[emperor penguin]

Apparently, Mats claimed that, so long as it's up to him, he's not going anywhere. Perhaps he won't feel this way later in the season, but it looks like for now he's staying put.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2007/12/03/4704472-sun.html">http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/To ... 2-sun.html</a><!-- m -->

It wouldn't be like Mats to say that he wants out though, what he's actually thinking may be a different story. Moving Sundin would be in the best interest for both parties.

[opiated]

friggin' Wild..I hate them!!

[ryan93]

Now that was a frustrating game, the Rangers couldn't muster up any kind of attack, and anytime they did have a decent scoring opportunity, the Hurricanes found a way to block the shots/passes.

[cferneyh]

Interesting to note that Keenan has finally started ripping Kipper.

And while I don't think anyone would disagree that Kipper hasn't quite been himself this season, is it really Kipper's fault, or something about Mike Keenan?

From '84 to '95 Keenan coached 772 games and won 423 of them for a winning percentage of .548. In that time he won 14 playoff series.

Since then, he's coached 477 games and won 171 of them, for a winning percentage of .358. In that time he was won ONE playoff series, and that was in '96.

I dunno Flames fans. I'll simply never get why Sutter hired a rookie head coach to coach a team that was supposedly a Cup contender, and then switched gears and hired a coach with more baggage than Pam Anderson. (But at least Pam Anderson still puts out).

[daylight]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

I also think we (Edmonton) may have the best shootout record in the league, which is quite a change from previous years. Shame we rarely seem to win in regulation and keep having to give the other team a point.

[grimes]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

</rant>

[tth_fan]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

Ya, but then teams wouldn't go for the win in OT. They would play super-conservatively, which would make OT boring, and just try to get the points in the shootout. I bet you some teams would even throw 3 defensemen out there in OT, just to win on shots.

[cferneyh]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

</rant>

Couldn't agree more. When the Leafs were 8-11-6, Ferguson was saying they were "only 3 games under .500", which was a convenient way to spin "8 wins in 25 games".

[skippy the wonder dog]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

Ya, but then teams wouldn't go for the win in OT. They would play super-conservatively, which would make OT boring, and just try to get the points in the shootout. I bet you some teams would even throw 3 defensemen out there in OT, just to win on shots.

Solution: dump the stupid shootout, and dump the point for losing in OT.

Problem solved.

[opiated]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

Ya, but then teams wouldn't go for the win in OT. They would play super-conservatively, which would make OT boring, and just try to get the points in the shootout. I bet you some teams would even throw 3 defensemen out there in OT, just to win on shots.

Solution: dump the stupid shootout, and dump the point for losing in OT.

Problem solved.

agree :thumb:

[tth_fan]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

Ya, but then teams wouldn't go for the win in OT. They would play super-conservatively, which would make OT boring, and just try to get the points in the shootout. I bet you some teams would even throw 3 defensemen out there in OT, just to win on shots.

Solution: dump the stupid shootout, and dump the point for losing in OT.

Problem solved.

But then we're back to the "tie gets you a point" mentality of the early '90's, which is why the OT format was changed to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the whole shootout rule, where a team that looses 82 games in a shootout can still have 82 pts at season's end; I'm just thinking from the league's point of view.

[cferneyh]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the whole shootout rule, where a team that looses 82 games in a shootout can still have 82 pts at season's end.

Yeah, I hate it when teams go 0-0-82. Drives me nuts.

[grimes]

Woo! Finally won three in a row, way to go guys! One game short of .500!

That's one of my biggest pet peeves about the "new" NHL. Everyone in the media seems to ignore the fact that overtime losses are just that - losses. Not a big deal for a team like Edmonton, who have only one OT loss, but look at the Leafs for example. Their current record is 10-11-6, so things aren't so bad, they're only one game under .500, right? Wrong. In my books, they've played 27 games, and only won 10, which is a winning pct. of only about 0.370. I really wish they'd just get rid of the extra point and treat all losses the same.

Ya, but then teams wouldn't go for the win in OT. They would play super-conservatively, which would make OT boring, and just try to get the points in the shootout. I bet you some teams would even throw 3 defensemen out there in OT, just to win on shots.

Solution: dump the stupid shootout, and dump the point for losing in OT.

Problem solved.

But then we're back to the "tie gets you a point" mentality of the early '90's, which is why the OT format was changed to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the whole shootout rule, where a team that looses 82 games in a shootout can still have 82 pts at season's end; I'm just thinking from the league's point of view.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting the extra point be eliminated completely, whether for OT losses or shootout losses. So yes, a team that is good at the shootout might play defensively in OT in order to get to the shootout. But a team that sucks at the shootout (a few come to mind) would probably want to do everything they could to win it in OT and not have to face a shootout. So it should basically balance out.

Or I wouldn't mind Skippy's idea either...

[skippy the wonder dog]

I don't see a problem with getting a point for a tie. I see a problem with getting a point for losing.

And the point that a team that's good in the shootout can play conservatively in OT and go for the shootout is valid. The shootout is a whole different ball game and some teams do well at it while others don't. That in itself is a reason to get rid of it: it ain't hockey.

[The Darkest Canuck]

i really didn't think i would, but i like the shootout after 4 on 4 OT in regular season play...simply put, it's fun to watch.

i wouldn't want to see it in the playoffs, but i like the fact that there's a winner every game now, a tie is an unsatisfactory ending to any sort of competition.