Ice Man

By BigMomma

January 19, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this

Rawhide - great post, as usual.

I would rather see us gain confidence and cohesion by winning more games in the rest of the season than continue on our losing pace just for a higher draft pick. I think the confidence and development into a group of guys who play as a team will go a long way to making us a winning team.

By Alan

January 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

Win more games. Period.

Playoffs? Very improbable. Priority numero uno is signing Kovalchuk long-term.

By Stevo

January 19, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this

Well said Rawhide. I totally agree with you. I would rather make a run now, giving the team confidence and chemistry for next year. All the while giving Kovalchuk a glimpse of possibly what is to come. Tavares would be nice, but there is no guarantee he will be able to contribute right away. Don’t forget Espisito is a likely pick for making the team next year. So all in all, I would rather make a run and win now and give the team, the fans, and the ownership hope for next year.

By B. Thenet

January 19, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

I also agree.

Even if we are going to make the playoffs next year, we need to start playing like it now.

There will be no time to “learn how to win” in October 2009. Lets get that started now, and even if they just fall short of the playoffs this year…and we happen to get the 13th best player in the draft, there will be plenty of positive energy surrounding the club moving into the offseason.

There are RFAs and UFAs that we will need to sign. Hopefully a strong finish gets us a 4 year deal for Army instead of a 1 year deal. Hopefully a strong finish gives us a shot at signing at true top winger for Ilya, and not ending up with our 2nd or 3rd options(though that worked out OK for us with Hainsey this year)

The season and a half long slide that started with the playoff sweep of the Rangers has to come to an end before we can get the ship righted.

By Bob

January 19, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

what you’re forgetting is that we own Kovy for next season as well. So, we play out this string, add Tavares (please Lord, please) or Hedman. Get a new GM next summer who makes some positive moves. Kovy sees Tavares and his new club around him, a new GM truly heading in the right direction and next year, Kovy signs that extension, or heck, mabye he waits till free agency and we sign him then.

Don’t sweat Kovy, if he’s gone, he’s gone. But there’s no magical thing that’s going to happen over the next 3 months that’s going to make him stay. It’s the moves made at the GM position, and then players added in the off-season, that are going to make his mind up.

The absolute #1 worst thing this club could do is screw itself out of a prime draft pick, Tavares and Hedman are both game changers and elite players, we must get one of them.

By Bob

January 19, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Iceman, I am going to assume you haven’t watched Tavares and Stamkos. Night and freakin day. Tavares is the real deal and was head and shoulders above the other guys in that tourney (of course, Esposito included). Hedman also is the real deal, but he’ll take a bit longer.

Comparing Tavares to Stamkos is like comparing Martin Luther King (God rest his soul) to Jesse Jackson.

By kracker

January 19, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this

So, using 91 points as the new benchmark, what would it take for the Thrashers to reach that mountaintop?

The short answer is that to get to 91 points, it takes 50 more points in the 35 games following the All-Star break. The Thrashers have 37 points, they really have to win tomorrow at home vs the Habs and on the road the next day at Flyers and chug into the break with 41 points.

Let’s assume the Thrash win the next two games. To get the 50 points in 35 games they have to clip off points at a .715 rate or at 1.43p/game. That’s a pretty tall order for any middle of the pack team and it looks pretty much imposssible for the Thrashers. If the Thrashers lose the next two games, they then have to get points at 1.55/game which is even more impossilbe-er.

Soap Box Comment: If the NHL wants to maintain rabid interest deeper into the season among the teams which now appear out of it (Thrashers), they should go to the 3 points/game system, with the difference being awarding 3 points to the team that wins in regulation. That way, if the team playing catch-up can really get hot and roll some teams for a couple of weeks they could earn, say, 21 points in 7 games while the teams they are chasing get only 2, 1 or 0 points each game. I have favored such a system for quite a while now.

(Apologies to RH if he already covered this in the last part of his column. I didn’t finish reading yet as my available time is short.)

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

WINNING ISN’T EVERYTHING, BUT LOSING IS NOTHING, REMEMBER, IF YA AINT FIRST, YOUR LAST….RICKY BOOBY’S DAD. if 47 keeps up the pace, maybe not 2 pts per game, say, maybe 1.5 per game, and Kovy stays happy, by scoring and winning, for the most part, maybe finish the year a few games over .500, Atl. will not need Tavares. I asked this on another blog, Is 47 a rfa at the end of this year?

By J(Z)

January 19, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Rawhide, you won me over. I no longer believe in Tankland. I go to the games knowing I’ll be happy either way. If they win, I saw a good game, if they lose, we’re closer to Taveras. But the more I think about it, and after reading your thoughts here…I’m done with tankland. Even if we finish with the most ping pong balls, there’s no guaruntee we get Tavares or Hedman. And, like Stamkos this year, there’s also no guaruntee they’re not another Stefan!

So screw losing. I would rather have them go on a run, even if the playoffs are unrealistic. Maybe there’s a free agent out there who notices we’ve turned a corner and decides to come here because of it. We absolutely CANNOT lose Ilya. That’s all there is to it.

By J(Z)

January 19, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this

dhj_1962 - Peverly signed a 2yr deal at the beginning of this season, so he’s under contract until July 2010 (just like Ilya)

By ranallo10 (in AT)

January 19, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

J(Z) — According to nhlnumbers.com, Peverly is a RFA this offseason. Can you cite the 2 year deal you’re speaking of? If anything, it’d help nhlnumbers clear up their mistake.

By Bob

January 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

Even if we finish with the most ping pong balls, there’s no guaruntee we get Tavares or Hedman

That’s not true. If you finish with the worst record, you’re guaranteed to pick no longer than #2 overall.

This will all shake itself out. After the All Star break the good teams really ramp it up for the playoff run. You also fail to realize that Waddell will be a major seller at the deadline. Schneider? Gone. Havelid? Gone. What forwards are left on a one year deal that are UFA?

By kracker

January 19, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

Well, my math is as bad as ever! I figured in one more available game to play, so the playoff prospects are even a bit bleaker than I thought.

I heartily agree that winning is the best way to get the real #1 player signed (Ilya) and said so a couple of days ago on one of these blogs.

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

if things stay the way they are between them, resign them both, of course, who knows what FIRE WADELL will do.

By Bob

January 19, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

thanks for reminding me of nhlnumbers.com, ranallo (but they do have Peverly listed as under contract for $.5m next year).

I see that Reasoner is also UFA this summer, gone! Waddell can probably collect some decent draft picks and mabye a prospect or 2 for the trifecta of Schneider, Havelid, and Reasoner. Then you let the Wolves come up, get some more ice time and experience, and one step closer to Tavares. It’s called a build year for a reason, fellas!

By ranallo10 (in AT)

January 19, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

Correction…

J(Z) — I misread nhlnumbers, I was wrong. According to them he’s signed for two years…475K and 500K. He’s signed through the 09/10 season.

I mistakenly read Crabb’s line. My apologies.

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this

build year or not, i hate seeing my team lose.

By Thrashers27

January 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this

Peverly = Last weeks’ Third Star…Who woulda thunk it?

By Bob

January 19, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this

i hate seeing my team lose

So, do I, but big picture here. You want to continue to see them lose year after year? Then let them make some kind of half a* run that gets them to the 10th spot in the East, a run that saves Waddell’s job. Then he goes and drafts at the 10 spot where he’s sure to get another Waddell special, and guarantees we suck for another multiple years under his leadership.

2 1/2 more months of sucking, fellas, then it’s Tavares in, Waddell out. Kovy is still here next year no matter what, and next year is the time you make a run towards improving the club and getting Kovy to re-sign here. Now? All you do is screw up the build year and save Waddell’s job, and that’s good for what? Nothing, besides the egos of some fans who need to justify the money they wasted on season tix this year. I know watching them lose is no fun, but heck, if your ego isn’t immune by now to driving down there and watching them lose most nights, why did you sign up again after the first 8 years of it?

By kracker

January 19, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this

Preferably we need Ilya signed on or very, very soon after July 1 next year. Why? The Thrashers will look much more attractive to ANY free agent with Kovy extended long-term. Having Ilya go into the next season unsigned could very well be a re-run of the Hossa distraction. And I know Kovy wants to play for a winner just as much as Hossa did/does. The only difference is that Ilya really likes it here, by all accounts. But even with that, an unsigned Ilya in October is most likely gone, IMO. I figure if Ilya does resign, it will be like Ovechkin by accepting the lont-term extention early in July.

We need to win now.

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this

bob, everything you say makes sense, but, so many ifs. will the AK-47 line continue playing well, will the White-Little-Russian line continue to play well, who will get traded and for what? draft picks and players? will they(whoever they are) bring much? its not a given the Thrashers get Tavares anyway, i know this year is a wash, but losing just to get a CHANCE at Tavares just don’t work for me. I wanna win now, hell, i won’t let my grandkids beat me playing board games, WII, wrestling, cards, you name it, i wanna win. i feel bad for the season ticket holders, if i was in ATL, i be a ticket holder, and i’d be p** at some of the effort that i’ve seen from some of the Thrashers some of the time and a few of them all the time. but for some reason, these last 2 games have changed all of them…yeah, i know…UFO’s and Aliens

By J(Z)

January 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this

Here’s the link for Peverly (assuming I did that right)

The Nashville Predators signed center Rich Peverley to a two-year contract, the team announced Friday.

The first year of Peverley’s contract will pay the 26-year-old $475,000 at the NHL level and $100,000 at the minor-league level, as part of a two-way agreement. The second year is a one-way contract paying him $500,000.

By Sara

January 19, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this

I still say what the fans (or owners/management for that matter) want is irrelevant. The players and the coaches are focused on winning as many games as possible. They have zero interest in the number one overall pick, phenom available or not.

But then again, some fans just won’t put their egos aside and hope this team flourishes under the dreaded Waddell. They’re more interested in justifying their incessant diatribes by seeing him fired than in seeing the team win.

(Couldn’t resist with it left sitting out there so nicely.)

By Bob

January 19, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this

They’re more interested in justifying their incessant diatribes by seeing him fired than in seeing the team win

Not me, I guaran-dang-T-you-dat

But, I know (and you’ll know one day with the benefit of hindsight) that it’s all moot with Waddell in charge of building this club. If I had even an inkling of hope left that Waddell could build this club into a winner, I’d have no problem with him. Goodness, if 8 1/2 years of proof isn’t enough for you, what would be? I guess nothing, but one day with hindsight, you’ll see what the new GM can do. I just hope you’re wo-man enough to come and say “my spreadsheets lied, but no one died”

Also, I hear you on the coaches/players, that’s true. But you better dang believe what owners/management want do matter, just watch and see what Waddell does on the trade deadline (hint, he’ll jettison our impending UFA’s furthering our chances at Tavares or Hedman—btw, there’s two game changers in this draft, one would be a total crap shoot, but there’s 2, just so happens we need Tavares more since we have Bogo)

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 3:35 PM | Link to this

Sara, those are alot of big words,( incessant diatribes)having a 12th grade education from Effingham Co. High School made it difficulf for me to cypher, but i got it. haha. i’m with you, win now, win as often as you can, who cares if Waddell takes the credit, but, just for the record…FIRE WADDELL

By Tony C.

January 19, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this

ya know what Mr. T? you just won me over, IF we can keep this momentum going even after the inevitable firesale/call-up, then i think it says a lot to #17.

Now, I personally think the only guy out of the “menu” that would really hurt is Nic Havelid. I’d like to see DW pull something like the Tkachuk deal, where you almost force the other guy to give him back at the end of the year. I think Havelid is a guy you want to keep around for continuity, plus you always see him out doing community work, and by all accounts he likes ATL. I would expect Havelid to bring back pretty decent value-just put a rider in like the one St. Louis did with Tkachuk, although I dunno that Havelid really commands an additional first-round pick.

Anyway, if we do sell Havelid, I’d like to see us be very aggressive in bringing him back.

I still say:

FIRE WADDELL

By glovesave29

January 19, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

The BEST thing that can happen to this team is to make a second half run to .500. Get the fans and players excited abut next season. Miss the playoffs, but leave a good taste behind and build upon that. I’d like to have Waddell gone before the trade deadline, and get some shrewd GM in here to take advantage of the “buying” GM’s panicked trades. Let US win a trade for once. Bring in something we can be excited about. If we get a “real” GM here, with a glimmer of hope - then our UFA’s want to stay. We become a viable opportunity for UFA’s to come here.

Bob - agree with you - Stamkos (who I believe can still become a good NHLer) cannot touch Tavares. Stamkos has good hands and vision, but is a mediocre skater at best. Tavares can fly and has the hockey tools to go with it. He is also more of a leader than Steven. Tampa didn’t do him any favors either by making him the franchise savior before he even signed his contract. He was thrown to the wolves. He should be in the AHL.

GO THRASH FIRE WADDELL

By Jim

January 19, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. Peverley appears to be a “find” and DW would be smart to wrap him up well before he becomes a UFA. But knowing Donnie boy, he’ll drag his feet and we’ll lose Pevs like Savard, Hossa, and others. Bogosian looks good but we’re still a mediocre team with a few good ones-Kovy, Little and Lets. Playoffs this year- no way.

By sisu

January 19, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

Soap Box Comment: If the NHL wants to maintain rabid interest deeper into the season among the teams which now appear out of it (Thrashers), they should go to the 3 points/game system

This point system is in use in Finland and what it does is create a huge gap between the elite teams and the middle of the road. No way should NHL go to this.

The team needs to win when ever it can, having Tavares would be nice but how many draft picks does one franchise need? Plenty I am sure but winning is more important.

By five_hole

January 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Link to this

Let’s win now, baby.

I’d like to get Tavares as much as anyone else here, but winning, instilling the belief in the players we currently have that we can win any single game is more important. And I don’t believe that you have to have the most talented players to have a winning team. I point again to Lake Placid, 1980.

We have young players in Bogosian, Enstrom, Valabik & Oystrick and Bryan Little. I think it’s important to teach them how to win at this level.

By Rawhide

January 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this

Bob - I’ve seen them both. Tavares is ideed all of that and a bag-o-potatoe chips. I’m not down-playing what a huge bemifit he’ll be to whomever ends up with him…and yes Tavares > Stamkos.

But my point is that I do not want this team to be the one who does because it means that for 2 straight years we have sucked that bad. And I think Kovy will not stay if the team does not show serious strides to improve right now.

True, we have him signed through this year…but if we are sitting here at this time next season and he hasn’t signed yet…it means he isn’t gonna sign, whether we have Tavares or not, and Waddell is going to be forced once again to trade away a star player.

Thus, it is my feeling that this team has to play it’s @ss off over the next few months to show the type of improvemnt that shows promise for the near future…not down the road…in order to give the team a serious chance of re-signing Kovy.

By Sara

January 19, 2009 5:01 PM | Link to this

Bob I’ll be wo-man enough to admit I’m wrong as much as you’ll be man enough to admit it if/when another GM comes in here under the same crap conditions with Atlanta Spirit and still loses.

As for what may happen at the deadline…I personally think you are over-valuing some of our pending UFAs. We aren’t going to miss Schneider IMO other than what he brings to Bogosian (which is a LOT, don’t get me wrong, but since we’re mainly talking Ws and Ls here…). But he’s been taking a lot of penalties and I think the kids have come far enough to at least not make it that much worse. Perrin has had an off season and Reasoner has his values but isn’t a key to our success either. I think the only one that will smart is Havelid - he’s obviously been a rock on the blueline this year. But I think we could make up for what we lose with the others. Never fail to underestimate the performance of youngsters looking to impress the NHL coaches and GM with late-season tryouts. Crabb and Oystrick are shining examples of that work-your-@ss-off-edness.

Also, keep in mind this team can’t afford to dump too much salary at the deadline without taking something back in return (besides some Wolves’ entry-level deal). Havelid and Schneider between them account for over $8M in cap space - even pro-rated, that’s likely close to $3M in dropped salary if they both leave, on top of the $1M we dropped trading Williams plus whatever bonuses Bogosian won’t be getting this season. The yahoos may want to tank for a draft pick, but they certainly don’t want to fall below the cap floor in the process.

By Bob

January 19, 2009 5:08 PM | Link to this

I’ll be wo-man enough to admit I’m wrong as much as you’ll be man enough to admit it if/when another GM comes in here under the same crap conditions with Atlanta Spirit and still loses

Deal. Virtual handshake.

I thought about the effects of dumping the salary, of Schneider and Havelid, but as you remembered, it’s only the pro-rated portion you lose. That will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I think they’re far enough over the cap (with Bogo’s bonuses) to make the moves.

By Sara

January 19, 2009 5:14 PM | Link to this

Do you or anyone else have any idea how much Bogosian might have lost? To me that’s the big wildcard. Waddell initially swore up and down that the bonuses alone were enough to get us over the cap floor, before we added the net effect of, what $2+M when we brought in Schneider? If the bonuses are worth that much total, there’s real problems if he’s blown them all by losing so much time to injury.

Wish there was a way to know for sure how that would play out.

By Brendan

January 19, 2009 6:11 PM | Link to this

Sara, as inept as many people see Waddell, I’m sure he knows what has to be done to keep us over the floor or within the parameters of the CBA, and to keep the team’s viability for revenue-sharing dollars. The Thrashers could not survive without the $7.2 million or so that it receives in revenue-sharing. Some teams earn as much as $13 million in revenue-sharing. Imagine if the Phoenix Coyotes do, in fact, make the playoffs? And I hope they do! I’d like for them to pump fist fulls of other owner’s money towards the Heavens, while screaming, “Thanks for propping us up! And now we’ve got your playoff spot, too!! Suckers!!”

Too far?? Okay, cheerfully withdrawn. Go Coyotes!

Rawhide, I have a different take on Kovalchuk. And I’m not saying he’ll stay or go, or even that he’s made up his mind yet. But this much I feel I must advance here. My philosophical belief #1 says that most, if not ALL players want to win. I could be wrong about that. I certainly recognize that some players … play for the money, and nothing else. I don’t think Ilya fits into that category. My philosophical belief #2 says that most, if not ALL players’ agents size up the financial situation of a team BEFORE advising their clients about where to sign for MAXIMUM DOLLARS and MAXIMUM opportunity to win. Well, as many have pointed out, I don’t think the dollar amount of Kovalchuk’s next contract is the issue. I’d wager that the Thrashers are prepared to pay Kovalchuk whatever the market will bear and the league will ALLOW. I won’t dispute that. Others probably will. But I won’t. So, what’s the issue, then? The issue is … filling out the REST of the roster at the floor of the salary cap. Or something close to it.

Ooops.

This is where the Atlanta Spirit, LLC, potentially loses Kovalchuk. Marian Hossa chose Detroit. Hossa could have signed just about anywhere. But his agent told Hossa what Hossa already knew. Detroit’s finances are GOOD. Their management, Ken Holland, is top notch. Their scouting staff is phenomenal. Their ownership … is outstanding. Hossa knew, good-n-well, that the Red Wings would continue to be ANNUAL CONTENDERS, financed to the HILT!!

Does Kovalchuk feel this way about the Atlanta Thrashers? More specifically, do Kovalchuk, AND HIS AGENT, JAY GROSSMAN, feel the Thrashers’ finances are Good? Do Kovalchuk and his agent feel the Atlanta Spirit, LLC, represent oustanding ownership? Do Ilya Kovalchuk and his agent feel that Don Waddell reflects top notch management? Do Ilya Kovalchuk and his agent feel the scouting staff of the Thrashers is phenomenal? And finally, do Ilya Kovalchuk and his agent BEEELIEEEEEVE that the Atlanta Thrashers represent the BEST, LONGTERM INTERESTS of his client towards reaching his goals of (1) Meeting the high standards that Kovalchuk sets for himself (50 goals, 100-points, being an ALL-Star), (2) ANNUAL CONTENDERSHIP for winning the Cup (think traditional upper echelon teams) and (3) Committed Ownership dedicated to MAXED CAP SALARY towards reaching those goals? Including, firing any ineffective GM’s, Coaches, and scouts, while guaranteeing Kovalchuk a Tier I center.

What Kovalchuk really wants, in my view, is that he may excel as a professional and meet the goals he sets for himself. He wants to have purpose in this league. He wants to play for a team that matters. Is that us? Is that the Atlanta Thrashers? Or, are we, as SAGE OF BLUESLAND advocates, merely schedule fodder for the other 29 teams. If Sage is right, nothing the Thrashers do, from now ‘til the end of the season, will keep Kovalchuk here. It’s up to the ownership to determine whether they are content owning a team that finishes in the bottom THIRD of the Conference eight times in nine (8/9) seasons, has never advanced to the 2nd round of the playoffs, has never won a playoff game, and doesn’t address the GM position when the team has had seven (7) TOP TEN OVERALL PICKS to build this club.

I know. I do know. That’s a LOT to digest. Think it over. Take your time. Really chew on it for a while. In Kovalchuk’s shoes, what would YOU do? Keep in mind, I’m asking you NOT TO THINK AS A FAN of the Atlanta Thrashers! I’m asking you to think … like the PREMIER LEFT WING in the National Hockey League.

By five_hole

January 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Link to this

Bill wants to talk in terms of going .750 the rest of the way. I’m thinking that we’re only 13 pts behind Pittsburgh and 14 behind Buffalo (with 36 games to play). That is a doable number. If we get hot and they cool down, they are catchable.

And I would like to join with Bill in wishing our new President luck, courage and wisdom in the days ahead. Regardless of your political affiliation, we all know the multi-layered quagmire we’re currently in. We need someone who is capable of making the correct decisions to lead us back to prosperity & peace. Can I get an Amen?

By HookyBob

January 19, 2009 6:39 PM | Link to this

Amen.

By kracker

January 19, 2009 6:48 PM | Link to this

sisu I understand your point on the 3 point win, I just don’t know that agree with it. The top teams will be on top either way. Same for the bottom teams, they will remain on the bottom. Where it makes a really interesting difference, I believe, is in the middle group of teams, maybe 7 or 8 in each division. For those that are in the playoffs by a few points and those on the outside by a few points, those extra points can be huge (for or against) particularly in the 2nd half of the season. Nailing a goal in the last minute for the win could really pump up a team and their fans…or deflate the team(s) trying to catch them.

Chew on this: As I type, in the Western Conf only 4 points separate 5th place from 11th place. The 12 place team is 6 points out of 5th. The play for those teams would be like playoff intensity in games tied near the end of regulation. Very late in the season, you would have coaches actually consider pulling their goalie in a tied game if they felt they absolutely needed the 3 points to try to make the playoffs. Coaches would probably not like having to make that choice.

By Darren

January 19, 2009 7:57 PM | Link to this

I threw out this proposal a couple of years ago. Even ran it by Barry Melrose and Pierre McGuire.

Wins in regulation or overtime: 2 points Losses: 0 points, regardless. Overtime extended to 10 minutes Shootout win: 1 point

I think it makes the shootout occur less often, therefore making it more special. It also lessens the concern of games being decided on a “gimmick”. Beyond that, it eliminates the criticism of teams that will play for overtime just to get a point.

I also don’t think 5 minutes of overtime is enough to truly give teams a chance to determine a game.Assuming shifts last 45 seconds long, you figure the top two lines get, what, an additional 2 minutes to decide a game? I don’t think that’s enough.

Besides, the difference in 2 points for an overtime win and 1 point for a shootout win makes me think teams will really push to win it during the overtime period, instead of relying on their skill players in the shootout.

By Darren

January 19, 2009 8:01 PM | Link to this

However, I harbor no illusions that the league would actually adopt that proposal. They enjoy having 26 teams in the playoff hunt until mid-February every year too much to change.

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 8:11 PM | Link to this

lots of good reading today, sure wish the Thrashers were playing tonite. lots of intresting facts and alot of guess work, who wants what, what would Kovy do, what did Hossa do…what would Jesus do. God Bless Barack, yadda, yadda yadda…here is my guess, for what its worth, and i already stated this in an earlier blog, either in this one or one of knoblers peices,if Peverly continues to impress the coaches, the GM, his teammates, and especially Kovy, sign Pevs asap. If Kovy does not wanna resign, he plays his tail off the rest of this year and next for his next team and contract. How many good players and picks would a player like Kovy get after a 100 point season, which i predict he will get this year, and be on pace for another 100 piont season at next years trade dead line. chew on that my Thrasher brothers and sisters.

By dhj_1962

January 19, 2009 8:53 PM | Link to this

where did everyone go?

By kracker

January 19, 2009 9:23 PM | Link to this

Watching 24 lol

By Rawhide

January 19, 2009 9:47 PM | Link to this

Darren - I have heard that 2-2-1 points system discussed on XM’s NHL Channel’s afternoon show. I think it has merit, especially if the OT period extends to 10 minutes. I don’t like games being decided by an individual skills competition, but it’s the shootout is a huge hit with the fans…so it is what it is.

But I like all games being worth the same amount of points. So I support the 3-point game scenario done this way…3 for regulation win or OT win and then a 2-1 split for the shootout. Teams would push to win in regulation because it removes the guarantee of at least a point for getting a game into OT and then teams would push to win in OT because they want that extra point that won’t be there even if they win in a SO.

I have no issue with simply going with Ws and Ls & scrapping the points system all together…but only if the shootout were dropped and teams played until they scored. But given travel schedules and ice conditions, that won’t happen.

dhj_1962 - Kovy has 48 points in 46 games. That’s a pace for 85 or 86 points. However, to you point about him getting 100 this season…in the 7 games played in CY2009, he has 7 goals and 4 assist. If that pace of 11 points in 7 games continues continues he’ll net 56 points over the remaining 36 games and give him 104 for the year.

THAT would be quite an accomplishment.

By Brendan

January 19, 2009 11:03 PM | Link to this

The issue I have with the points system is … why is it necessary? When the NHL allowed ties, that was the answer. Okay, I suppose, even with TIES it didn’t NEED to have a points-based system. But I didn’t mind it. Two-points for a win and each team getting a point for a tie seemed, to me, to be an equitable distribution of points.

But what we’ve got now is … a bizarre situation where sometimes 3-points are awarded, two to the winner and one to the loser. To me, the simplest way to determine the value of a game … is for the game, itself, to be the value.

Huh?

What’s a game worth? Answer: One (1) game. Zero points. The game is either won or lost. They can tinker with the overtime if they want. Resurface the ice, put 20:00 minutes on the clock, and play Period #4, 5-on-5, “sudden death.” And if there is no winner, we go to a shootout. The value of that game is … one game. It is either won or lost. They could extend 5-on-5 overtime to 10-minutes. If no one scores, they could play 5 more minutes of 4-on-4. If no one scores, we have the shootout. They could play a 4-on-4 overtime, and extend it out to 10-minutes. If no one scores, then we have the shootout.

I don’t really care how the NHL wants to tinker with that overtime PROCESS, other than … say … no 3-on-3’s. That’s just “pond hockey.” But if overtime fails, we’ll have the shootout. And we’ll have a winner and a loser. But we won’t have any “pity points,” or points AT ALL. If you FEAR THE SHOOTOUT, then ALTER YOUR STRATEGY! The shootout is just … the LAST RESORT … to determining a winner.

My proposal changes the MINDSET of a game. You play to win it. Not to try to SALVAGE a point for the standings. With straight up wins and losses, I do think bad teams still stay alive in the playoff hunt. Look at the NBA. Last season, the Atlanta Hawks made it in with a 37-45 record. It’s not pretty, but it doesn’t have to be. It is what it is.

By Darren

January 20, 2009 1:46 AM | Link to this

So you’re keeping in the idea of no points simply for making it into overtime. That’s really the big sticker for me. I don’t understand the notion that you could lose a game, and advance in the standings.

I really enjoy the shootout too. The beauty of extending overtime to 10 minutes and adding in incentive to finish the game early is that it would make them more rare, and therefore more special. Also, teams will be disappointed to have lost out on two points, but will then really push in the shootout to salvage one point.

I swear on Garnet Exelby’s fedora I arrived upon that system on my own, by the way, although it’s good to hear others have come to that conclusion as well.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

January 20, 2009 5:31 AM | Link to this

What’s wrong with a shortened overtime period of 4-on-4, that’s not sudden death?

10 minutes of full tilt 4-on-4 hockey, no shootout.

I don’t mind no OT points, nor do I mind no shootout. But most of all, I don’t mind keeping things the way they are.

There is no great injustice happening due to the way points are being distributed currently…thus, I don’t feel it’s necessary to scrap everything just to make “more” sense. For every argument there’s a counter argument, so why not just leave it how it is?

By Glovesave29

January 20, 2009 8:34 AM | Link to this

I think a standard overtime period (a la soccer) without sudden death removes a significant amount of the tension and drama. I am all for extending OT and having fewer shootouts. I’d even advocate the second OT at 3-on-3 (sorry Brendan) over the SO, as even though it is CLOSER to pond hockey, it is still more of a team effort than the shootout.

Hey five_hole, I understand your concept of team, but disagree with your choice of selection to illustrate your point. Sure, Brooks worked his you against me rhetoric to bind them, but lets not forget, many of the players on that 80 team had lengthy and impressive NHL careers…Broten, Johnson, O’Callahan, Christian, Ramsey and Morrow all come to mind…but after reading your comment, it did bring back the memories and I had to go and pop in the DVD of that game.

By PUTTING ON THE FOIL

January 20, 2009 8:55 AM | Link to this

I would rather see what I have seen the last two games for the rest of the year. Rawhide is right on with signing Kovy as a priority. Besides, are we even certain Don Waddell would pick Tavares with the first pick if we had it?

By Rawhide

January 20, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this

Darren - Yes…I hate the feeling I get when two teams play each other that the Thrashers are chasing in the standings…you know, the one that makes you think, “Well, just as long as it doesn’t go into OT….”.

Besides, I just think every game should be worth the same points.

Now…as for the game tonight…I fully expect to see Kari in the net tonight, (DUH5). But the question for everyone is this:

If Kari does well again tonight, does JA put in him tomorrow night in Philly?

Personally, I would for a few reasons.

One: he’s had a couple days rest already and after tomorrow’s game there is the All Star break and the next game is next Tuesday in Dallas…so He’s gonna get his rest.

Two: Again…this is Kari’s gig and he needs to play the lion’s share of games including B-2-B games. He’s got 36 more games to prove one way or the other that he’s is indeed the man ‘tween the pipes here.

By DWTOO

January 20, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this

Just win, Baby. Nothing will spark interest in this team - fans and UFA’s - more than winning hockey. And now’s the time to start - build on these last two wins.

By Stan Drulia

January 20, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this

I say we always try to win.. I mean c’mon. What kind of professional athlete would actually show up to work for the next three months and do a crappy job on purpose?!? The kind of player that we don’t want. I say the only chance for Kovy staying is if we turn it around alot this second half and go into next season with some hope and improvement. I am tired of the draft picks… usually overated and never much help right off the bat. The last two games have been the first ones I have enjoyed watching in weeks… I want to enjoy at least half of this season as a Thrashers fan!!! The whole concept of playing for last place in order to get a draft pick is really cowardly. True hockey players with any heart at all could never live with themselves after pulling that.

By Bob

January 20, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this

Sara, I have no clue on the specifics of Bogo’s contract. My only general thought is that usually the entry level bonus contract stuff is pretty easy stuff to attain, even after missing games?

I agree with the problem re. points, I hate seeing losers get a point, ya lost, you get no soup!

Moose in against Philthy, Nittimaki owns Kari.

By Rawhide

January 20, 2009 9:50 AM | Link to this

I think it’s more that Philly owns the Thrashers than Nittymaki owning Kari.

Besides…we should not cower and alter who we put in goal based on who the opposition does. The #1 goalie should start the majority of the games regardless of the other team starts in goal.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

January 20, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this

There’s only one way to buck a trend…and that’s to face it head on. No coach should back down starting their best goalie because of the opponent. Start Kari if he’s able to go. If he’s not, start Hedberg.

Why are we worried about Philadelphia though? Montreal is the next team on the docket, if I’m not mistaken.

Re: Stamkos vs Tavares — There was an interesting story done in Sept. 2007 by TSN where they interviewed top scouts from the NHL and asked them “”If John Tavares were eligible for the 2008 draft and it was being held on Saturday, where would he rank on the lists they just submitted?”.

As the next line in that story says: “The strong consensus is at No. 2, just behind Sarnia sniper Steven Stamkos. Tavares accumulated 91 voting points. Stamkos had 100; and Drew Doughty 88.”

Another good quote:

“When you talk about the difference between Stamkos and Tavares,” one scout said, “you could be talking the difference between Jean Beliveau and Phil Esposito. It certainly looks like they both have what it takes to be great players.”

It’s like arguing what supermodel has the least amount of blemishes.

By Alan

January 20, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

So I’m currently listening to the inauguration. Is it bad that when listening to the singing of the national anthem, I imagined hearing about 10,000 people scream “KNIGHTS?”

By Tony C.

January 20, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this

Mr. T.- I’m going to have to disagree with you on the Philly-owns-Kari vs. Nittymaaki-owns-Lehtonen.

Kari hasn’t beat Nittymaaki since he was 15! ever!!!

I’ll find the heads-up record and post it later today. However, by Kari’s own admission it’s something he knows-as a competitor, it’s got to chafe to be as good, maybe better and still NEVER get the result you want. In fact, last year during one of the pre-game interview piece on SPSO, Elliott asked KL about the Nittymaaki factor, and KL’s response was very telling to me (paraphrased)

KL:”Yeah you know it’s tough, I mean it’s been a long time, even at practices for (World) Juniors, I never seem to get him, We both do shutout, they win on shootout. “

Kari went on to say “it’s really all about two pints” etc., standard pro-athelete interview cliche crap, but if yu could see the facial tic that went off when DE said “Nittymaaki”-well it told me everything I need to know. Philly may in fact own Le Thrash, but I garauntee you KL is “clutching his stick” when he sees Nittymaaki at the other end.

For that reason I run him out there in Philly and hope the worm finally turns. Because at that point, I believe that KL will have beaten every guy on his “list” and have a LOT more confidence (just check out how he plays against Brodeur to see what I mean KL gets UP for goalies he respects).

By Sara

January 20, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

Alan that happens to me every time I hear the National Anthem. As much as I loathe the “Knights” yell, it’s subconsciously become ingrained into the Anthem. ugh…

By Bob

January 20, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard Kari admit in interviews that Nittymaki owns him, and Kari said it goes back to their days in youth hockey, as you said Tony. You can tell it wears on him. I would think Kari tonight, Moose tomorrow.

By kracker

January 20, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Good comments and points, everybody. I agree w/ RH on playing all the games for the same number of points available. I still favor the 3 point games because it affords a team the chance of moving up in the standings by rewarding a stretch of outstanding play.

The Western Conf example still holds today: 7 teams separated by 4 points - FOUR POINTS!, with the Stars just 2 more points back. Just think how exciting the play will be in close games when you are trying to win all of the 3 points available for that game. For the current WC standings, in one 3 point win the Avs move from 11th place to tied for 7th. The CBJ moves from 10th to tied for 4th. Putting it simply, if you are playing you better be getting some points because the other teams may be getting THREE points.

All this does is make all games equal and rewards dominating or determined play with the 3rd point. There really is no downside. Good teams will still be good, bad teams will still be bad. The real playoff-like intensity will be among the teams in the middle, especially when they play head to head. More emphasis will be on actually winning the game, as OTLs will effectively be worth less.

As for the OTs, I don’t mind 10 minute overtimes, or longer, except that the skaters and goalies already get exausted enough as it is. Exausted players invite injuries.

By Brendan

January 20, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Ahh Glovesave29, of course you’re right. 3-on-3 is closer to “team” play than the shootout, which is nothing more than an individual skills competition. I wish it didn’t come down to that, for a “W” in the standings. But it is what it is. And fans need to go home after regular season games. Playoff games sometimes go into a 3rd or 4th overtime. Would anyone sit through that for a regulation season game?

Some would. Some wouldn’t. And there’d be COMPLAINTS about it. I liked ties. I know that’s not politically correct to say anymore. But I never considered a tie to be something, “evil and sinister, to be avoided at ALL costs.” The shootout is here … and it’s here to stay, Glovesave29. I don’t like it. But I have to deal with it.

By Brendan

January 20, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

Err, “regular season game.”

By five_hole

January 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Link to this

Glovesave29 while some from the ‘80 team made it to the NHL, there is no comparison to the talent the Soviet Union had. The KLM line (Markov, Larionov and someone help me with the third guy) was the top line in the world. Fetisov was the #1 defenseman in the world. Tretiack (sp?) was the top goalie in the world. The U.S. couldn’t compete (talent-wise) with their 3rd line.

It’s all about teamwork, my friend.

While I have your ear, I have a question; I know that you’re a goalie. I’ve heard that goalies are taught to catch with their primary hand. In other words, I’m left-handed, so I would catch with my left hand. Is that true?

By Alan

January 20, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

You too, eh Sara? Kind of depressing, really. I feel its disrespectful of the anthem. There’s a laundry list of reasons why I’d never do it, but that’s the major one right there.

By Rawhide

January 20, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

Tont C. - Bob - Yup…Kari did indeed make those comments…but I took them to be more tongue-in-cheek than serious.

I mean…exactly what can one goalie “do” to another one on the opposite end of the ice? How can Nittymaki’s play effect Kari’s? It’s not like skaters and how they can directly effect other players….Is Nittymaki holding a Kari voodoo doll sticking pins in it?

Nope.

My point was…if…IF…Kari has a 3rd straight strong game tonight…and given the schedule & the fact he is “supposed” to be the #1 goalie…I would start him in Philly too Wednesday.

Besides, he can’t break the “Nittymaki jinx” sitting on the bench, can he?

By Russian

January 20, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this

to five_hole It was Krutov. Krutov-Larionov-Makarov was KLM line.

By five_hole

January 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Link to this

Thank you Russian. They were the best forwards in the world, back in the ’70s. They were simply awesome to watch.

By Tony C.

January 20, 2009 3:41 PM | Link to this

Sue me, I like the shootout. I like the fact that the competition committee decided two things that, to me at least, have greatly improved the product on the ice: getting rid of the redline, and there MUST be a winner and a looser in every game.

Ties do work, but you look at the NHL’s stated goals as a league: gain a larger % of the U.S. sports-entertainment dollar-to that end we’ve seen expansion to “non-traditional hockey markets”, teams made to use the official colors of the 90’s (teal, purple, vermillion, etc.) as their organization’s colors. To that end, one of the lessons learned from the massive “G.A.S.” attitude displayed by the large portion of the U.S. S&E market at the lockout-the NHL learned some things.

One of those was that U.S. audiences don’t like the concept of the “tie”. Sure, a draw between two boxers is acceptable, but just look at Donovan McNabb’s reaction to the concept of a tie during an NFL game-the man just simply didn’t think it was possible to tie.

McNabb is a professional athelete, if you take that example, that a professional does not even know that his sport offers the possibility of a tie, how on top of it do you think the infamous “Joe Six-Pack” is?

No ties is a good move to market the sport to the U.S. Plus the hockey shootout is quite possibly the most exciting thing to watch unfold. It most certainly is the most exciting play in sport. Why not showcase the sport’s most captivating moment more often (although in a side-note how big a bag of [CENSORED] was the Crosby shootout call over the weekend?)?

FIRE WADDELL

By Glovesave29

January 20, 2009 5:06 PM | Link to this

Five_hole - that is the case with me…but I am pretty darn close to ambidextrous. I write and throw with my left hand. I play goal with my catching glove on my left. Of course I play first base in baseball and I catch with my right hand…go figure.

Those Soviet teams were great, the truest “team” ever assembled in hockey. Much more so than the US team, which was my point. I have heard so many times that the USA team had little talent (which is not what you said, I know) and they got by on teamwork alone…and I just dont find that to be true.

Yeah, Brendan…I know, we are stuck with the shootout…it makes for good TV (that is if ESPN were to EVER show NHL highlights) - but I don’t like them. A team game ended by an individual.

Moose has been weak lately. This is a good time for Anderson to pump up Kari…tell him how strong he has been playing, how the team believes in him, and it it time to make Philly and Nittimakki pay. I don’t agree with playing Johan at all…

By Glovesave29

January 20, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

Five_hole - that is the case with me…but I am pretty darn close to ambidextrous. I write and throw with my left hand. I play goal with my catching glove on my left. Of course I play first base in baseball and I catch with my right hand…go figure.

Those Soviet teams were great, the truest “team” ever assembled in hockey. Much more so than the US team, which was my point. I have heard so many times that the USA team had little talent (which is not what you said, I know) and they got by on teamwork alone…and I just dont find that to be true.

Yeah, Brendan…I know, we are stuck with the shootout…it makes for good TV (that is if ESPN were to EVER show NHL highlights) - but I don’t like them. A team game ended by an individual.

Moose has been weak lately. This is a good time for Anderson to pump up Kari…tell him how strong he has been playing, how the team believes in him, and it it time to make Philly and Nittimakki pay. I don’t agree with playing Johan at all…

By Glovesave29

January 20, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this

Sorry five_hole - didn’t finish my thought. Most goalies do not catch with the opposite hand. Think of it….most of the world is right handed and so are a vast majority of goalies.

By ranallo10 (in AT)

January 20, 2009 6:29 PM | Link to this

glovesave — I’m sure it depends on both the coach and the individual, as you pointed out. A buddy of mine is also a goalie, and I believe he’s a lefty glove hand and righty shot (dj — feel free to update me if I’m wrong). His reasoning is that it’s easier to control the stick, and therefore quicker to transition the puck to his defenders after a save. When playing out, he uses a righty stick.

“Think of it….most of the world is right handed and so are a vast majority of goalies.” — Yet, most of the skaters are using lefty sticks.

I’ve been curious about the lefty dominant phenomenon hockey seems to have. I’m a righty, shoot with a right handed stick, and would be one of a handful of Thrashers players who do the same (Armstrong, Kovalchuk, Little, Bogosian, and maybe I’m missing another player or two). However, my girlfriend is a righty, and she excelled with a lefty stick just two weeks ago (it was her first time playing hockey, and she did well even with the ‘off-handed’ stick).

As for catching, if you grew up playing baseball I’d imagine you’re most comfortable catching with your opposite hand in goal (I would be), and guiding the stick with your “strong” hand.

But as I said, I think it depends on the individual, the coaching, and possibly even the sport they grew up playing. Or, in summation, it’s clearly not as simple as “righties use __ sticks”.

By BG33Brown

January 20, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this

The French broadcast is fasenating to me. I am literaly in a trance. It helps that we are up 2-0. Knock on wood, looks like we picked up where we left off.

Lets keep it up.

By Tom

January 20, 2009 8:16 PM | Link to this

What the heck is a distinct kicking motion if that wasn’t…. OMG!!!!

That was horrible and obvious!

By BG33Brown

January 20, 2009 8:20 PM | Link to this

Tom agreed. Someones going to need to reexplain that rule to me. I can’t believe that counted.

By Russian

January 20, 2009 8:48 PM | Link to this

Second goal by Motreal was kicked, but Toronto said OK. Damn. It was very bad. Any way 3:2 after second, I hope we can handle the French.

By Tony C.

January 20, 2009 9:05 PM | Link to this

I think they changed the “obvious kicking motion” rule this year, I think it only is discounted if it’s the toe of your boot/skate. Lemme check…well NHL.com just directs you to the 2K7-2K8 rule book, where rule 78.5 states

Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons: (i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. (ii) When the puck has been kicked using a distinct kicking motion. (iii) When the puck has deflected directly into the net off an official. (iv) When a goal has been scored and an ineligible player is on the ice. (v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.

so uh yeah. Hey I’m just thankful we haven’t had too many “Atlanta playing a Canadian-Market Team” minors as yet.

By Alan

January 20, 2009 9:39 PM | Link to this

Tony - I think that questionable goal allowed by the officials fits the “Atlanta playing a Canadian market team” penalty. It’s to make up for all the phantom calls that weren’t otherwise called.

And what the hell happened in the third? The Habs were allowed 17 shots on our net! Insanity!

We pulled out a victory here tonight, but I’m not sure we deserved it. Onward, to Philthadelphia!

By LAC

January 20, 2009 10:03 PM | Link to this

Another COMPLETE Game, Excellet all around for sure.

How in the living hell that second Montreal goal was allowed is nuts. If I ever saw a kicking motion that was it… But it’s a Canada team playing a SE team, so that is STANDARD operating practice for NHL.

Too bad it did not work !

Now… These “On The Fly” guys are at it yet again. Doing a BIG BOO-HOO that Montreal lost, Atlanta is an inferior team one said, then the Atlanta Hater dave reid, has some sinde comments on Peverley, to the effect, Or whoever they bring in this week and he is CHEAPER than Williams… He said !

But egg on their face tonight, and it looked good !

By R. Stroz

January 20, 2009 10:06 PM | Link to this

If kicking the puck in the goal is going to be allowed through some perverse definition of obvious kicking motion, the players might as well leave their sticks behind and play ice soccer.

By Tom

January 20, 2009 10:09 PM | Link to this

Stroz

I was thinking along the same lines. Too bad JP wasn’t calling the game as he would have gotten excited seeing such a classic soccer goal.

By Tony C.

January 20, 2009 10:28 PM | Link to this

I think Dave Reid got dissed by DW when Hartley asked to bring him in, he certainly hasn’t lost any love for the club-individual players, maybe, but the club as a whole? heeelllzzzzzzzzzz no!

By R. Stroz

January 20, 2009 10:32 PM | Link to this

Tom - Does your youngster have any more Thrasher intermission games this season?

By B. Thenet

January 20, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this

Habs Inside/Out is the place where Canadiens fans go to whine about losing to the Thrashers.

By Alan

January 20, 2009 11:18 PM | Link to this

Interesting stat I read from a Montreal fan: The Thrashers have handed the Canadiens their first ever loss (8-1-2) on a US Presidential inauguration day.

By R. Stroz

January 20, 2009 11:37 PM | Link to this

Aliens have landed in Phoenix

Coyotes 6 Dead Wings 3

By Brendan

January 20, 2009 11:40 PM | Link to this

LAC, I don’t think Dave Reid has EVER actually witnessed 60, or even 65, consecutive minutes of Thrashers on ice play. So, he’s operating on some basic assumptions. Such as? (1) Atlanta is a weak team. Okay. That’s true. Next. (2) Atlanta operates on the cheap. Hmmn. Hard to dispute that one, really. (3) Atlanta is in position, as a lower echelon team, to make BETTER QUALITY waiver claims. Once again, even Dave Reid has CLUED IN to something OBVIOUS.

My problem with Dave Reid is basically this: He doesn’t really want to take the time to BOTHER to LEARN about the Atlanta Thrashers. The way I see it, Dave Reid sits there thinking … “what’s the point to following this team? They stink. They’re run on the cheap. They’ll ditch players at the deadline. That’s when I’ll start to think about who might have some trade deadline value.” What Reid’s doing … is taking some “shortcuts” to doing some actual thinking and analysis. He’s not going to bother to break down who Atlanta’s best defeneseman is on the PP. He’s not about to TRY to figure out who Atlanta’s best penalty killer is, aside from the goaltender. He’s automatically going to assume Kovalchuk takes the most shots on goal, without verifying it. And he’ll operate this offseason under the assumption that Atlanta won’t find any free agents who are worth a hill of beans. Well, heck. He’ll probably get away with that one, too. Sometimes, these things are difficult to refute.

By Tom

January 21, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

stroz not that I know about. But I think that if we brought enough people and bought enough tickets they would play every night. :)

By Tom

January 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this

Brendan

What a great GM would learn from your post is that Dave Reid is probably following the conventional wisdom of most of those following the NHL.

And then a GREAT GM would work his behind off to turn this into a positive by manipulating the market and other GMs who think the same way.

Of course, we are still looking for a great GM aren’t we so odds are Waddell probably believes the same things as Reid and acts that way.