Ehrhoff is doubtful for tomorrow's game. Look for Keith Ballard to draw in. Don't expect to see Aaron Rome, either. Could see Chris Tanev or Andrew Alberts.

 

Manny Malhotra continues to improve each day...

 

Sounds like if/when Winnipeg joins the league, they will stay in the Southeast for scheduling reasons. I'm sure those divisional road trips to Miami/Tampa will be a nice quick flight...

 

One free agent to watch - Jussi Jokinen. Carolina has been a good fit for him - can he play the same game and get more ice time elsewhere? He is very inconsistent and pretty soft - could work well with a big, strong center.

 

Want to clarify my comments re: McGinn hit. I said it was boneheaded, but I didn't say why (no, it isn't because I root for Vancouver). The hit was borderline boarding, but it wasn't dirty or malicious. I say boneheaded because he takes a healthy run while his team is up three goals late in the game.

 

McGinn will counter that he did his job (something he said to the papers today, injured two Canuck defensemen), but if the Canucks somehow score three on that PP and win the game in OT, he is the goat. Finishing checks is essential in the playoffs, but they must be reigned in a bit, especially when up three goals.

 

I didn't get to watch the Boston/TB game today - looking forward to checking it out now. Do the Lightning go with Smith? I think Roloson's leash is long enough to warrant another start.

 

Penalties galore in the Vancouver/San Jose game last night.

 

Dan Boyle had a great game recording two points, and he saw almost 14 minutes of PP time.

 

Joe Thornton is playing fantastic hockey right now - six points in the first three games, including three helpers last night.

 

Antti Niemi made several huge early game saves that ended up being the difference.

 

Second series in a row that Jamie McGinn has taken a boneheaded major penalty for charging/boarding/roughing/whatever you want to call it. Absolutely drilled Aaron Rome from behind, knocking out cold and out of the game. The Canucks got two goals on the powerplay.

 

Hamilton lives to play another day - they won again and are now down 3-2 in the series against Houston. Aaron Palushaj had another strong game. He'll get a look at Montreal training camp for a top nine spot on the wing. Small, but skilled and smart.

 

Kyle Woodlief is never one to shy away from making bold predictions with his draft rankings. I enjoy his stuff over at the Red Line Report. Check his May rankings out.

 

Chicago signed one goalie yesterday, and they continued that today and signed another. Alexander Salak signed a two-year deal. The first year is two-way, the second year is one-way (although I have also read that both years of the deal are one-way). Unless the Hawks want to bring a veteran in to back Crawford up, Salak should be the frontrunner for the position.

 

More Prospect Report treats from previous years…

 

2007:

 

Claude Giroux, RW


The diminutive left-winger finished fourth in QMJHL scoring last season. Blessed with tons of hockey sense, blazing speed and great hands, Giroux would fit right in on a Philly team that has an abundance of size. The main reason that holds a small player back is the fact that the NHL team already has a small player on a scoring line. In the case of the Flyers, there is no such player.

 

For that reason, the 19-year-old dynamo will not have to wait as long as his undersized brethren – he has a shot right away. Put the odds at 25 per cent for the coming year and assume that Giroux will be a regular for sure by 2008-09. Whichever year is his rookie campaign, he is a Calder candidate. He was a steal last year at 22nd overall – he probably should have been closer to 12 or 15.

 

Potential: Paul Kariya (in Nashville) (45-50-95, 60 PIM)

 

2007:

 

Rich Peverley, C


Peverley is a late bloomer. He was never drafted, but started to put up solid offensive numbers in the NCAA in his sophomore year. Consistent big numbers in the ECHL earned him a call to the AHL, where he didn’t miss a beat. Suddenly, 131 AHL games and 114 points later and his hard work has paid off – a call to the big club. He will have to work hard to keep the momentum going, but a good showing in this fall’s camp could earn him a job as the third-line center. From there, with (injury-prone) Jason Arnott and (Band-Aid boy) David Legwand ahead of him, who knows how well this guy can do? There are a lot of ifs. A LOT of ifs, but he should be watched.

 

Potential: With a few bounces, second-line center (30-35-65, 70 PIM).

 

2008:

 

Michal Neuvirth, G


While terribly inconsistent throughout an OHL career, poor play wasn't the reason for 2006 second pick Michal Neuvirth's three-team experience in 2007-08. Indeed, it was simply a case of him being too good. A Plymouth Whaler in 2006-07, Neuvirth became the victim of a numbers game in net that many blamed for the team's poor Memorial Cup showing. Determined to hand over the reigns to Preds prospect Jeremy Smith ASAP, the Whalers chose not to wait for the February trade deadline, and instead sent him to Windsor for the best package available. Windsor, in turn, took advantage; a young team with little chance of contending, the Spitfires flipped Neuvirth to Oshawa in January for a better package.

 

While a poor performer for the Generals, Neuvirth is AHL-eligible in 2008- 09 and has little to prove at the OHL level. He’ll be ready in two years; he’s not that far away.

 

Upside: Star starter

Certainty (NHLer; Upside): 75%, 60%

 

2008:

 

Alex Goligoski, D

 

Just when poolies had things figured out in terms of the future of the blueline in Pittsburgh, along comes this guy. With Sergei Gonchar signed for two more years, Ryan Whitney given a monster long-term contract, and Kris Letang starting to look like the real deal, where does Goligoski fit in? After a slow start in the AHL, the 22-year old picked up two points during a three-game stint in Pittsburgh. He had a strong finish for Wilkes-Barre, but absolutely exploded in the postseason with 14 points in the first 10 games in leading the team to the final four.

 

He is NHL ready, but the Penguins already have three defensemen capable of manning the power play. Goligoski is a trade candidate, or he could also come in and steal some of Whitney’s PP time. Until Gonchar’s contract runs out, things will be confusing with this situation – but if you can get lucky with whichever rearguard you go with, the dividends could be huge.

 

Upside: No. 3 defenseman, PP QB (15-45-60+)

Certainty (NHLer; Upside): 90%; 45%

 

 


Write comment
Comments (19)add comment

Shoeless said:

Shoeless
Boneheaded Taken in the context of one game - yeah it was boneheaded for McGinn to do that but if you look at it from the view of the rest of the series, I don't think it was (not that I support it). You have a 3 goal lead and you have a shot at one of those Canuck D guys who should be the difference makers in this series, all things being equal - thinking . . .thinking . . . thinking . . . "Yeah coach says we gotta bang on their d guys, so here goes."
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Jeff Angus said:

angus
... mick - thanks for 100% hitting my point. Put it better than I did.

"definitely boneheaded
not sure how you guys can even argue it?
his team was up 4-1, why risk it? he almost cost his team the game. especially when you have history of blowing 3rd period leads."
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Hockey Hoser said:

Hockey Hoser
... @ Sanstanya
Now that sure would explain a thing or two. Foot currently in mouth. So...anyone know any good jokes?
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Sanstanya said:

sanstanya
@Hockey Hoser Hey man I appreciate you posting the rules but I think the discrepany happening here is maybe because you're the only person talking about the hit on Ehrhoff as far a I can tell. My comments, and seemingly all others, are referring to the hit on Rome. Which I thought was in the numbers and "from behind" as described in your post.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

mick said:

hawkdog
... man i hope couture doesn't have to bad a concussion, I just drafted him in a keeper league!!

I bet Clowe feels like a tool.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

mick said:

hawkdog
... My comment was regarding the Rome hit, not the Erhoff hit.
MgGinn hit Rome in the numbers.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Hockey Hoser said:

Hockey Hoser
... Neither side of the argument have presented a substantial claim as to what penalty MgGinn is guilty of and why. A hit from behind has many different implications and ramifications than a roughing/boarding/charging call. So being the @ss that I am please allow me to help because I hate seeing good arguments go to waste.

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26329).

Someone posted that the hit was a classic example of boarding. After reviewing the replay, there were no player who made contact with the boards. I will make the bold claim that this was definitely not a boarding penalty.

43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26333)

A player being aware of a hit seems to be the most important element. I think it's safe to say Erhoff was not aware. But should the honess be put on McGinn or on Erhoff for Erhoff not being aware? McGinn was in pursuit of the player with the puck. Erhoff skating north-south with McGinn coming from an angle that put him behind the play. Erhoff takes the blueline and turns...into McGinn's direction. MgGinn delivers the hit. The way the rule is written would imply players should have the ability to protect themselves but does this mean they are not responsible when they do not protect themselves? And the responsibility is left with the player throwing a "hit"? How to differentiate? This is open to interpretation. In this instance, I feel Erhoff should've been more aware of the ice. There was no chance of contact until Erhoff turns.

The second part of the rule that is important is the contact with "the back part of the body". It's important to make a distinction between was is the back of the body and what is the back part of the body which once again, is open to interpretation. Does McGinn hit Erhoff in the back part of the body? Personally I don't think so, to me it looks like the hit was at the side of his body whereas the pursuit was from behind. There is a distinction between the both that shouldn't be confused.

The last part mentions about the player turning. Now Erhoff does turn but I don't believe it was intentional to draw a penalty. He turned into the hit after crossing the blueline unaware of MgGinn trying to make a CROSS-ICE FOREHAND LEFT-HANDED pass from the RIGHT SIDE OF THE ICE AT THE BLUELINE. Think about what angle your body has to be at to make that pass...and at what angle an opposing player will deliver a hit pursuing from behind. My one question is was McGinn coming from the bench or was he backchecking from the offensive zone? If he was coming from the bench, he was not pursuing directly from behind but rather at an angle from behind. If he was backchecking from the offensive zone, well chances are he was pursuing more from behind. The angle of pursuit affects the angle of contact when Erhoff turns into the hit, unintentionally.

That's my final two cents. Have I overthought this? Probably. Anyways now with something substantial as a basis, argue on.




May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

mick said:

hawkdog
definitely boneheaded not sure how you guys can even argue it?
his team was up 4-1, why risk it? he almost cost his team the game. especially when you have history of blowing 3rd period leads.
not like they were letting the teams play last night, they called anything and everything, so gay.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Larry said:

Rollie1967
... It was boneheaded, after the Eager hit you dont think hits from behind are gonna be addressed /scrutinized a little more? He took a big chance throwing that hit- and lost. almost cost his team the game. If the Canucks had scored another PP goal from that call, and won the game later-what would you call it?

That was a tuff game to watch, no flow whatso ever, too many calls -some unavoidable-but still-let the players decide.
Found it interesting that Eager didnt dress,McLellan had a change of heart? Or was he just blowing smoke at the press after game 2.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

KJ said:

Big Kjell
McGinn @timothysmith - I took issue with the use of the word boneheaded and I agree with Shoeless and others about the role some players play. It was a violent hit by a role player...a violent hit some players on both teams are capable of delivering. But it was not boneheaded...no elbows, no jumping, no hit in the numbers (like Eager did). It was more shoulder to shoulder than in the back. But the result was scary and the reason the refs called it a major penalty. In today's NHL, with head injuries in almost every game, the refs have to whistle that play. But that doesn't make it boneheaded.

@Angus - even if you don't write with bias, calling the hit boneheaded and drilling from behind was emotional. It's an understandable reaction by a Canucks' fan.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Jeff Angus said:

angus
... It was a classic example of boarding.

Shoeless is right - these 4th liners on either side are instructed to hit the opposing defensemen hard. McGinn did his job.

KJ - Stop pulling out the bias card. I don't write with it.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Shoeless said:

Shoeless
McGinn I am willing to bet there was nothing boneheaded about McGinn's play at all - I would wager that he has clear instructions to lay as much hurt on Canuck's defenders as he can. Sharks would dearly love to level the playing field if they can before going back to Vancouver for game 5.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Hockey Hoser said:

Hockey Hoser
... @ Sanstanya: You make two statements, 1) people who think that hit was clean don't know the rules 2) this is a textbook hit from behind. Could you please elaborate because you don't offer any evidence. In fact, could you provide us specifically what rule or rules you are referring too? Also which textbook you are taking your definition of hitting from behind from? Unless you think hitting a player in the numbers on his arm is a hit from behind...But I'm pretty sure the rule's intention is to avoid hitting the numbers on the back of the jersey. I would just like to clarify to avoid any misunderstandings on my part.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Austin said:

austeane
... Steven Anthony signs with nucks

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/juniorhockey/blog/buzzing_the_net/post/QMJHL-Transformed-Anthony-lands-pro-deal-with-C?urn=juniorhockey-356113
May 21, 2011
Votes: -1

slufoot said:

slufoot
McGinn hit timothy, the overwhelming majority of people on TSN are boneheads themsleves, and hard as they try not to - do analyze games with a bias slightly slanted in the favour of Canadian teams (as they should because that's their market).
But that McGinn hit was a clean, unfortunate play. The call as they made it on the ice (boarding) is feasible as it was the boards that caused the injury. Therein lies the problem, were it not for seamless glass there is no injury on that play. The league says they're serious about injury prevention, and brings in new rules and talks of tougher suspensions - but injuries will not decrease until the league takes steps to make the perimeter of the ice surface safer and regulate the equipment that players wear - safer properly fitted helmets, less hard plastic on shoulder pads and elbow pads.
I think the bias KJ is referring to is the way in which angus described a hit McGinn basically has to make. He's a fringe 3rd-4th liner who provides energy, definitely not a boneheaded play. I don't think he would have described the hit as 'boneheaded' if Burrows or Kesler were the culprits.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

Sanstanya said:

sanstanya
McGinn I am a bit startled that anybody could say they objectively believe that hit is clean unless they don't really know the rules. That is text book hit form behind pretty much much in the numbers and he came from a ways to deliver it. I watched the game with a gathering of Canuck haters that griped the call until the replay and pretty much all agreed "yeah you can't do that." That's 2 minimum and on discretion 5 is understandable.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

timothysmith said:

timothysmith
two-way street KJ, in a way you are revealing your own bias. The overwhelming majority of people on TSN agreed afterwards that it was the right call. Does that mean it was the right call? Obviously not. But if you're going to accuse Angus of being biased when he's taking a stance that many other major figures in sports journalism are taking as well, it is far more likely that the bias in question is yours.
May 21, 2011
Votes: +1

bluck said:

bluck
... I agree with the above poster. That's a clean hockey hit. In all honesty if that hit happens two years ago their probably isn't even a penalty called and we would all be watching it on TSN'S HON. Mcginn took out Erhoff and Rome CLEAN. Atta boy. Can't wait for game 4!
Bluck
May 21, 2011
Votes: +0

KJ said:

Big Kjell
McGinn's hit was violent but not boneheaded Boneheaded? McGinn didn't skate the last 15 yards, didn't leave his feet and didn't hit Rome in his numbers. I hate seeing Rome (or any player) hurt. That was just scary. But calling McGinn's hit boneheaded is just showing Angus' bias smilies/sad.gif McGinn even turned his body just before the hit to make sure he hit Rome on his side. Boneheaded was Eager's hit on Sedin. But McGinn actually showed class. Come on!
May 20, 2011
Votes: -2
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy