Nightwing

Actually, it's slightly less than what Lidstrom makes (7.45 to 7.4), so they held well on that promise. And frankly I'm ecstatic; seriously, our top two lines are going to be absolutely amazing next year. Zettberg-Datsyuk-Holmstrom, Filppula-Franzen-Hossa (in no particular orders)? Rockin'. I think that you could make a serious argument for Ken Holland being the best GM in sports today after that deal.

I'd take your hilarious view of America more seriously if you realize it was "bear" and not "bare". Seriously, for all the talk of "OMG TRAITOROUS" stuff, we censor less than most other countries, especially when it comes to viewpoints. If we go by censorship, boobs are the greatest enemy facing America today.

So who are the earlier winners looking like? Right now, despite their bigger pickups, Tampa Bay has made some good moves picking up Kolzig and Adam Hall. Chicago suddenly became a contender (even if they did overspend on Campbell, they could have done worse) and can now forget about their big mistake in Khabibulin with Huet. They might have problems down the line, but like Tampa I'm sure it restores a lot of faith that they are actually trying to compete for the Cup.

My internet has basically been down all day, so I missed a lot of the "Real-Time" coverage that I can't get due to ESPN being a bunch of douchebags who like to wank off to what Gilbert Arenas is or isn't doing today. Unfortunately, none of them realized that unless he is growing new knees, it really doesn't matter all that much. But wow. Seriously, this looks like it was a feeding-frenzy. Wings resign Stuart, which was a great move as he's a perfect 3rd/4th defenseman and ideal to be skating alongside Kronan the Barbarian. And we net Conklin for 750k? Perfect. I would have liked to see another scorer, but I'm perfectly fine with this result on just the first day: No overspending, and picking up no-brainers.

If Kansas City decided to implement an abortion ban within the city limits, would you say the same thing? No, because it's obviously setting a precedent to infringe on that right. It's cute that you'll ignore the slippery slope here. And it's laughable to think that's what's going to improve D.C. I've never seen a gang-member at a Sports Authority picking up a gun and I doubt I ever will. Hell, Michael Moore pointed it out better than anyone in his film Bowling for Columbine that gangs are getting firearms from people outside of their area anyways (If anyone doesn't remember, it's the obligatory "Whitey is bad!" scene with the hick bragging about selling guns to inner-city kids), so it's not like this law was preventing anyone from getting them unless they set up checkpoints on all entrypoints into D.C. If you want to fix the inner-city, there are far better things that you can put an effort towards. If you want to crack down on guns, crack down on illegal ones. Make the illegal sale of guns a far more serious crime, raise the sentence on using guns in a crime (except for murder, of course), and things that punish criminals and not law-abiding citizens. And on the 33,000: Also consider that a significant portion of those are police-related or justifiable homicide. Then look at how many of them were illegally obtained. After you look at the net value of "legal guns" used in crime, gun restriction laws really start to look silly. But the "Ban Cars!" cry doesn't work, as everyone owns a car, and not everyone owns a gun, thusly the numbers are very skewed. It's not a very hard point to disprove.

At the very least, I think they've shown the fans that they really do care enough to make some big moves and try to drastically improve the franchise. Can anyone fault them for that?

That's what I thought, but Tampa's first pitch has worked on two of the three guys so far, and it still might work on Rolston. Can't argue with results, especially for a single draft pick.

... I don't think I can make it four weeks without seeing this movie. I'm honestly going to go insane.

I just remembered the draft was on when I saw this thread. Holy shit, this sounds like it's been pretty wacky with all the trades back and forth. I wish I had seen the Islanders thing.

Oh Jesus, look at the next year. Just because they tried it once doesn't mean that no game could ever, EVER be fixed again. Hell, I didn't even suggest that they fixed ever game or fixed who the champion was. If you actually read what I posted and didn't freak out like you are, you'll note that I didn't say that they may not even have picked the overall series winners; they may have just focused on lengthening series. Their ratings have never really recovered from the loss of Jordan, and maybe he was trying to try different options. I'm sorry, I'm not David Stern and I don't know what he does. Neither do you; what makes sense to us might not make sense to Stern since he has better information than we do. Maybe he was trying to get two squeaky clean teams in after all the player troubles and bad reputation the NBA had started to gain. Who knows what David Stern was thinking if he even was. Also, reality check on the ratings: The ratings for the Pistons/Laker series were great. They were the most consistently high since 2001, and the second only to 2001 for series in this millennium (Barring the current series). And by the by? The Heat didn't do that much better than the 2005 NBA Finals. They didn't throw their existence away on it, did they? No one accused them of fixing that game. Maybe they were banking on that, or maybe they knew that they were safe from such accusations. You keep saying "THEY WERE RISKING IT ALL!", but in reality no one knew a thing until Donaghy got picked up by accident. Oh shut the hell up about this. If this were true, we'd have no security frauds, no Enrons, no anything. Why would Michael Vick throw away his career on dog fighting or big baseball players take steroids? Because they want to or they feel they need to. Maybe Stern wanted a bigger profit-margin, or maybe he wanted to try and shove San Antonio down our throats and try to make it the basketball equivalent of Green Bay (A small market team that has a ridiculously dedicated following). Maybe he felt that it was necessary to stretch out some series to get better exposure for the league. Who knows; I'm sure if Stern did it, it was either for money or what he felt was best for the league. Just because we don't understand why people with so much power would readily risk it doesn't mean that they never do; the amount of corporate scandals seem to indicate otherwise. So there is absolutely no way that game could possibly have been fixed, right? You know it because you know the referees and you know David Stern and he is just a stand-up guy, right? Or are you just a fan who loves the sport? We don't know if more were mentioned, these were just the first two instances that he mentioned of the NBA fixing the games. Maybe there is more, and we'll have to wait and see if the Feds actually have anything. It's obviously not completely believable for refs to fix a game because no one has ever done that, right? I mean, we aren't in that situation now, right? And you DID describe Canseco: A self-concerned douchebag. Just because someone is a douche doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth. Especially when they are self-concerned and don't want more prison time. But the league basically condoned it silently by doing nothing. And you keep saying it's "more believable" when we've seen game fixing already occur. Donaghy never says he saw Stern telling the refs to give a "Code Red", but he said they were company men. Maybe they acted on their own in what they felt the best interests of the NBA were. Since we've already seen one "rogue referee" do what he needed to do, would it be out of the question for two more to do such a thing? Are referees really that incorruptible to you? I feel like I'm portraying myself as a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really not. I'm not even fully trusting of what Donaghy has to say. But this swallowing of whatever David Stern seems to say without any more questions is ridiculous: We just had a referee admit to fixing games across multiple seasons. Is it that hard to believe that more could have done it, with or without NBA approval?

Just because he's going to prison doesn't mean it couldn't be worse. There is a difference between less than three years and more than 5 years. You can't tell me that he's going to make baseless lies so he can be in prison for a decade when he could just stay fucking quiet and get out in 2 years. That doesn't make sense on any level. While sensationalism might help his eventual book, putting out baseless claims that completely discredit him will not. Making a lot of blatant lies that get turned over later won't help him, nor will the eventual libel/slander suits when it comes to the profits. Why not try it? The Pistons are in a large enough market, and other teams were on the downswing. IF they did rig this, maybe they wanted to see if the market would react favorably to two dominant teams rather than showing off big star players. With the Piston's popularity at the time, it might be worth a shot. Hell, maybe they just wanted to get the most out of the best matchups of the playoffs; extending big-series to 7 games when they had the chance. If you want to see unwatchable, check out the Stanley Cup Finals from 2003 to 2006. San Antonio vs. Detroit has a better ring to it than Calgary versus Tampa Bay. Oh Christ, stop the over-acting. What's so important about Sacramento/Los Angeles? You can't be serious. They'd started to form a pretty heated (if one-sided) rivalry since 2000. Getting the most you can out of a close and action-packed series would certainly boost ratings and hype up the Finals. You can't tell me that you don't believe that the NBA wouldn't have a vested interest in getting a 7 game series out of that one. If anything, this is the perfect series to try and risk it. And if they did, they got away with one of the most blatant fixes ever, didn't they? No one of any real credibility accused them of a fix, and they got exactly what they wanted. If anything, it showed how little they had to risk, since no one would ever consider that the NBA fixed the game. Like this one, it'd just go down as "One of the worst-officiated games ever". We've seen a history of absolutely horrible officiating in the NBA Playoffs; maybe there is something to it. At the very least, it is worth looking into. Did you read my previous post? It doesn't need to be that common, just strategic. And again, if it's true, how much risk do you think was there if they got away with Game 6 like they did? If you can get away with that, there's little to no risk. Donaghy getting caught by the Feds (something that had no real direct involvement with the NBA) was more just a bad break than anyone actually investigating the NBA. It doesn't need to be the entire NBA; it'd be stupid if everyone were in on it. But select people and select referees in select games? Sure. You don't need to control everything or even the eventual outcomes of series (If the Kings had come out of that Game 7, I'm sure that the NBA would have been just as happy, as they could talk about Sacramento finally kicking the Laker Playoff monkey), you just need to get the most out of things. If that means pushing a series to a Game 7 that shouldn't have happened, that's what you can do. Wow, you just described Jose Canseco. Didn't people say he was doing the exact same thing?

I am. I mean, why mouth off now? What does he have to gain by exposure, versus what he has to gain by keeping his mouth shut? Is he doing it for the good of the NBA? I think the smart analysis is that you really need corroboration before you take anything seriously. He is not credible in my eyes. Point in case, this isn't something that is new as in, "He just started saying this!", but rather this is something that he already told the feds a while ago, and revealed it due to the $1,000,000 bill that the NBA recently stuck him with. This would have eventually come out sooner or later, Donaghy just seemed content to not talk about it until the NBA actually did something. On corroboration, we'll have to wait and see the evidence, and I agree at not completely trusting him. I'm not saying that he's completely believable, but lying would hurt him ten times worse than it would help him at this point and that fact should be taken into account. It's hard to just say "Nope, not going to believe it" with the stuff we are seeing right now.

1) It doesn't need to be the whole league, or even all the refs. 2) Is it worth millions of dollars? Maybe. Before Donaghy, did we believe that a ref would honestly attempt to fix games in this day and age? With millions of dollars and the well-being of the league, why not drag out one game, one series a little longer? You have this idea that it's all fixed, like wrestling or something, but it doesn't have to be. Lengthen one series here and there, get the right teams in the right places, and you don't have to fix every game to reap the benefits. 3) You can try playing the "He's a felon!" as much as you want, but you are honestly going to tell me that a guy who is going to serve less than three years of prison time will try and get some of that off at the risk of spending double or even triple that? His life could be fine if he just moved on, but no, he's going to make outrageous claims and get put into jail longer? That doesn't make sense. Just because he's a felon doesn't mean he's automatically lying. If anything, being under the microscope and having the threat of more time if he is lying about this stuff makes me believe him more. Let's not act like he has nothing to lose here; he's not that old, and the Feds can certainly tack on a lot more time if he's just trying to be vengeful. Not all criminals are retards, and with the amount of money to be made, why not? It's not like we haven't seen owner scandals before. The million dollar book and immunity only if it works. If it doesn't (And remember, we are talking about guys you can discredit for having an "axe to grind" against the league), they're screwed and their life is over. Heck, it's still probably over due to the massive amounts of fraud involved. They just don't "hand out" immunity on a whim. If you think someone is going to put everything they know on the line over some bitterness, you are crazy. We only had one guy talking about Steroids in baseball, and look where that led us. Is it that unbelievable that if one guy did it, others could? At the very least, you can't dismiss this out-of-hand. I'm not saying that we have to take it as gospel, but we've certainly seen enough that it holds some water.

Are you joking? A disenchanted referee making claims of fixing would be less heard than the current Donaghy stuff. You'd dismiss it like you're dismissing Donaghy's claims as "them having an axe to grind". The assurance we have of people listening and at least some possibility of truthfulness with Donaghy is that he actually got caught in an FBI Investigation. Not only that, but the possible legal ramifications against them would be there as well: If they were involved in fixing games, they could go to jail even if they were following orders. So I ask you: Do you really think they were so angry that they'd risk going to jail themselves for charges that might never manifest into anything meaningful?

Steal of the Round. Excellent choice.

I'd just like to make a few points, one of which is that Donoghy is only facing a maximum (if I'm to believe ESPN) of 33 months in jail. That's like, nothing in the context of what he did. Why talk shit and possibly get more time for making false accusations? I don't see the logical reason to lie about this stuff now. It just doesn't make sense: His prison sentence is light for what he did, the $1,000,000 will easily be offset by the book he's almost certainly going to write. The guy will have enough money to retire at the end of this. To come out and give them another chance to get in trouble doesn't seem like the right idea, even out of "spite", so to speak. I also don't see how adding potential charges and years to his sentence "saves his ass" in the least; it's not like the Federal Government is going to hand out immunity without any substantial evidence here, and (again) his charges are relatively light to what they could be. I don't completely buy into him, but it's stupid to dismiss it out-of-hand. What I want to see is the evidence he has of this, if any.

Finally! The long drought is over!! These last 5 seasons must have been brutal for you Wings fans. Sorry to bust balls, but when your team has won 4 in like 11 seasons, it's tough to see a "Finally" and not make jokes. Try being a Bruins fan or a Leaf fan who hasn't gotten to see a Cup celebration in their life time. (Especially a Leafs fan, I'd say ... at least us B's fans have seen our team play for a Cup) EDIT: And having said that, congrats to the Wings fans. Your boys really did deserve the Cup this year, they were the best team all along and deserved the win. I was actually making reference to the fact that they've been the first seed in the West ever since the 2002 win (along with two President's Trophies), but they've never been able to finish it. I wouldn't say it like that if they weren't the damned 1st Seed every damned year.

I'm a Red Wings fan, but that's pretty cheap. This game should have gone into overtime. Well, if we are going by that, the last game shouldn't have gone to OT off of Kronwall's cheapie. But in all seriousness, that was a great game and a heart-attack-inducing ending. God, this is a great shot in the arm for the sport. Hank getting recognition, Lidstrom getting another big check-mark against his name (The first European born and raised to lead a team to the Stanley Cup, as apparently some guy out of Odessa who was raised from infancy in Canada lead Chicago to it in 1938), and (FINALLY!) the Wings finally cap off a season the right way. Just beautiful, people.

YES! YES! One more game!

I think Infinite Crisis gets the most puzzling reception of any event I've ever read. I loved it, but people hate it for the oddest reasons and no one seems to agree on which issues are the "good" ones and which issues are the "bad" ones. Never understood that.

Oh. OH. Okay, different wavelengths, but I get what you mean. I thought you were saying they were the same, but you're just saying that is how it might happen. Gotcha. To pose an interesting question: How many good games must be played for this series to be redeemed? If the Wings were to win the next two in incredibly fun games, would that be enough? Or does this need to go to six or seven to even become passable?

Maybe Detroit is going to do the same thing, like against Nashville and Dallas. Huh? Detroit never fell asleep on either of those teams. Dallas played them hard, but Detroit wasn't flat. In Nashville, that was more Ellis playing out of his mind and Hasek choking. Game 5 confirmed as much. The Pens didn't show up at all in New York for Game 4 (3-0), and only woke up in the 3rd period against Philly (3-0 until Staal started up). I honestly don't see how you can compare the two.

A great game overall, even if the Wings shot themselves in the foot more than anything else. The two dirty goals really killed them in the end, but they kept it close and competitive. I found the Igloo crowd to be a bit underwhelming what with all the "We are the real Hockeytown!" line (Seriously, if anything Nashville has been the craziest crowd in the playoffs by my watch), and the Wings kept themselves composed well enough. I think they can pull out Game 4, especially if the Pens decide (like they did in New York and Philadelphia) to start sleep-walking again.

I could see that. I dunno. I've been hearing rumors about San Jose, but they've really become the Toronto of the east when it comes to trade and FA rumors (Everyone seems to be going there). max: Do you think that the Bruins would pursue Campbell if he doesn't sign? I'm not intimately familiar with the Bruins situation as you certainly are, so do you think they could make a play for (arguably) the two most-talked-about FAs going into this off-season?

There is absolutely no way that Hossa is staying in Pittsburgh, unless he is taking a serious pay-cut. I think he's going to be going out west somewhere. Pittsburgh isn't going to be like Edmonton in the 80's, because the 4-peat and 5-peat dynasties have died off with the shift into the Free Agency and Salary Cap eras. If that Edmonton team had been around in the climate now, they would have been sold off or broken up a year or two after their first Cup due to other teams giving superior offers along with Salary Cap considerations. If Pittsburgh wants to be a long-term contender, it has to develop a good scouting network ala New Jersey and Detroit and look for those diamonds in the rough or just solid roleplayers that can be found in later rounds. They got this great base from their shitty years, now they need to get the support staff to find the other pieces. You can always go the free agent market, but it's proven to be unreliable as a long-term solution and I doubt Pittsburgh will have much salary cap room if they want to keep the integral pieces like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Malone.