wings87

I don't get the point of a short term deal. Babcock either wants to stay or he doesn't. The Wings shouldn't be a place holder until a better job comes along.

Still pissed about the trade to Anaheim. I blame Holland but he gets the residual blame. I've wanted him on the Wings for a long time, but I don't think he's got any interest to play for the Wings. Don't know why.

I'm done pining for Kesler. He doesn't want to play in Detroit anyway. He can stay in Anaheim.

I agree, the FA market doesn't excite me at all. Trades should definitely be the priority.

This year's class is soft, but I don't think it's wise to wait for those guys either. You never know who'll be available, when the time comes.

You messed up the order... he can't sign a contract with broken thumbs.

I'm going to predict he'll resign for 4 mil for 5 years.

Those are the official dates. However when the cup is over, clubs start preparing for the draft and signings. You get news, trades, speculation, in other words movement. At the moment everything is relatively subdued.

I don't disagree. Under talented teams can over achieve, just like talented teams can under achieve. It takes more then talent to win, otherwise the Wings would have more cups. I don't think LA is a good example of over achieving though, since it's easy to over achieve with a shutdown goalie. Back on topic, I'd be surprised if Babcock leaves.

Say anything you want, the fact being is that this team played above their ability for a long time. Then almost blew it. Then Mrazek got hot in the playoffs. I'm an optimistic guy, but to say this is not a mediocre team that overachieved is being too optimistic. The talent level isn't there, but what got them that far is their heart- which is nothing to sneeze at. Couple the heart with some more talent, and we'll have a force on our hands. We're just not their yet.

On a more serious note, I'd actually like to see Cleary get a chance to coach the Griffens if Blashill leaves/moves to the Wings.

I'm ready for the offseason to start, can these teams stop playing 7 games? Lets get the season over with.

You named 4 players, they are obviously not mediocre. The reason I didn't specifically name those players is simply because I didn't think anyone was dense enough to think I'd call those players mediocre. Do I really need to spell out who the good players are, and who sucks? I thought it was common sense as well as common knowledge. Would calling most of the players mediocre instead of calling the team mediocre, make you feel any better? Only having 4 or 5 good players is what makes a team inconsistent, and mediocre. Come on dude, no point in being confrontational for the sake of it.

I agree on Nyquist and Tatar, but that's the only impact players the Wings have brought up. The rest have been role players thrown into roles they have no business being in. So other then 4 maybe 5 players the rest of the team is made up of 4th line guys. Not sure it would have mattered much on which line they played. Since they are basically the same player.

Holland made two moves, 1 got hurt the other turned to s***. I get people's frustrations, but what does it matter which lines Babcock went with if the entire team is mediocre?

If he returns, the whole circus wouldn't bother me at all. He's earned the right to see what's out there. I'd like him to resign, if not, so be it.

Prove it. You can't. Because your statement is complete supposition. And lets not forget that Dave Lewis wasn't exactly handed the bad news bears, and he did nothing. Your statement implies that coaches don't matter at all,and I wholeheartedly disagree. I'd prefer he stay but if Babs leaves so be it. Not the end of the world. Not trying to get on you, but statements like that really bug me.

I don't know how I feel about people cursing Gordie's name when they get stuck in traffic on that bridge.

Nvm.

Aren't we all god's children, I mean Mcgrattan's.

Any good?

It has become an annual tradition, kinda like this. https://youtu.be/q4bDXehQJuA

Most of it is subjective. Since there is no specific criteria for the 1 label. It all depends on the criteria you use. I disagree with your statement of "Being a #1 means you are good enough to be the best on a team" that statement implies that every team has a number 1. Can we instead agree that Kronwall is a very good D-man, and labels don't mean s***? This is going to open a whole can of s***, but here goes. Howard is a top 30 goalie in the NHL. Does that make him a true number 1 goalie? Or just a number 1 goalie on the team he plays on? I don't disagree It might be too narrow, but yours might be too broad. Plus I don't think it needs a percentage.

It doesn't work like that. Just because you're a good d-man or a number 1 on your team doesn't make you a true number 1. It's like ace starters, every team has a number 1 pitcher, not every team has an ace. In my opinion, a number 1 defenceman is an elite defenceman. Those guys are rare. I don't get the whole idea of lets label everybody. I'm going to use a baseball reference again, since baseball loves to label. A true number one is someone like Kershaw or a young Verlander, in other words a player who dominates. There are a lot of top defenceman in the NHL, but not a ton of true number 1 players. We love to put players in little boxes, marked with convenient numbers. Causing tags like 1 number defenceman to become overused. I guess it all depends on your opinion of a number 1. To me it means elite, to others it might mean very good. Is Kronwall elite? No is he very good? Yes. One other thing to take into account is that he isn't as good as he used to be. Not having Lids to play with has hurt him.