament

"Better" teams lost, so they were not "better". And they didn't lose 1-0. USA lost to Slovakia 2-4, and to Finland 2-3,
Canada lost to Slovakia 3-4. Goaltender equipment was the same as in NHL.
What "best veteran North Americans" didn't play that could have strengthened their teams? (Apart from the ones busy in the Stanley Cup playoffs or injured.) Remember, Steve Yzerman was the GM of this team Canada, surely the players must realize that this may have been their last chance to audition for Sochi-2014? On paper, Canada and USA were "better" than Slovakia, Finland, or even Russia. Unfortunately for them, ice is more slippery than paper.


#2302446 2012 World Ice Hockey Championships

Posted by sibiriak on 21 May 2012 - 02:20 PM

More than half the players he played against were not good enough for the NHL

Uh, so that must be the reason why the all-NHL US and Canadian squads went home after the quarterfinals? Where the poor dears too bored to play against such inferior competition? :P

The champion, team Russia, only had 8 NHL players on its 25 men roster. And not all of them were named Alexander or Evgeni :)


#2299464 Kuznetsov Chooses Russia

Posted by sibiriak on 05 May 2012 - 01:03 PM

Dude your crazy. I had a Fedorov jersey before i had an Yzerman jersey. I love love loved the Russian five and love Datsyuk. Of course Fedorov got some hate...he was a beloved wing and he left us for the Ducks...and of course Pavel got criticism as a young player....unless your Yzerman everyone does, Pavel proved himself though, just like Filppula is now. This has absolutely nothing do with someone being a Russian...It has everything to do with the KHL and players they've ruined like Radulov.

I didn't say that every single fan here hates Fedorov. But you can't deny that a lot, probably a significant majority, do. It does take several thousand fans to boo someone and be heard.
The immediate reasons for hate vary, dependent on a player we are talking about, but there seems to be an underlying jealousy/hate toward KHL and Russian players, who do constitute a large majority of its players.
As to whether KHL ruins players, the sample size is too small. There haven't been many players who played in KHL and then in the NHL. In fact, I suspect that your sample consists of Hudler and Radulov only. And Radulov has played too few games after his return, to judge. After all he had the most points of all players on both teams in the Nashville series, if he was ruined by the KHL, then who ruined the rest of the players in that series?
And if you are referring to his discipline problems, it's not like he was a choir boy here before he left Nashville for the KHL. One might argue that it's the NHL that is turning its players into spoiled primadonnas. In fact, that is precisely the argument that's made on the Russian fan sites. And they have much larger sample size to base their conclusions on.


#2299463 Kuznetsov Chooses Russia

Posted by sibiriak on 05 May 2012 - 12:51 PM

Exaggerate much?

The issue with Fedorov stems from his 2003 antics when he left for the Ducks and put the Wings in a spot who tried negotiating with him and didn't sign anyone else when they should have. Has nothing to do with him being Russian. Most fans let go the fact that Fedorov had contract issues before, combined with a knack for putting forth very little effort once winning his first two Stanley Cups.

Pavel was criticized at one point for not producing enough in the playoffs, which he fixed, had nothing to do with the contract.

The players that were most bashed here on this forum are named Lilja, Filppula, Lang, and Osgood, and last I checked Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, and Canada aren't Russia.


Man, you have been a member here longer than I have, but you seem to have a short memory. Pavel was bashed herer prior to signing his long term (and as it turned out bargain basement cheap) deal, precisely for the terms of that contract. The prevailing opinion was that he wasn't (as all Russians) a playoff performer and wasn't worth the money. I don't want to spend my time searching for those old threads, but if you wish, you can look it up and see if I'm right.

Fedorov was bashed before he left for not being consistent, being a primadonna etc., and after he left, well you know about that one.

Yes there were other players who were bashed here for various reasons, and some were bashed more than others. My point is that (especially after the start of the KHL) there seem to be extra hate for any Russian player who (blasphemy) doesn't drop all he's doing and rush to North America to play for (relative) peanuts, on a two-way rookie capped contract. Or for any European player who goes to KHL instead of here. Am I all that wrong?


#2299363 Kuznetsov Chooses Russia

Posted by sibiriak on 04 May 2012 - 07:15 PM

Imaginary Russian-persecution on a Red Wings board is pretty comical. :lol: No other team in the league has had more reasons to love Russia than Detroit has over the last 20 years.

Oh, yeah. I remember all the "love" Pavel has gotten on this forum prior to signing his long-term contract.
Also, you wanna see love for Russians, just try praising Fedorov. Yeah, the one who was booed every time he touched the puck.
It seems that a Russian Red Wings (and even more so every other teams') player has to be perfect in all ways to not get bashed here.
If Datsyuk wasn't far and away the best Red Wing this season, his name would have been dirt here, too.

P.S. If I missed sarcasm in your post, sorry for the rant, but if you were serious...


#2299027 Kuznetsov Chooses Russia

Posted by sibiriak on 03 May 2012 - 07:49 PM

Listening to you guys hate on Kuznetsovm makes me wonder if you heard that the Cold War was over? I don't have any inside info but here's few reasons he might want to stay home for a couple more seasons:
He's 20, he doesn't yet have the muscle mass to withstand the NHL seson, and NHL hitting.
He had a shoulder surgery recently, so it would make sense to bulk up to avoid re-injury.
He got married just about 9 months ago, could a grandma availability be soon necessary?

Guys, this game is supposed to give us joy, not promote bile accumulation. Why so negative?


#2211920 NHL will Look into Fighting: Shanahan

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2011 - 02:42 PM

Entertainment: fans want to see fights. it's one of the things that hockey has that no other sport has (besides boxing/UFC). it makes hockey unique and it often intensifies rivalries and puts fans in seats.
Traditional: getting rid of fighting in hockey is like making american football 2 hand touch
Protection: turtling rarely happens, and when it does it's seen as quite shameful. at least in pre-lockout hockey you usually had to answer for dirty plays one way or another. heavyweight bouts are more of a sideshow, but do bring in fans and thus money. a win in a fight often boosts the energy and attitude of a team as well, occasionally changing the course of a game.

heavy suspensions for fighting is bad because it would change many dynamics of the game. i believe refs should return to their pre-lockout attitude of allowing enforcers to make dirty players "pay" thus curtailing many dirty plays.

fighting is very much a sideshow but also very functional

I'm trying to recall an instance where someone got beat up by an enforcer for something he did in the game, and I draw a blank. Could you give me an example?
But I remember quite well Cooke and Tootoo antics, and how they never concede to fight anyone bigger then them.
So I'm not convinced that fighting deters anything.
It does please many fans, but as for being functional...


#2211900 NHL will Look into Fighting: Shanahan

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2011 - 02:11 PM

For a guy who didn't grow up in North America, would someone please explain a few things about hockey fighting to me?
I don't have any objection against fighting in hockey, but except for being entertaining and traditional, I don't see any useful function for it.
The way I see it, a cheap shot artist (like Cooke, Casparaitis) can always avoid being beat up by turtling (and does if the odds are unfavorable). So as a deterrent, I don't see fighting working.
Or if an agitator A(very) does something bad, and as a result heavyweight from the other team challenges an enforcer from A(very)'s team, then how is A(very) punished? He is not the one with the black eye.
Or if the two heavyweights line up for a faceoff and drop'em right away, what's that but a sideshow?
I understand when a spontaneous fight, especially by a scorer/team leader who doesn't normally fight, can change the momentum of the game, but that situation does not arise often, and the existing rules can deal with such adequately.

So my question is, what do we want fighting in hockey for, and why would heavy suspensions for fighting be bad?


#2207387 Will Ericsson Earn His Raise?

Posted by sibiriak on 13 September 2011 - 01:23 PM

By year three of your above scenario, he will have been on the ice for us for seven total years. Four thus far (2 of those split with GR) and three additional. So year five (this year), we are happy with "He sucks, trade/waive/exile him"? I don't know, we might be more like "Kenny, any reason you gave proven bottom pair defensman 3 Mil per year after watching him play for the Wings for four years??!!"
I honestly think if he were 3-4 inches shorter he'd be in a much lower pay range.

Ericsson has played 4 years in North America. Year 5 hasn't started yet. In that span he played 2 more or less full seasons in the NHL. He was drafted 291st (LAST overall) and he was a forward then. His last season stats: 74GP 3G 12A 15Pts 8+/- 87PIM 89SOG Not bad for a 3rd pair D.
Do you know what Pronger's (2nd overall pick) 3rd NHL season stats were? 78GP 7G 18A 25Pts -18+/- 110PIM 138SOG
So it took Pronger - a surefire top pick - more than 3 years to learn to be an NHL defenseman. (And that would have been his 7th year playing pro or quasipro hockey in North America, counting juniors.)
So cut Ericsson some slack. You can't teach size, but it appears that Detroit's management believe they can teach Ericsson everything else he needs to know, and fairly quickly.


#2092223 WJC Gold Medal game

Posted by sibiriak on 06 January 2011 - 11:15 PM

You honestly think over the last few years it is arrogant of a Canadian to say we should probably win this world junior?

Last 7 years 5 gold, 1 silver where they lost by a goal and 1 silver where they lost by 2 goals. That isn't arrogance that is probability. Why is this so hard to understand for some people. How can you not say looking at those stats that Canada should win the tournament and are favourites to win? Am I missing something here?

Again, Canadians have all the reasons in the world to THINK that they'll win. But what comes across as arrogant, is SAYING so ALOUD before the tournament even starts. Or even worse saying so after having lost
Basic Sportsmanship 101: Be humble, do not toot your own horn, do not brag BEFORE the game, just humbly accept praise AFTER you've actually won.

And yes, I was slightly embarassed by all the goings on after the Russian win. But they are still kids and they did just pulled a miracle. So they get a pass from me for that.


#2092216 WJC Gold Medal game

Posted by sibiriak on 06 January 2011 - 11:03 PM

Finally an American who doesn't just say youre arrogant and has an argument.

While these are good points, Russia sent professionals to every olympics while no other country could until 1998 in Nagano. Since Nagano Canada has 50% of the gold medals.

For the worlds, russia has the KHL where some great players play and can all be sent. Canada's best forward usually sent to the worlds is Shane Doan and usually another player of around that calibre. Russia sends most of their best players to that tourney.

With a level playing field in the juniors (not even that fair) and olympics, Canada has the edge in my mind by quite a bit

Really, no one outside Canada really cares how the Canadian team is selected. Whatever the excuses, the team in the OG or WC is the best team Canada managed to assemble at that time. So when they win, credit goes to them, and when they lose, credit goes to the winners.
If hockey actually is a religion in Canada, then I don't understand why the NHL stops for Christmas and not for the WC or WJC . :P


#2092214 WJC Gold Medal game

Posted by sibiriak on 06 January 2011 - 10:56 PM

No its not that we should clearly win every tournament. But what I dont get is why Canadians are considered arrogant for thinking they should win most hockey tournaments they enter. Look at the stats.

Its been said in this thread, look at all the wins Canada has compared to other countries, they won 5 world juniors in a row and then Canadians get called arrogant for expected to win the tournament.

If the states won 5 in a row you guys wouldn't go into the next tournament expecting to win? The states won last year and most Americans thought they had this tourney pretty well in the bag.

I have never said canada should win every tournament because we own the sport or anything like that. But I do expect them to finish well and anything that is less then gold is a disappointment because of their track ercord in these tourneys.

Canadians should not be called arrogant for expecting to win gold every tournament or at least medal. Canadians expect it because they usually do in fact medal.

This is why I dont get the whole Canadians are arrogant thing, what is arrogant about expecting to win because you usually do?

Its just annoying constantly hearing oh those arrogant Canadians and frustrating when they usually do. Leading into Vancouver Canadians thought we were gonna win and were called arrogant for thinking that, but then we won. So is it arrogant or just maybe Canadian teams do in fact do pretty well most tourneys

I just couldn't resist. I'd never have thought that I would need to explain to a Canadian (them being known as humble polite self-effacing chaps, usually) that saying "we should win this tourney" IS arrogant, while saying "we think we have a good chance to win this tourney" is polite and doesn't raise everyone elses' hackles.
It's not arrogant to believe that you'll win.
It IS arrogant to say that publically before the fact. /end etiquet lesson :P


#2025228 NHL testing new rules and rink modifications

Posted by sibiriak on 11 August 2010 - 04:48 PM

It would really depend on how they did it I guess (and your perspective), since the blue line is considered part of whichever zone the puck is in and the entire puck has to completely cross it to enter/exit a zone.

If they keep the blue line starting at the same point in the neutral zone and made it wider only toward the net (if that makes sense), then the offensive zone would be smaller when you're outside of it, but it would be the same size it is right now when you're in it.

If the keep the blue lines starting at the same point closest to the nets and expanded it only toward center ice, the offensive zone would be bigger while you're in it.

And if they keep the middle of the blue lines in the same place and add a little bit more each way, then each zone is bigger when you're in it and smaller from an outside perspective.

Just paint the whole neutral ice blue and be done with it. :ph34r:


#2019437 NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract

Posted by sibiriak on 26 July 2010 - 02:29 PM

Stamkos, Gaborik

Stamkos had 1 good year and is playing on a rookie contract. Gaborik has a rep as "fragile" (avg 64 games/season) and still makes 7.5 mil./yr. Neither is a good comparison, salary-wise.