Due to the bump, I read some of the earlier comments in this thread, specifically with the issues around Pronger being eligible for the HHOF even though he isn't "technically" retired.
To be clear, retirement is not part of the eligibility criteria. The actual requirement is as follows: "Must not have played a game in a professional or international hockey game during any of the three (3) playing seasons prior to his or her election."
I guess I'm in the minority, but I'd prefer to see consistent performance before handing out a huge contract like this. Very good chance the contract ends up being a bargain for the Blues, but I still scratch my head a bit.
Kipwinger...you're wrong about Crosby's impact on Kunitz. If you check the numbers, his goal scoring is 33% higher with Crosby than it is without. If that isn't significant, I'm not sure what is. Anything over 10% i'd consider significant. Dupuis is 28% better with Crosby than without (points wise it's 45%)
Personally I don't think it makes sense to look at the regular season and judge whether it was a success or a failure. If it makes sense to do so, it probably means the team isn't very good at all (one that would be very happy just to make the playoffs = success).
Here's how I'd judge the season after it is finished:
Success - make it past 1st round
Neither - lose in 1st round
Failure - miss playoffs
So far though, they look to be exceeding expectations and well positioned to have a successful season. We'll see if the regular season results are indicative of how good the team really is.
I have absolutely no problem with any of it. Restricting ticket sales to local area is nothing new and it makes total sense. If you can sell all your tickets to locals, more power to you, why would you want it open to anyone.
In terms of the logo issue, it's not like they are banning other logos from the building, only an exclusive club within the building....again, that just makes sense and if you don't like it, it really is the proprietor's decision, there would be no grounds to call discrimination, etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure a corner store owner can choose not to sell to someone for any reason they want (not that this is the same scenario)
Rooting for the Pens tonight is not mandatory. While it may be the best course of action in terms of securing the playoffs for the Wings....there's a chance that the Pens could be on the outside looking in if they get overtaken by Ottawa. So....interesting dilemma in cheering decisions.
Goalie's being able to use a broken stick makes "some sense", but it is still dangerous, so I'm not sure why they are allowed until stoppage in play. I guess the rationale is as follows:
They aren't allowed to go to the bench to get a new stick like other players (this doesn't address the safety concern though + why not let them go to the bench....if they want to take the risk and leave their net....their problem)
There is much less risk with the goalie using a broken stick than other players, this is clearly true, but still, there is a risk so why not have the same rule for everyone?
Well, one thing is for sure....he hasn't been clutch in the playoffs in 5 years. For me, he's just easy to complain about. It's very frustrating that he's been out of the line up a lot and a lot of players take heat for that too, but I just don't like the way he plays, dives, etc. Because of that, I'd start complaining about him for something I wouldn't complain about Datsyuk or Zetterberg for. Yes, it's a double-standard, but simple human nature.
The top 6 teams in the East are all over 80 points and only 3 teams in the West are at that level. Is this mostly due to more high end and low end teams in East vs. more parity in the West?
For what it's worth, East vs. West games have been almost a dead heat....with the West having a very slightly better win percentage (175-130-42 for East vs. West and 181-140-35 for West vs. East).
Maybe it's just me....but I haven't really noticed any big and scary, consistently dominating West teams yet this year. Nashville is the obvious team to point to (1st overall), but for some reason I just don't see them as dominating....maybe that's just history and I'll just need to get used to it...we'll see.
If the story written is untrue, I can understand the lawsuit. I'm sure Stewart thinks it's true, but it's very dangerous to publish stories that you are hearing second hand...so he's finding that out.
However, if I'm Eric, my guess is the lawsuit has more to do with Stewart than the actual story.....since, the lawsuit is bringing a lot more eyes and attention to the story than would have by just having the story out there.