JR Ewing

Not only that, but RFK didn't line match. Not one little bit. Nor did he make an efort to get Schultz away from tough zone starts. Essentially, he was thrown to the wolves. So, I'd be interested to see how he does uner Eakins, who is very details oriented and mindful matchups, from everything I've read and heard. JR

If I'm Craig MacTavish, I'm not willing to bet the farm on Schultz turning into one of the top couple of offensive defensemen in the game right now. He showed very well last year, but there were definitely issues which probably keep him from being a true top pairing guy, imo. Belov: I'd give him training camp, and if it's clear he can handle NHL players, at least give him minutes. If not, he can back and forth as needed, since he's on an ELC. JR

I don't have the link handy Charlio, but I saw a quote from his agent the other day, and he made no bones of the fact that Grabovski isn't wanting to go back to Russia. JR

How much money was he going to sign for? The Flyers own his rights and don't want to trade him (nor would I) and he knows there isn't really cap space left. JR

I think you're absolutely spot-on, but I just have never been able to settle on what to do with him; where to put him. In best-on-best tournaments, he carried an astonishing standard of play. No doubt of that at all. The problem is pretty much the same as attempting to rank ***** Leaguers in with Major Leaguers. What's Josh Gibson's place in baseball history? I have no doubt he's one of the best hitters ever. He's probably the best right handed power hitter ever, and probably the best catcher ever. But how do I know for sure where to rank him in comparison to Berra, Bench, Campanella and Cochrane? How do we rank Buck Leonard against Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx? How do we rank Satchel Paige against Walter Johnson? You get the idea. And here's the thing: I agree 100% with you. I bet he's one of the top 5 goaltenders in the history of the game; he may even be the best ever. He was named to the 1st All-Star team in the Soviet League every year from 1971 to 1984. He was MVP 5 times. Different league, of course, but it doesn't seem to me like it really should carry less weight than a pre-expansion NHL player who was also in a small league drawing from a pool of one country. But I just don't know where to place him in comparison the NHL players, so he always ends up in his own category with me, for the guys lost to global politics and other assorted bits of BS. JR

@ Yes, the league tracks GWG: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20132ALLSASALL&sort=gameWinningGoals&viewName=summary JR

Nice stuff. I remember Dan Petry well: threw a lot of innings for a pretty good Tigers team. They broke my heart in 1987. It's pretty cool that you ended up getting to watch Jeff with him. JR

For me, summer 2006 thru the end of this year has been tougher; watching years of big game hunting and shunting of NHL players without thought of bringing in replacements has been worse. Watching Steve Tambellini ineloquently and hapharazardly bumble his way around and mismanage nearly every step was worse. Worse than Steve Smith's own-goal. Worse than watching the Rangers and Kings pick the Oilers bones. Exactly. There were some good (not great) players back there who could definitely play a good defensive game; Huddy and Lowe in particular. JR

Kurri: you're very correct, and I feel silly for not mentioning him. heh JR

@jammer2 Absolutely; those things are all true. JR

Provided the return is right, damn near any player is available. In Petry's case, he's a viable NHL defenseman who can do a little bit of everything and has a very cap friendly contract. I imagine if possible, the Oilers would rather keep him. JR

@jammer2 That very well could be. I certainly don't know what Feaster intends to do, but I think there's indications in what he's done so far. We know he's gotten rid of the viable talent on his roster, and the only players left who are really being paid are the guys with NTC or NMC attached to their contracts. However, Grabosvki could land there if he's willing to sign for a low enough figure for CGY to remain interested. Tanking teams don't usually like to spend a lot of money to lose, after all.The big question mark in this is what he's willing to take. I have no idea. JR

Very good deal for the Flyers; Couterier brings some nice things. Though, to address something I saw in the shoutbox on the main page: you can't really compare the dollar figures between a 2-yr old RFA and a 29-yr old UFA... They have completely different types of leverage when negotiating. JR

Calgary's in full rebuild mode right now (you know, the kind that Jay Feaster said they would never do) may not be interested in Grabovski. JR

No, I definitely hear you. Text doesn't always convey meaning. For what it's worth, I wasn't mad. I've been doing this since the days of dial-up BBs, and pre-web usenet discussions on rec.sport.hockey, and I have yet to get mad during one of these. JR

Now that we have that settled. JR

With the Grebeshkov signing a couple of days ago, the Oilers have something like: Smid (L) Petry ® Ference (L) J Schultz ® N Schultz (L) Belov (L) -------------------- Grebeshkov ® Larsen ® -------------------- Potter Klefbom Marincin -Anything which doesn't force Klefbom into the NHL lineup before he's ready is good. -I wasn't really sure how to sort Belov and Grebeshkov. Grebs has played (well) in the NHL before, but didn't have a very good year last season in the KHL, and Belov is a little younger and was the best defenseman in the league. Both can play a puck moving game. -I think Nick Schultz needs to go. -I don't know if the Oilers plan on keeping Larsen around: he does bring what Craig MacTavish is clearly placing a premium on: an ability to move the puck.. Thing is, we also don't know if the Oilers picked him up in the Horcoff trade because they wanted him or if Dallas wanted some salary to go back. -Potter is on a 2-way deal, so if anybody's going to OKC, it's him. -It seems that, based on his signings, Craig MacTavish doesn't place a high value on slow d-men who can't move the puck (the Fistric types). JR

LOL Whenever somebody says "not to be insulting" the insult comes right after, just like "not to be sexist" is followed by something that would make Larry Flynt blush . Say it for real, own up to it: you think what I said is dumb. That's fine. It wasn't; you just disagree with it. I honestly think people can disagree without breaking it down to that level, but let your flag fly. For what it's worth, I also think that placing the Pacific teams in the "Lemieux Division" isn't the best idea. Then again, nobody ever has a hard time finding their team, no matter what the division is named. After all, you seemed to find the Flyers in the Patrick Division even though you never heard of Lester Patrick. Anyway. This is all fine, and I don't think that it's the end of the world either way. The league won't do better or worse based on how they name their divisions. And we'll probably need to agree to disagree. JR

-This is a league that locks out its players more often than MIchael Jordan places bets. -This is a league where discipline is handled in a way that doesn't do the word "inconsistent" justice. -This is a league where the Director of Hockey Operations is sending nasty emails to the head of officiating, complaining about calls made/not made in reference to his own son, who plays in the league. -This is a league that allows a man to be named as an All-Star at two positions, one of which he doesn't even play. -This is a league that, carte blanche, gave complete control of the expansion process to one GM (Sam Pollock) who then wrote the rules to benefit his team above all others, completely hosing competitive balance for the next decade. We could go on. The NHL is already a bush league, and is already seen that way. Many people openly consider fighting being allowed to be a joke, to be bush league. Division names, whether they be geographic or historic, don't draw fans in and they sure as hell don't keep them away. I don't think it's the end of the world that they went geographic, and I sure as hell don't think they should have gone back to Norris/Smythe/etc, but I don't see the harm, either. JR

For the GM or me? LOL I'm pretty convinced that's why GMs do it, anyway. You get to look good by locking up a key player, and even if the term is way too long (David Clarkson.......) then you most likely won't be the guy having to clean it up. In that sense, it's completely like federal politics, where people make decisions are made far less in terms of what would be good in the long term, and much more so on a 4-year cycle. It's a shame, but it happens all the time. JR

It's not only that, but I've seen this precise set of posts from a guy who went around to a bunch of forums at the same time, all so he could bait people with an argument over GWG, and he could "expose" their "lack of logic", when all they were doing was explaining the league's logic to him. He wasn't interested in discussion or debate. He was interested in looking down on people. He was, in short, an ass. I don't know if this is the same guy, but if he is.............. JR

Not to be overly sarcastic, but I would guess the location of the city would be the dead giveaway... We don't really need a divsion name like "Pacific" to tell us where Los Angeles plays. JR

Oh, this is really a shame. I hoped they would take their chance to come back with names that would be a throwback to the game's greatest players and/or builders, and wasn't so far removed from newer fans they've picked up: Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, etc. The NHL has an amazing history which the league run towards, not away from. JR

I wouldn't want to give a goalie credit or blame for the system employed his team. People are constantly knocking Brodeur for the Devils trapping (like so many other teams, btw). My issue with Brodeur is that the save percentage was just never there. Great goalie, didn't make my top 5 (was 6th). On the other side of the coin, people want to sometimes give a little bit too much credit for goalies that played under a looser defensive system. With Grant Fuhr, the point is sometimes stretched to the absurd, and people talk about the Oilers as if they didn't give a rat's ass about defense when I can assure you they did. For all of the talk of the hard job Fuhr had, it was guys like Hextall, Burke, Bannerman, Hrudey, etc, who saw a lot more rubber each game. a] Yeah, yeah... Paul Coffey... And the other 5 guys? Most years it was guys who were very good defensively: Kevin Lowe, Charlie Huddy, Lee Fogolin. Solid defensively: Jeff Beukeboom, Craig Muni, Steve Smith, Randy Gregg. b] Forwards? They had two guys who were among the top vote getters for the Selke year-in and year-out: Craig MacTavish and Esa Tikkanen. c] There is tremendous defensive benefit to always being at the other end of the ice, pushing play at the opposition. Less time in your zone, less chances at you net. This isn't to say that the Oilers played a stifling defense. We're talking about the 80s; nobody really did that. You could see more breakaways in one game than you see in a month of games these days. But, over time, talk of how the Oilers played has taken on a life of its own. TLDR for Fuhr: Like Brodeur, the save percentage just wasn't there. JR

Why: Yeah, I would bet the honeymoon is a major factor in his not being signed yet. Where: a team that will give him the money he wants AND will not put make him a 3rd line centre. He has no interest in doing that again, clearly. JR