Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[Brendan]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=401580

Doan is crazy to be asking for that type of contract. I find Doans reluctance to leave Phoenix a bit baffling. This is awful franchise with no history of winning not to mention all the other off the ice crap. I would think at his age and all the losing he's been through he would jumping at the chance to join a team like the Red Wings or Penguins. I know his hearts in Phoenix but he owes them nothing. Go where you can win Shane.

[BrySmalls]

I wonder which team, aside from the Coyotes, would be foolish enough to sign a 35yr old to that type of contract.

[BigBubba]

Indeed Kinger.

Anyway I disagree with the notion that Mario Lemieux was more talented then Wayne Gretzky. They're both amazing talents. We likely won't see anyone close to their level in a long, long time. That being said, between the both of them, Gretzky has the edge, in my opinion. The way he saw the game unfold around and in front of him, the way he would see two to three steps ahead on every play was really special and puts him over Mario. That, and the fact that if Gretzky never scored a single goal he'd still have the all time points record on assists alone.

I'm not trying to disparage Lemieux. He just comes up a bit short of Gretzky when it comes to discussing the GOAT, in my opinion.

That's also without the second assist for most of his career. That's one of those stats that blows my mind every time I hear it.

On top of all of that, its not like Gretzky barely broke all the scoring records... he completely obliterated them. He has roughly 1000 points more than the #2 leading scorer in NHL History. Thats like having a Hall of Fame career between #1 and #2. To put it in perspective if you took the #2 score in NHL history (Mark Messier with 1887) and added Bobby Orr's numbers to it (915) you would still have 55 lest points than Gretzky 2857 compared to 2802.

Looking at the bare stats is completely unfair to Mario given how much time he missed and considering his career started just a few years after Gretzky's (regarding the second assist stat). His PPG was just 0.04 lower that Wayne's with all the health issues he faced and the lesser teams he played with. The biggest stat to me though is how his GPP is almost 0.15 (not 0.015) higher than Gretzky's. Put him in Gretzky's shoes and he scores 1 300.

[Funky Bunky]

I wonder which team, aside from the Coyotes, would be foolish enough to sign a 35yr old to that type of contract.

I could see Pittsburgh doing it. They have space and they need top 6 wingers, even though Doan wants that crazy contract.

I hope he doesn't get signed. Having the nerve to ask for 4 years, 7.5 per year when you average 50-55 points, and you're old? That's ridiculous.

[The_Admiral]

He'll stay in Phoenix for one year at the league minimum so his kids can stay in the same schools and so nobody can say that for such a big contract he's not a great scorer and kind of a tard. Arguably the Joe Sakic of our time, if you like to argue stupidly.

[Kramerica Industries]

Indeed Kinger.

Anyway I disagree with the notion that Mario Lemieux was more talented then Wayne Gretzky. They're both amazing talents. We likely won't see anyone close to their level in a long, long time. That being said, between the both of them, Gretzky has the edge, in my opinion. The way he saw the game unfold around and in front of him, the way he would see two to three steps ahead on every play was really special and puts him over Mario. That, and the fact that if Gretzky never scored a single goal he'd still have the all time points record on assists alone.

I'm not trying to disparage Lemieux. He just comes up a bit short of Gretzky when it comes to discussing the GOAT, in my opinion.

That's also without the second assist for most of his career. That's one of those stats that blows my mind every time I hear it.

On top of all of that, its not like Gretzky barely broke all the scoring records... he completely obliterated them. He has roughly 1000 points more than the #2 leading scorer in NHL History. Thats like having a Hall of Fame career between #1 and #2. To put it in perspective if you took the #2 score in NHL history (Mark Messier with 1887) and added Bobby Orr's numbers to it (915) you would still have 55 lest points than Gretzky 2857 compared to 2802.

Looking at the bare stats is completely unfair to Mario given how much time he missed and considering his career started just a few years after Gretzky's (regarding the second assist stat). His PPG was just 0.04 lower that Wayne's with all the health issues he faced and the lesser teams he played with. The biggest stat to me though is how his GPP is almost 0.15 (not 0.015) higher than Gretzky's. Put him in Gretzky's shoes and he scores 1 300.

I'd also like to point out that Gretzky played in an era of hockey loaded with high scoring games. The latter stages of Mario's career, after back injuries and cancer had already set in, was during the midst of the Dead Puck Era, and, towards the tail end, on some miserable Penguins teams that had to trade all their remaining good players because the team was in such dire financial straits.

The factors that Lemieux had to deal with that Gretzky didn't have to deal with, or at least not to the same degree, is why I find this a fascinating debate. With a modicum of health, forget the fact that the Penguins got progressively worse over time, I don't doubt for a second that Mario would've been the second player in history to record 2,000 points.

[habsfan1]

I wonder which team, aside from the Coyotes, would be foolish enough to sign a 35yr old to that type of contract.

Hopefully, not the Habs.

Hopefully, the new management has learned from the Scott Gomez disaster.

[charger77]

Indeed Kinger.

Anyway I disagree with the notion that Mario Lemieux was more talented then Wayne Gretzky. They're both amazing talents. We likely won't see anyone close to their level in a long, long time. That being said, between the both of them, Gretzky has the edge, in my opinion. The way he saw the game unfold around and in front of him, the way he would see two to three steps ahead on every play was really special and puts him over Mario. That, and the fact that if Gretzky never scored a single goal he'd still have the all time points record on assists alone.

I'm not trying to disparage Lemieux. He just comes up a bit short of Gretzky when it comes to discussing the GOAT, in my opinion.

That's also without the second assist for most of his career. That's one of those stats that blows my mind every time I hear it.

On top of all of that, its not like Gretzky barely broke all the scoring records... he completely obliterated them. He has roughly 1000 points more than the #2 leading scorer in NHL History. Thats like having a Hall of Fame career between #1 and #2. To put it in perspective if you took the #2 score in NHL history (Mark Messier with 1887) and added Bobby Orr's numbers to it (915) you would still have 55 lest points than Gretzky 2857 compared to 2802.

Looking at the bare stats is completely unfair to Mario given how much time he missed and considering his career started just a few years after Gretzky's (regarding the second assist stat). His PPG was just 0.04 lower that Wayne's with all the health issues he faced and the lesser teams he played with. The biggest stat to me though is how his GPP is almost 0.15 (not 0.015) higher than Gretzky's. Put him in Gretzky's shoes and he scores 1 300.

I'd also like to point out that Gretzky played in an era of hockey loaded with high scoring games. The latter stages of Mario's career, after back injuries and cancer had already set in, was during the midst of the Dead Puck Era, and, towards the tail end, on some miserable Penguins teams that had to trade all their remaining good players because the team was in such dire financial straits.

The factors that Lemieux had to deal with that Gretzky didn't have to deal with, or at least not to the same degree, is why I find this a fascinating debate. With a modicum of health, forget the fact that the Penguins got progressively worse over time, I don't doubt for a second that Mario would've been the second player in history to record 2,000 points.

And would have still been 857 behind Gretzky which is a significant amount.

[BigBubba]

Looking at the bare stats is completely unfair to Mario given how much time he missed and considering his career started just a few years after Gretzky's (regarding the second assist stat). His PPG was just 0.04 lower that Wayne's with all the health issues he faced and the lesser teams he played with. The biggest stat to me though is how his GPP is almost 0.15 (not 0.015) higher than Gretzky's. Put him in Gretzky's shoes and he scores 1 300.

I'd also like to point out that Gretzky played in an era of hockey loaded with high scoring games. The latter stages of Mario's career, after back injuries and cancer had already set in, was during the midst of the Dead Puck Era, and, towards the tail end, on some miserable Penguins teams that had to trade all their remaining good players because the team was in such dire financial straits.

The factors that Lemieux had to deal with that Gretzky didn't have to deal with, or at least not to the same degree, is why I find this a fascinating debate. With a modicum of health, forget the fact that the Penguins got progressively worse over time, I don't doubt for a second that Mario would've been the second player in history to record 2,000 points.

And would have still been 857 behind Gretzky which is a significant amount.

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

[DEAD!]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

Better yet, put him in 99's HELMET

[charger77]

Looking at the bare stats is completely unfair to Mario given how much time he missed and considering his career started just a few years after Gretzky's (regarding the second assist stat). His PPG was just 0.04 lower that Wayne's with all the health issues he faced and the lesser teams he played with. The biggest stat to me though is how his GPP is almost 0.15 (not 0.015) higher than Gretzky's. Put him in Gretzky's shoes and he scores 1 300.

I'd also like to point out that Gretzky played in an era of hockey loaded with high scoring games. The latter stages of Mario's career, after back injuries and cancer had already set in, was during the midst of the Dead Puck Era, and, towards the tail end, on some miserable Penguins teams that had to trade all their remaining good players because the team was in such dire financial straits.

The factors that Lemieux had to deal with that Gretzky didn't have to deal with, or at least not to the same degree, is why I find this a fascinating debate. With a modicum of health, forget the fact that the Penguins got progressively worse over time, I don't doubt for a second that Mario would've been the second player in history to record 2,000 points.

And would have still been 857 behind Gretzky which is a significant amount.

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

[The_Admiral]

While we're in the neighborhood, no one talks about Mike Bossy's hypothetical greatness enough.

[BigBubba]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

Yes, but you'd have to think, his PPG average would be higher had he not dealt with injuries and if he was surrounded by the talent Gretzky had during his entire career. While he may not have been able to sustain such a high PPG over 1 400-odd games, it's hardly a stretch to think that an injury-free career would rise it up by a mere 0.04 points. Remember, before he came out of retirement, he averaged 2 points a game on the nose.

[oddball]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

Yes, but you'd have to think, his PPG average would be higher had he not dealt with injuries and if he was surrounded by the talent Gretzky had during his entire career. While he may not have been able to sustain such a high PPG over 1 400-odd games, it's hardly a stretch to think that an injury-free career would rise it up by a mere 0.04 points. Remember, before he came out of retirement, he averaged 2 points a game on the nose.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... the facts are the facts, Gretz had more points, and they are both Hall of Famers.

[BigBubba]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

Yes, but you'd have to think, his PPG average would be higher had he not dealt with injuries and if he was surrounded by the talent Gretzky had during his entire career. While he may not have been able to sustain such a high PPG over 1 400-odd games, it's hardly a stretch to think that an injury-free career would rise it up by a mere 0.04 points. Remember, before he came out of retirement, he averaged 2 points a game on the nose.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... the facts are the facts, Gretz had more points, and they are both Hall of Famers.

His overall points mean nothing. He played in way more games. No s--t he had more points.

You can't have a Lemieux/Orr/Bossy/Bure debate without hypothesizing what would have happened had they been blessed with good health. The entire argument revolves around that "if". Had both players played in more or less the same circumstances, who would have come out on top?

I don't think anyone's trying to turn this into a heated debate or a "pissing match". The hypothesizing is just part of the argument. We're just saying "Had there been a different set of circumstances, who would have the better stats?". The first half of this discussion didn't even revolve around an "if"; I just brought up their averages, which later became "Put (X) in (Y) circumstances and he'll end up with (Z) stat".

[Lee.]

And yet amidst this pissing match, the Jets signed Tobias Fünké Enstrom to a 5 year 28.75M extension.

[spartacat_12]

I wonder which team, aside from the Coyotes, would be foolish enough to sign a 35yr old to that type of contract.

I think Joe Nieuwendyk's ears just perked up.

While we're in the neighborhood, no one talks about Mike Bossy's hypothetical greatness enough.

Exactly, the guy only had one season where he didn't score 50 goals. I really hate when the word "if" is used in sports arguments. It opens up too big a can of worms. Who knows what kind of career Lindros would have had if he wasn't concussed for most of it? What if Marcel Dionne played on Montreal instead of Los Angeles? There are so many hypotheticals that can be brought up it just seems like a waste of time to talk about any of them.

[FiddySicks]

I wonder which team, aside from the Coyotes, would be foolish enough to sign a 35yr old to that type of contract.

I think Joe Nieuwendyk's ears just perked up.

While we're in the neighborhood, no one talks about Mike Bossy's hypothetical greatness enough.

Exactly, the guy only had one season where he didn't score 50 goals. I really hate when the word "if" is used in sports arguments. It opens up too big a can of worms. Who knows what kind of career Lindros would have had if he wasn't concussed for most of it? What if Marcel Dionne played on Montreal instead of Los Angeles? There are so many hypotheticals that can be brought up it just seems like a waste of time to talk about any of them.

Really, I've never understood why sports fans insist on having these types of debates so often. There's no way of ever coming to a conclusion on the issue, even if you argue your point till you're blue in the face. All of these discussions when it comes to "ifs" in sports are useless. Every sport has these debates. What if Jordan hadn't taken a two year break, what if Ruth didn't play in the dead ball era, what if Jim Thorpe was on the modern day Patriots, what if Jesus had played for the LA Galaxy, ect. No matter how you shake it, these guys were all the tops in the history of their sport. The rest is just semantics.

[HedleyLamarr]

And yet amidst this pissing match, the Jets signed Tobias Fünké Enstrom to a 5 year 28.75M extension.

I wonder if Toby still has his two girlfriends sit in opposite sides of the arena during games at Winnipeg.....

[Lee.]

In Winnipeg theres an excellent chance that they share season tickets.