Wow that guy is a major tool.

Posted by TJ on 03/22/08 at 10:07 AM ET

“Talented Loser”?? What a hack.  Honorable Mention for AO?  Joke.

Posted by Wayland on 03/22/08 at 10:21 AM ET

nuff said:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080321/SPORTS04/728759231/1005/SPORTS

Posted by Jon on 03/22/08 at 10:48 AM ET

After reading that portion of the article I can’t bring myself to read the rest…

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 03/22/08 at 10:51 AM ET

Cox Bloc

Posted by dare on 03/22/08 at 12:36 PM ET

It is logical to dispute whether the MVP award is for the best player, period, or the best player on the best team, but then lay out your viewpoint without calling a tremendous player surrounded by a largely miserable team a “loser.” And would Ovechkin count as a “worthy” candidate if he gets the Capitals into the playoffs, but they proceed to get swept in the first round?  Why is that soooo much more impressive than making a charge after the coaching change and falling just short?

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/22/08 at 03:50 PM ET

I don’t understand the concept that Western Civilization will somehow collapse if the “player adjudged most valuable to his team” award doesn’t magically include the words “only if his team makes the playoffs” thanks to the parochialisms of hockey writers (given what we read during the lockout, there are probably “rules” about dissent, too).

It’s about the best, most dominant player in the game.  That’s the most valuable player.  If he continues to not make the playoffs after winning the award...hell, even that doesn’t hold water as a rationalization.  These people named Jim Carey the Vezina Trophy winner, and that lasted for about five minutes--so they make “mistakes.”

It’s not like Alexander Ovechkin will thus be banished from playoff-dom to, again, Gord forbid, make the writers look bad, like Carey did. If there’s a dominant player who’s head and shoulders better than everybody else, then there’s a dominant player who should be recognized for what he does. 

I’m probably one of the world’s biggest Nick Lidstrom fans--I think that every Wings fan who attends a game should spend five minutes just watching Lidstrom play, watching him make adjustments and work his tail off to anticipate and make his job look easy--but Ovechkin has just been ridiculously good this year, and yeah, it speaks to the coaching chops of Boudreau, which doubly huffs up the writers because they don’t want to speak badly of a coach who was in their good books...But Ovechkin has been nothing less than astonishing. 

That’s good enough for me, and it’s good enough for a lot of people.  It’s too bad that it’s not good enough for the NHL’s writers.  Luckily, the PA has the Pearson Award, and they’ve used that to pick players whose dominant seasons bucked the “whose turn is it to win?” order.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 03/23/08 at 01:04 AM ET