2005-06 Calder Memorial Trophy

[digitalmonkey 929]

CALDER MEMORIAL TROPHY The Calder Memorial Trophy is awarded annually "to the player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition in the National Hockey League," as selected by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association. SIDNEY CROSBY - Center, Pittsburgh Penguins * Became the youngest player in NHL history to tally 100 points in a season (18 years, eight months, three months younger than Winnipeg's Dale Hawerchuk in 1981-82).* Led all rookies in assists (63), ranked second in goals (39) and points (102). ALEXANDER OVECHKIN - Left Wing, Washington Capitals * Led all rookies in scoring with 106 points (52 goals, 54 assists), became the second rookie in history to tally 50 goals and 100 points in a season (Winnipeg's Teemu Selanne, 1992-93).* Led the NHL in shots (425), ranked third in points, tied for third in goals. DION PHANEUF - Defense, Calgary Flames * Led all rookie defensemen in scoring with 49 points (20 goals, 29 assists), became the third blueliner in NHL history to score 20 goals as a rookie (New York Rangers' Brian Leetch, 23 in 1988-89, Colorado Rockies' Barry Beck, 22 in 1977-78). --from TSN

[mrdannyg 274]

so monkey, why do you think Crosby should win over the other two candidates?

[digitalmonkey 929]

so monkey, why do you think Crosby should win over the other two candidates?

I think his age should be considered!

[mrdannyg 274]

I think his age should be considered!

really? that seems to be a pretty pointless stat.

[digitalmonkey 929]

really? that seems to be a pretty pointless stat.

Really, if it's pointless why does the NHL use age as one of the restrictions for eligibility?Crosby is almost 2 years younger than Ovechkin and was only a few points behind him.

[mrdannyg 274]

Really, if it's pointless why does the NHL use age as one of the restrictions for eligibility?Crosby is almost 2 years younger than Ovechkin and was only a few points behind him.

well, i agree that what crosby did may have been more impressive due to his age, but i don't think age is a reasonable factor in determining two player's relative skill, nor their relative importance/contribution to their teams.aside: kudos on the age restriction. the MLB could learn a thing or two.

[Vertigo 0]

I think his age should be considered!

I also think that should not be a factor. Ovechkin was the better rookie. Thus he should win. IMO Does not matter if he is 30. Ovechi got screwed by the lock out.

[nell789 0]

I still say they have a tie.

[dEv~ 19]

I also think that should not be a factor. Ovechkin was the better rookie. Thus he should win. IMO Does not matter if he is 30. Ovechi got screwed by the lock out.

if you want to look at it that way I'd say since Ocechkin is probably going to win the Calder Crosby the one who got screwed by the lockout.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I also think that should not be a factor. Ovechkin was the better rookie. Thus he should win. IMO Does not matter if he is 30. Ovechi got screwed by the lock out.

How was Ovechkin the "better rookie"?

[FCP Bob 1,323]

How was Ovechkin the "better rookie"?

Ovechkin was the better rookie because he had the better rookie season.By every quanitifiable measure he was superior and he was also superior in the areas of leadership etc that there aren't stats for. Ovechkin's teammates love him and Crosby's would like to throttle him.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Ovechkin was the better rookie because he had the better rookie season.By every quanitifiable measure he was superior and he was also superior in the areas of leadership etc that there aren't stats for. Ovechkin's teammates love him and Crosby's would like to throttle him.

I wouldn't call a few points "superior" and Crosby had more assists than Ovechkin.Your last point would be relevant if we were voting for the homecoming king.

[Vertigo 0]

I wouldn't call a few points "superior" and Crosby had more assists than Ovechkin.Your last point would be relevant if we were voting for the homecoming king.

Ok so how was Crosby better then? Ovechkin probably would have had more assists if the rest of his team didn't completely lick arse. I can't really think of anything Crosby was better at.Ovechkin had more goals, more points, more shots, more hits, etc...and his leadership qualities are a nice bonus.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Ok so how was Crosby better then? Ovechkin probably would have had more assists if the rest of his team didn't completely lick arse. I can't really think of anything Crosby was better at.Ovechkin had more goals, more points, more shots, more hits, etc...and his leadership qualities are a nice bonus.

I don't believe I said Crosby was better. Don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to validate your opinion.Your point about Ovechkin probably having more assists if his team didn't "lick arse" is moot because the rest of the Penguins team wasn't exactly a cast of all-stars. Ovechkin didn't have as many assists as Crosby because he doesn't pass as much nor as well as Crosby does.With all the hype (the NHL Draft was about him for God's sake) Crosby had incredible pressure on him coming into the season. It is amazing that he was able to live up to the hype and when you factor in his age it is simply unbelievable.18 buddy! The kid could have been playing junior this season. I'll meet you back here in 2 years to compare the 2008 Sidney Crosby with the 2006 Alex Ovechkin. Age IS a factor when awarding the Calder!

[Vertigo 0]

I don't believe I said Crosby was better. Don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to validate your opinion.Your point about Ovechkin probably having more assists if his team didn't "lick arse" is moot because the rest of the Penguins team wasn't exactly a cast of all-stars. Ovechkin didn't have as many assists as Crosby because he doesn't pass as much nor as well as Crosby does.With all the hype (the NHL Draft was about him for God's sake) Crosby had incredible pressure on him coming into the season. It is amazing that he was able to live up to the hype and when you factor in his age it is simply unbelievable.18 buddy! The kid could have been playing junior this season. I'll meet you back here in 2 years to compare the 2008 Sidney Crosby with the 2006 Alex Ovechkin. Age IS a factor when awarding the Calder!

Ok when you asked why Ovechkin is better, you are implying that you don't agree, thus you must think Crosby is better. It is only logic my friend.As for the Penguins, well I believe he had guys like Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux, Palffy, etc. although some of them retired, but still for a good part of the season. Who does Ovechkin have? Zubrus?! Come on, Pittsburgh obviously had some more talent. And I still don't think living up to hype or being younger should give him more of an advantage in choosing the winner. I'm not trying to be a prick here, I'm just stating my opinion and drawing logical conclusions on yours based on what you posted. Don't be so defensive!

[digitalmonkey 929]

Ok when you asked why Ovechkin is better, you are implying that you don't agree, thus you must think Crosby is better. It is only logic my friend.As for the Penguins, well I believe he had guys like Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux, Palffy, etc. although some of them retired, but still for a good part of the season. Who does Ovechkin have? Zubrus?! Come on, Pittsburgh obviously had some more talent. And I still don't think living up to hype or being younger should give him more of an advantage in choosing the winner. I'm not trying to be a prick here, I'm just stating my opinion and drawing logical conclusions on yours based on what you posted. Don't be so defensive!

So by asking why Ovechkin is better implies that I believe Crosby is better? That is the dumbest logic I've ever heard. I think they are two different types of players so saying one is better is really only a matter of opinion or preference.Why do you assume I'm defensive?You are living in the past by listing Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux and Palffy as talent. These guys were quality talent years ago, but not so much this year. Besides, Crosby didn't play with them anyway, my friend.

[digitalmonkey 929]

http://www.ihwc.net/english/article/news/i...hwc?&artId=2324

[Vertigo 0]

So by asking why Ovechkin is better implies that I believe Crosby is better? That is the dumbest logic I've ever heard. I think they are two different types of players so saying one is better is really only a matter of opinion or preference.Why do you assume I'm defensive?You are living in the past by listing Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux and Palffy as talent. These guys were quality talent years ago, but not so much this year. Besides, Crosby didn't play with them anyway, my friend.

Ok now you are just being a jerk. I don't understand why you have to start saying my logic is dumb when I'm just stating the obvious. You've been defending Crosby for the whole thread and arguing with those who support Ovechkin. But I guess logically, that doesn't seem to infer that you believe Crosby should win the award. Yes they are two different types of players. But they are competing for the same award. They have to choose a winner, so they must by some method select which one of the two is better. Whether it be stats, age, experience, etc. I guess that's up to them. I assume you are being defensive because of your snappy reply. As for living in the past, if you suggest Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux and Palffy were not considered talented players at the beginning of the year, then I guess you believe the following are no longer considered talent in this league:First a refresher on the Penguins whose talent is questioned:Mario - turned 40 at the beginning of the yearPalffy - just turned 34 - unfortunately injuries ruined his careerLeclair - currently 36, solid veteran his whole careerRecchi - just turned 38, still pretty effectiveOther players from a similar era:Mike ModanoJoe SakicSergei FedorovJaromir JagrMartin BrodeurNicklas LidstromTeemu SelanneSteve YzermanRod BrindamourDaniel Alfredsson (younger, but same age as Palffy)Peter BondraMartin GelinasBill GuerinGlen MurrayBrendan ShanahanMathieu SchneiderMartin StrakaKeith Tkachuketc.Now I realize most of these players are younger than Lemieux/Recchi but Lemieux is really the only person, along with Yzerman that I consider in a previous generation. 90-91 era and the next couple years is when most of these guys came about. All very well known through their careers with respectable numbers (some spectacular and still producing). Zubrus, Halpern and Willsie were the only players on Washington with 40 points or more. Gonchar had 58, Palffy had 42 pts in 42 games (he was there for half the season to help Crosby), Lemieux was at 1 PPG for the 20 or so games. Malone and Armstrong also hit 40. And what do you mean Crosby didn't play with them? Who did he play with? I remember him and Palffy lighting it up early on, as well as Mario and him. And I know Recchi and Leclair were with him on the PP a lot too. So I realize the supporting cast wasn't a gigantic factor in Crosby's success but it definitely helped. You have to realize that. As for that article, well yes, that is a bit unfair that Ovechkin has spent the last 5 years playing in the Russian super leagues. Well if Crosby was so good, why didn't he go play there? That may be a dumb question because I don't know that he would even be allowed to, and I think the NHL has some age restrictions too. But if Ovechkin was recognized as one of the premier forwards in the world after playing in the Russian Elite League for a couple years as a teenager (arguably the next best talented league to the NHL), then that says a lot about him.

[fryer98 30]

Leclair - currently 36, solid veteran his whole career

This made me laugh....fyi.

[gruven 530]

I think age is completely irrelevant as a factor in deciding ROY. Plain and simple, a rookie is a player who is competing in the best league in the world for the first time. Whether it's at 18 or 20 is irrelevant. Now, you COULD argue that Ovechkin had an advantage playing in the Russian League last year, but it's still NOT the same as playing in the NHL. A step faster, a size bigger, and EVERYONE can play (except, of course, Tie Domi). Players score 300 career goals in the AHL and cant play in the NHL. Why? Different level of play. So how do you factor age into that equation? NOTE: Im not saying one player is better than the other. Im just pointing out that I believe the age argument is just silly. Oh, and Ovechkin is better. P.S. If Im a GM and building a team? I take Phaneuf over the other two.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I think age is completely irrelevant as a factor in deciding ROY. Plain and simple, a rookie is a player who is competing in the best league in the world for the first time. Whether it's at 18 or 20 is irrelevant. Now, you COULD argue that Ovechkin had an advantage playing in the Russian League last year, but it's still NOT the same as playing in the NHL. A step faster, a size bigger, and EVERYONE can play (except, of course, Tie Domi). Players score 300 career goals in the AHL and cant play in the NHL. Why? Different level of play. So how do you factor age into that equation? NOTE: Im not saying one player is better than the other. Im just pointing out that I believe the age argument is just silly. Oh, and Ovechkin is better. P.S. If Im a GM and building a team? I take Phaneuf over the other two.

Count 1 vote for Ovechkin.How come Wayne Gretzky didn't win the Calder?

Ok now you are just being a jerk. I don't understand why you have to start saying my logic is dumb when I'm just stating the obvious. You've been defending Crosby for the whole thread and arguing with those who support Ovechkin. But I guess logically, that doesn't seem to infer that you believe Crosby should win the award. I was asked a question as to why I believe Crosby should win and I answered. I wouldn't call this arguing and I don't see how you infer that I'm defending Crosby.Yes they are two different types of players. But they are competing for the same award. They have to choose a winner, so they must by some method select which one of the two is better. Whether it be stats, age, experience, etc. I guess that's up to them. I assume you are being defensive because of your snappy reply. As for living in the past, if you suggest Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux and Palffy were not considered talented players at the beginning of the year, then I guess you believe the following are no longer considered talent in this league:You seem to disregard the difference between potential and production.First a refresher on the Penguins whose talent is questioned:Mario - turned 40 at the beginning of the yearPalffy - just turned 34 - unfortunately injuries ruined his career Not really, but...Leclair - currently 36, solid veteran his whole career LOL!Recchi - just turned 38, still pretty effective Every 6th game perhaps.Other players from a similar era: This whole section of your post is both pointless and hilarious!Mike ModanoJoe SakicSergei FedorovJaromir JagrMartin BrodeurNicklas LidstromTeemu SelanneSteve YzermanRod BrindamourDaniel Alfredsson (younger, but same age as Palffy) ?!?! LOLPeter BondraMartin GelinasBill GuerinGlen MurrayBrendan ShanahanMathieu SchneiderMartin StrakaKeith Tkachuketc.Now I realize most of these players are younger than Lemieux/Recchi but Lemieux is really the only person, along with Yzerman that I consider in a previous generation. 90-91 era and the next couple years is when most of these guys came about. All very well known through their careers with respectable numbers (some spectacular and still producing). Zubrus, Halpern and Willsie were the only players on Washington with 40 points or more. Gonchar had 58, Palffy had 42 pts in 42 games (he was there for half the season to help Crosby), Lemieux was at 1 PPG for the 20 or so games. And Crosby's production increased when they left! Malone and Armstrong also hit 40. And what do you mean Crosby didn't play with them? Who did he play with? I remember him and Palffy lighting it up early on, as well as Mario and him. And I know Recchi and Leclair were with him on the PP a lot too. So I realize the supporting cast wasn't a gigantic factor in Crosby's success but it definitely helped. You have to realize that. And Ovechkin was on the ice by himself? Are you one of those fans who bases talent on name recognition?As for that article, well yes, that is a bit unfair that Ovechkin has spent the last 5 years playing in the Russian super leagues. Well if Crosby was so good, why didn't he go play there? That may be a dumb question because I don't know that he would even be allowed to, and I think the NHL has some age restrictions too. But if Ovechkin was recognized as one of the premier forwards in the world after playing in the Russian Elite League for a couple years as a teenager (arguably the next best talented league to the NHL), then that says a lot about him.

[nell789 0]

P.S. If Im a GM and building a team? I take Phaneuf over the other two.

Well then it's a good thing you arent a GM. That's like saying you'd rather have Lidstrom than Gretzky.

[Vertigo 0]

Count 1 vote for Ovechkin.How come Wayne Gretzky didn't win the Calder?

What does potential and production have to do with picking a rookie of the year? As for my Leclair comment, yeah that was dumb. I was tired and it was a really long post and I didn't feel like editing it. As for Alfredsson, I meant he was younger than most of those listed, but around the same age group as Palffy. Basically all those players listed are in the range of 33-40. If you think Recchi is only effective every 5 or 6 games, well that is your opinion. I still think Ovechkin is dope and deserves the award. Crosby had an awesome season, I'm not disputing that. But Ovechkin's was better IMO. As well, if you say Crosby's production went up when they left, well I don't know about that. I know in the last 10 games or so he got like 25 points (approximately, he went on a tear). I'd hardly call that his production increasing because they are gone.

[digitalmonkey 929]

What does potential and production have to do with picking a rookie of the year?

Wow, just wow! You listed players that spent time with the Penguins as support that Crosby had more talent surrounding him. I was pointing out that there is a difference between someone's potential talent and their actual production. I was not saying it had anything to do with picking a rookie of the year.

I still think Ovechkin is dope and deserves the award. Crosby had an awesome season, I'm not disputing that. But Ovechkin's was better IMO. As well, if you say Crosby's production went up when they left, well I don't know about that. I know in the last 10 games or so he got like 25 points (approximately, he went on a tear). I'd hardly call that his production increasing because they are gone.

I didn't say his production increased "because" they left; I said it increased "when" they left. Do you even read the posts?

[gruven 530]

Well then it's a good thing you arent a GM. That's like saying you'd rather have Lidstrom than Gretzky.

No, it's like saying that a rookie defenseman who put up the points, and playing minutes, and plus/minus of Phaneuf is a much rarer commodity than high scoring forwards. Defense is acknowledged amongst NHL'ers as by FAR the hardest position to learn at the big league level. Does that mean Phaneuf is worthy of the Calder? No, he's not. Ovechkin and Crosby both clearly had great seasons. BUT.... as Phaneuf continues to learn and improve..... he will become a MONSTER player in the NHL. And I've talked to three GM's who have said they would rather have Phaneuf than Crosby. Perhaps it's a bad thing that they ARE gm's......

Count 1 vote for Ovechkin.How come Wayne Gretzky didn't win the Calder?

Cos he was robbed by da establishment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!