Frozen-Man

I read a little bit more about the bonus issues and according to this news article the total bonus hit added to next year's salary is roughly $5,000,000. The Hawks may be much, much worse off than was even thought. Link to the Article

What does that have to do with anything?

Ouch, I forgot about that. Just another proverbial kick in the crotch for the Hawks. Plus 1 for the Arrested Development reference. "Oh, my God! We're having a fire ... sale! Oh, the burning, it burns me! Evacuate all of the school children! Ama...This isn't a fever! ... zing grace... I can't even see where the knob is!" "No I did not book this one. I think I made the fire too real for them."

Just ask Detroit. The Wings had the same problem the year before Pitt. With the Hawks offseason it should be even harder.

I agree I think it is highly unlikely that McIlrath drops low enough for the Wings to be able to pick him up but voted for him anyway in the hopes that I am wrong.

I agree. Too many people are always trying to compare the salaries of entry level players or players whose contracts were signed when they were a RFA. Those salaries are almost always below what they would get on the open market and not really a good comparison for what it would take for another team to sign them.

If salary doesn't matter I have to say Pronger. As much as I can't stand him he is a great defenseman. I like Carcillo too and he would be my pick if salary were part of the equation but without considering salary it seems like Pronger is a no brainer.

If nothing else he is due a raise because in order to sign a Abby to an offer sheet he must receive an offer from the Wings of 105% of his salary last season (Players who earned less than $660,000 in the previous season must be offered 110 percent of last season's salary - Players making up to $1 million must be offered 105 percent - Players making over $1 million must be offered 100 percent.) If the Wings don't make at least that offer they lose his negotiating rights which turns him into a UFA and the Wings get no compensation if he signs with another team. I agree not only did Miller get 10 goals for the Wings but as a midseason pickup he got those goals playing only 66 games for the Wings (and ended up with 19 points). I definitely think they should keep him for his price. If that is true, why would any team trade for him. Not many teams out there looking for a guy who is getting paid way too much.

What exactly are those options? Not in the abstract but actual players who are available and that the Wings can afford?

Quite the contradiction

Holmstrom help the Wings more than just on the power play. He had 25 goals and 12 of them came at even strength. I'm not saying that he doesn't excel on the PP but his contribution extends beyond that. The Wing's sixth highest goal scorer (Eaves) had 12 total goals, Homer matched that with just his even strength goals.

Seriously, one of the best and most succinct responses I've read on LGW" Could you please supply the names of players that the Wings could sign this free agency period who could replace Holmstrom's "Specialty?" Please bear in mind this means that they have to be: 1) a UFA; 2) be an incredible screener/net presence player; 3) capable of roughly 25 goals in 68 games; and 4) be willing to sign a contract somewhere in the $1.8M range. I will be really interested in seeing that list of names. See my above comment. The Wings can't sign a player who is under contract to another team. Who is AVAILABLE that the Wings could get that provides as much bang for your buck as Holmstrom? Absolutely true. It is not comparable at all to compare guys who are on entry level contract or who signed as RFAs.

That's the absolute truth. If this was such a horrible trade and Leino was such a valuable asset Holland could have gotten more for him. The very fact that the best Holland could get was a minor league player and a 5th shows that no one else thought that much of him either. A player HAD to be moved, it wouldn't help to be a d-man, and Leino's cap hit was large enough to get our injured guys back in the lineup. A trade was forced because the Wings had so many injuries that they had to bring in new guys to fill the roster spots, when the injured players were ready to come back something had to give. Holland got rid of one of the most underachieving players, I don't see where he made a bad decision and the fact that Leino is now playing in a way completely different than he did in Detroit doesn't change that.

So are Lebda and Williams. Don't get me wrong, Tanguay is much better than either of those but just because he was on a team that won the Cup doesn't mean he is a great player or pick-up for the Wings.

So the only way you can find someone more consistent is to pick a guy who has a 13 year $124,000,000 contract ($9.538M cap hit each year) and then you complain about Lids 1 year $6,200,000 contract.

Yeah I agree with that. Every team does have to draft and get serviceable players out of the draft. My only point of contention is that the reason that they got so many high draft picks is because they sucked for a longer period of time. I don't really see the process that the Wings (or San Jose, or New Jersey) went through as the same as Chicago or Pittsburgh. If you get that many top 3 picks back-to-back-to-back you are pretty much guaranteed great players. The Hawks have done a lot with a lot whereas the Wings have done a lot with a little.

You just changed it again. I never said teams didn't have to suck to get important players. My whole point was about the length that they sucked and sucked bad. It wasn't that they were bad a year or two they had to be horrible for quite a while to get all their high picks. It's not like the Wings getting one pick - look back at their picks for a for quite a stretch and they got lots of high picks because they continuously sucked. Very similar to the Pens. Because they only were bad enough to get one high pick, which was my whole point. Had they continued to rack up 1, 2, 3, draft picks then yeah your analogy would work. Again, the analogy was not correct because you took one draft pick, which was number four, and argued that the one pick was the same as my statement which as its whole point dealt with multiple top three draft picks. I am not saying that the Hawks did nothing right. I am merely saying that their success is attributable to being bad enough that in a four year span they got the #3, #7, #1, and #3 pick. To compare it to one Wings pick (which was lower than 3 of the 4 Hawks picks) is a bad analogy. If I had said the Hawks were good because they got the #3 pick a few years ago and took Toews then yeah it would be a good analogy but has nothing to do with what I said. My entire point was that one of those draft picks would not have the Hawks as the dominant team that they are - they also got Barker two years before and Kane the year after. They made so good late picks for sure, although Burish has 0 points plays, 5:40 per night, and is a -2 in the playoffs and I wouldn't exactly call Seabrook a late pick. I am not saying they have done nothing well but overall their success is primarily due to the multiple high draft picks. Also, I wouldn't exactly say their FA signings are anything to brag about. Hossa was a great signing but Campbell at $7.14M for 8 years is largely considered the most overpaid player in the NHL and don't forget their 5.625M goalie with 2 years left on his contract who is riding the pine all the way to the finals. In fact the Campbell signing is so bad there have been rumors that the Hawks might have to buy him out. They have done a few good things but give most teams 3 top three picks and a plethora of other high picks and they could put together a pretty great team as well, Pitt did a pretty comparable thing.

You don't have to refute it, but I made a comment and you tried to refute it by asking about Yzerman. I pointed out that that the multitude of consecutive high draft picks was in no way similar to the Wings getting one such pick. You didn't have to get into it at all but you chose to and then started trying to change what I was saying rather than actually refuting what I did say. As for who cares, I care that is why I brought it up. I didn't ask you to care or to respond, just don't respond with a completely false analogy to try to disprove my statement and then when I point out the fallacy act as if it doesn't even matter. I never said the Hawks don't have a lot of good players, they do, and in fact I really like the Blackhawks and almost all of their players. That was never the point no matter how much you try to twist it. The plain fact is that if Chicago had not been so bad for such an extended length of time they would not have gotten multiple incredibly high draft picks. If they hadn't gotten multiple incredibly high draft picks they would not have gotten tons of extremely talented young players on the cheap. That has allowed them to have a core group of young players that are all very top draft picks, on cheap contracts, at the same time. That has allowed them to have the team that they have. I'm not bitter about it and don't deny the ability of the team (as I said I really like the Hawks) but I'm also not going to act as if through great GM work (good UFA signings, mining late round picks, player development, etc.) they have built a model franchise. If you think that they have fine, I don't really care, just don't act as if the Wings getting one 4th place pick is the same as the picks the Hawks have had lately. It just isn't the same and it is blatantly obvious.

All two the "?" Are you freaking kidding me, you have used more question marks at the end of one sentence. :blush:

I never said drafting hadn't been the same for quite some time. The point is Chicago got the vast majority their talent from sucking for many years. It wasn't through great scouting, player development, excellent trades, or great free agent signing (other than Hossa). It came from the fact that they were one of the worst teams, consistently, for a long time. My original post was nothing other than a statement of that fact. People sometimes give credit to the Hawks for developing a great team when I don't think that they did much development but rather benefited from consistent top picks. My point was not, and I have not argued, any of tangents that you have tried to make it. The fact is that it is very rare for a team to get that many top three picks in that short a span. I don't really care about the rest of it, I don't care if it is fair, or if the Wings got a number 4 pick, and I never said that the Hawks intentionally tanked. You still aren't really refuting my only statement that the Hawks can attribute the vast majority of their success to having been so bad for so long that they got a lot of really high picks pretty consecutively.

double post

No, I'm not at all. I don't think they tanked and don't believe I implied that. My comment was merely that it is not as if the Hawks have built their team through great free agent signings (other than Hossa which is greatly offset by Huet and Campbell) or mining gems in late rounds of the draft or cultivating those low draft picks within their system. I also don't think that the Penguins tanked but it sure makes it a lot easier to be good (at least in the short term) if you get a lot of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd draft picks in a very limited number of years. I just don't think there is any doubt that Chicago is the team that they are because they sucked for multiple years and as a result got quite a few great draft picks. Edit: However, what about my post, are you seriously comparing getting one 4th draft pick with 3 top 3 picks in four years?

The second question mark was on accident, but thanks for adding to the discussion.

Yes of course it does, your team either has to be bad or trade with a bad team to get a top pick. That was not my point. That is why I explicitly stated "the only reason the Hawks are good is because the sucked for long enough to get 6 top Ten picks since 2000 and 3 Top Three picks in four years. Its a shame but the best way to be good in the new NHL is to suck for 5 or 6 years in a row." The last three Wings pick in the top three were 1990, 1986, and 1979. There have been 31 years since the Wings last three top 3 picks. Even grouping them together it took from 1979 to 1990, elven years, for the Wings to get three top 3 picks. The Hawks did that in 4 years. Yeah every team though out the history of the NHL has gotten a top pick at one time or another, a team getting a number four pick is not something rare (a la the Wings with Yzerman) however, a team getting three top 3 picks in four years is rare. I honestly can't believe that you would compare the two.