Who do you think should/should not return?

On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:45:54 -0400, Thomas wrote:

>>> Walk. Just curious why you personally, are so high on Howard. I mean...he
>>> wasn't exactly a 1st round pick, had one very nice season with the Griffins
>>> and didn't really show much...to me anyways when he came up for his cup of
>>> coffee. He's not even very big either. Seems there's been quite a few with
>>> similar credentials over the years and no one's worked out in quite some
>>> time. Something you know that I don't?
>>
>> Well, to be fair, he was a 2nd round pick, which around here is pretty
>> damn high. The kid was terrific in college and may or may not pan
>> out.
>>
>> All I've said is that Holland wants to know what he has with Howard
>> until he shuts the door on the kid by inking a big-time FA goalie to a
>> lengthy deal. In the days of yore, he'd simply run out and throw $6
>> mil worth of pizza dough at a replacement and call it a day. With a
>> tighter budget, he has to see if he has a #1 in the system before he
>> goes shopping.
>
>As weird as it is to step in and defend an Avs-basher's argument from a
>Wings troll, Walk is partially correct here.

I'm a basher and a troll now? Gosh, do I get to learn a secret
handshake next? I'm a bit too busy at work for a formal hazing, but
maybe you can just buy me a beer and welcome me to the club.

And for being "partially" correct, you proceed to agree with me just
about 100%. Oh well.

>Jim Howard does indeed have a lot of potential. I don't think there's
>any worry of him being a #1 any time soon, and the thought of the Wings
>letting Hasek go in favor of Howard is just begging for a couple years
>in the cellar. Howard is not a #1 now, and it will be a few years (if
>ever) before he's ready for that.
>
>The Wings should not let Hasek go. Or, rather, they could let him go and
>replace him with someone else, but they should most certainly not go
>into next season with Osgood, Howard or Liv as their #1. That would be
>absolute suicide.

Despite Holland's praise for Osgood's locker room presence, I don't
think there's any way in the world he'd entrust the #1 to him. As a
former goalie, Holland (yes, I know, he's the world's worst GM) wants
to give Howard every bit of seasoning necessary. I've read that Liv
already resigned in the SEL and is heading back overseas, though I
don't know if that's set in stone yet.

>If I were the Wings, I would keep Hasek (or replace him with another #1)
>and 86 Osgood. Howard is capable of being the Wings' backup, and the
>starts he would get would help him prepare for perhaps one day getting a
>sniff at the #1 role.

As long as Howard gets 30 starts (and that's almost automatic with
their rest schedule for Hasek), I'd be happy with him coming up.
Anything under 30 starts, I'd prefer he stayed in GR.

>That way, if Howard falters, they can use Liv. And if Liv is no good,
>then they can acquire someone. If you let Hasek go and have Howard as
>your starter, that's a whole lot of pressure to be putting on a kid who
>has never proven anything.

I think it's obvious that we should let Hasek go and trade for
Theodore, as he'll undoubtedly do wonders for Howard. He's the Bagger
Vance of hockey.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:45:42 -0600, Chris wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:39:37 -0400, "Bushay"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Dude, are you serious? How about you put the same effort into looking
>>> a decade back into all of YOUR posts, and do the same analysis?
>>>
>>> I'm just thinking about the amount of time you must have put into that
>>> thing and shaking my head. That's almost as pathetic as that Thomas
>>> Encyclopedia thing Eric did a few years back.
>>>
>>> And BTW, Finger has played NHL games. :-)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>>Chris. Why are you so nieve to this oddball's existence? I mean really. If
>>he weren't an Avs fan do you really think you'd feel the same as you do
>>about the idiot?
>
>As I've said many times - I've disagreed with Thomas as much or more
>than anyone in here.
>
>It's the obsession you guys have with him that kills me. There are a
>good 6 to 8 people in here who post nothing unless it concerns him.

I honestly don't think his defense of the Theodore deal is doing his
credibility any favors, but I would agree that he can certainly drag
them in from all corners.

Hell, he has his own ghetto-wanna-be stalker right now.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:12:45 -0400, "Bushay"
wrote:

>
>"Chris" wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:39:37 -0400, "Bushay"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> Dude, are you serious? How about you put the same effort into looking
>>>> a decade back into all of YOUR posts, and do the same analysis?
>>>>
>>>> I'm just thinking about the amount of time you must have put into that
>>>> thing and shaking my head. That's almost as pathetic as that Thomas
>>>> Encyclopedia thing Eric did a few years back.
>>>>
>>>> And BTW, Finger has played NHL games. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris. Why are you so nieve to this oddball's existence? I mean really. If
>>>he weren't an Avs fan do you really think you'd feel the same as you do
>>>about the idiot?
>>
>> As I've said many times - I've disagreed with Thomas as much or more
>> than anyone in here.
>
>C'mon Chris. Get real.

Dude, just because you come in here during the playoffs each year then
leave, doesn't mean you then have a full view of a decade's worth of
debates. Thomas and I have had any number of very unpleasant
arguments - our views on Turgeon, Leopold vs. Blake, we currently
disagree on the current Wings team - all since the CBA.

I simply choose to ignore it when his posts talk smack or bait you
guys on small stuff - you all are such simpletons sometimes when it
comes to that, you know.

>> It's the obsession you guys have with him that kills me.
>
>
>He definetally sparks contraversy.

(Dude.....spell checker. :-)

Yes, he does. Sometimes it may be a bit much, but usually not only
does it spark controversy, it also sparks discussion. Which is why I
don't make a big deal about it. If it sparks debate, I'm in.

> There are a
>> good 6 to 8 people in here who post nothing unless it concerns him.

>Well, he is very entertaining.
>I ask you to put yourself on this side of the fence and tell me you wouldnt
>want to voice your opinion when the idiot make so many outlandish remarks.

If no one else is doing so, I do. I mean, I usually take most
opportunities to debate someone if that opportunity is presented. But,
if Walk (in this case) is taking up the exact argument I would, then
sometimes I'd leave it be. Other times, I simply don't read threads
with Thomas and guys like Ziggy in them, as those threads consist of
little besides Thomas making a point (perhaps an outlandish one,
perhaps not) and Ziggy talking about Thomas' gonads. And while I do
enjoy a debate, I do not wish to discuss Thomas' parts in any great
detail.

> I mean, why do you think there was a Thomaspedia in the first place

Because some posters are obsessed with other posters?

> Now Walk opened my eyes a bit when he told me he wouldnt want him to
>leave because the group would become dead.

That's probably true.

>But at least call him out sometimes.

Damnit, Thomas.

>Get yourself some
>balls will you!

We're not going to start discussing my parts now, are we?

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On May 27, 9:43 am, Chris wrote:
> >> Markov: Yes. Solid D man who likes to hit, though my only concern is
> >> the aggressiveness can lead to more injuries.
>
> >My Hope: I could care less, he's insignificant
> >If I were a fan: I could care less, he's insignificant
>
> I thought Markov played very solid defense damn near all season. I
> wouldn't mind it a bit if the Avs signed him.
>
> Chris

I would. I've seen him play enough from when he was with Toronto, he
makes
bad decisons and takes stupid penalties, the Avs have enough of those
types already.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 06:51:07 -0600, Chris wrote:

>>>>>>Yes, I certainly have that kind of track record.
>>>>>
>>>>>You certainly don't, which is why it surprised me. IMO, your
>>>>>statement overrated the guy.
>>>>
>>>>And then you completely clipped the portion where I discussed how
>>>>playing D on the PK allows you to play in space, rather than the
>>>>entire sheet of ice, negating the effects of reduced foot speed and
>>>>allowing you to succeed on tenacity and positioning.
>>>
>>>I did miss that, in fact. At this point, I'm too many beers in to go
>>>back and analyze it. I'll take your word for it. :-)
>>
>>Ever hear of sharing? Ever hear of FedEx?
>
>I actually found a decent website where you can get your favorite
>micros (that you can't find in the local store) sent to you. Good
>stuff. Expensive though.

How much is that info gonna cost me? How bout I agree to be your
usenet posse` for a couple days? In exchange for the website, I'll
back up all of your posts with "YEAHH B333ATCH!!! HE PWN3D U!!!"

Whatever the hell that means.

Conversely, you could just tell me because you're so damn nice.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

"Chris" wrote in message

> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:12:45 -0400, "Bushay"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:39:37 -0400, "Bushay"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, are you serious? How about you put the same effort into looking
>>>>> a decade back into all of YOUR posts, and do the same analysis?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just thinking about the amount of time you must have put into that
>>>>> thing and shaking my head. That's almost as pathetic as that Thomas
>>>>> Encyclopedia thing Eric did a few years back.
>>>>>
>>>>> And BTW, Finger has played NHL games. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris. Why are you so nieve to this oddball's existence? I mean really.
>>>>If
>>>>he weren't an Avs fan do you really think you'd feel the same as you do
>>>>about the idiot?
>>>
>>> As I've said many times - I've disagreed with Thomas as much or more
>>> than anyone in here.
>>
>>C'mon Chris. Get real.
>
> Dude, just because you come in here during the playoffs each year then
> leave, doesn't mean you then have a full view of a decade's worth of
> debates.


Chris, you'd be suprised at how long i've been around here. Just because I'm
not posting doesnt mean i'm not reading and following along.



Thomas and I have had any number of very unpleasant
> arguments - our views on Turgeon, Leopold vs. Blake, we currently
> disagree on the current Wings team - all since the CBA.


That's not my point. What I'm talking about is how he talks to you when you
disagree with him and then a day or two later you seem to forget all about
the name calling he had just given you. I've noticed it for quite some time.
He talks to you like a dog and then a day or two later says something nice
about you and you go back to talking to him like nothing happened. Where IF
you were to call him out of his name he would cry like a friggin baby and
want to know why someone could stoop to that level and how much he was
disappointed in you. I dont understand it.



>
> I simply choose to ignore it when his posts talk smack or bait you
> guys on small stuff - you all are such simpletons sometimes when it
> comes to that, you know.
>
>>> It's the obsession you guys have with him that kills me.
>>
>>
>>He definetally sparks contraversy.
>
> (Dude.....spell checker. :-)
>
> Yes, he does. Sometimes it may be a bit much, but usually not only
> does it spark controversy, it also sparks discussion.


Dicussion? Discussion on how the goofball is missing some cromosomes and
comes up with these off the wall theories of his. That's not discussion.




Which is why I
> don't make a big deal about it. If it sparks debate, I'm in.
>
>> There are a
>>> good 6 to 8 people in here who post nothing unless it concerns him.
>
>>Well, he is very entertaining.
>>I ask you to put yourself on this side of the fence and tell me you
>>wouldnt
>>want to voice your opinion when the idiot make so many outlandish remarks.
>
> If no one else is doing so, I do. I mean, I usually take most
> opportunities to debate someone if that opportunity is presented. But,
> if Walk (in this case) is taking up the exact argument I would, then
> sometimes I'd leave it be.


Doesnt that tell you something right there Chris? You've just typed it
yourself. Damn near everything he types people disagree with.




Other times, I simply don't read threads
> with Thomas and guys like Ziggy in them, as those threads consist of
> little besides Thomas making a point (perhaps an outlandish one,
> perhaps not) and Ziggy talking about Thomas' gonads. And while I do
> enjoy a debate, I do not wish to discuss Thomas' parts in any great
> detail.


I couldnt agree more. I skip um myself.



>
>> I mean, why do you think there was a Thomaspedia in the first place
>
> Because some posters are obsessed with other posters?

NO, not other posters Chris. Just one here were talking about.



>
>> Now Walk opened my eyes a bit when he told me he wouldnt want him to
>>leave because the group would become dead.
>
> That's probably true.
>
>>But at least call him out sometimes.
>
> Damnit, Thomas.
>
>>Get yourself some
>>balls will you!
>
> We're not going to start discussing my parts now, are we?


I thought we just established that part of the conversation?
You trying to say I typed this for nothing?
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

"Freedom Elz" wrote in message

> On May 27, 9:43 am, Chris wrote:
>> >> Markov: Yes. Solid D man who likes to hit, though my only concern is
>> >> the aggressiveness can lead to more injuries.
>>
>> >My Hope: I could care less, he's insignificant
>> >If I were a fan: I could care less, he's insignificant
>>
>> I thought Markov played very solid defense damn near all season. I
>> wouldn't mind it a bit if the Avs signed him.
>>
>> Chris
>
> I would. I've seen him play enough from when he was with Toronto, he
> makes
> bad decisons and takes stupid penalties, the Avs have enough of those
> types already.
>

I agree. For all the hype he has been only above average in his physicality
and it is common for him to makes mistakes. The rest of the time he doesn't
stand out which can be a good thing but not for a guy with his rep. I still
would be good if he came back but I never felt like he was really a Wing.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:46:45 -0600, Chris wrote:

>>>I actually found a decent website where you can get your favorite
>>>micros (that you can't find in the local store) sent to you. Good
>>>stuff. Expensive though.
>>
>>How much is that info gonna cost me? How bout I agree to be your
>>usenet posse` for a couple days? In exchange for the website, I'll
>>back up all of your posts with "YEAHH B333ATCH!!! HE PWN3D U!!!"
>>
>>Whatever the hell that means.
>>
>>Conversely, you could just tell me because you're so damn nice.
>
>Heh. What, you don't want to guess the URL? Yeah, I guess it would
>help if I posted a link, eh? Sorry, dude.
>
>www.beeronthewall.com
>
>If you're a fan of interestingly hopped ales, try out the Indica IPA.
>One of the best beers I've ever had.

I say thank you, good sir.

.....

.....

My wife says sharing that URL was completely unnecessary.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On May 29, 11:10 am, "Hockeyguy" wrote:
> "Chris" wrote in message

> BTW - Bettman said in the papers today that Nashville is not going to move -
> aw Christ...- Hide quoted text -


I saw him interviewed last nigh and what he said was that Balsille
told him that he doesn't plan to move the team. Which of course means
Balsille learned from the Pittsburgh attempt that being forthcoming
will get him nowhere. Missing from Bettman's interview where the usual
platitudes about "commitment to making it work" blah, blah, blah.

That franchise is as good as gone.
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

On 29 May 2007 08:38:00 -0700, Freedom Elz
wrote:

>On May 29, 11:10 am, "Hockeyguy" wrote:
>> "Chris" wrote in message
>
>> BTW - Bettman said in the papers today that Nashville is not going to move -
>> aw Christ...- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>I saw him interviewed last nigh and what he said was that Balsille
>told him that he doesn't plan to move the team. Which of course means
>Balsille learned from the Pittsburgh attempt that being forthcoming
>will get him nowhere. Missing from Bettman's interview where the usual
>platitudes about "commitment to making it work" blah, blah, blah.
>
>That franchise is as good as gone.

Probably, but I expect it to take a few years.

Bettman overexpanded the league, and he won't admit that even under
pain of death. So, it'll take awhile, but eventually, you're probably
right.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return? 

"Freedom Elz" wrote in message

> On May 29, 11:10 am, "Hockeyguy" wrote:
>> "Chris" wrote in message
>
>> BTW - Bettman said in the papers today that Nashville is not going to
>> move -
>> aw Christ...- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> I saw him interviewed last nigh and what he said was that Balsille
> told him that he doesn't plan to move the team. Which of course means
> Balsille learned from the Pittsburgh attempt that being forthcoming
> will get him nowhere. Missing from Bettman's interview where the usual
> platitudes about "commitment to making it work" blah, blah, blah.
>
> That franchise is as good as gone.
>

I hope so - one of the franchise rules should be that the majority of the
population in the target city must be able to tie their own shoes
 >> Stay informed about: Who do you think should/should not return?