Datsyerberger

Well, personally, I'd much rather have Campbell as a potentially very cheap to acquire back pocket option if nothing more desirable works out than to be off chasing completely unrealistic Doughty/Weber/Larsson/etc pipe dreams and be stuck with a weak crop of d-men this year if the FA signings don't go as well as some people here seem to think they'd go, but maybe that's just me being willing to compromise after taking a bigger look at the salary picture. Personally, I'd prefer to land one of the righty shot FAs and and shop around for a decent d-man that may be on the way out, but those are in somewhat limited supply and expecting to sign any more than one of the FAs is unreasonable. Facing a prospect of having Ericsson back as #5 and Kindl #6, can't say I'm terribly comfortable with that. Regarding Campbell's numbers, yep, definitely down this year, but on the other hand he was significantly more defensively responsible.. then again, he was being to asked to play in a 2nd pair role and not the higher offensive responsibility roles of years past. He's still one of the top 20 P/G d-men since the lockout (maybe top 15, not sure if I'd push it that far though without doing the math first) and fits our style well. Doesn't have quite as much offense as Rafalski, but a more rounded game, which may be a better match for what we're looking for at the moment if we can't get anything better. Contract is definitely not the worst in the league, not even close, really.

Does Holland have footage of Lou Lam flirting with guys in a bathroom stall or something?

Something like our 1st, Tatar, Smith, Pulkinnen, and a 5th... considering all of the teams with a top 3 pick are looking at an almost surefire blue chip guy and don't want any of our old crap.

Ashen, I'm just going to summarize what I posted in response to that at HF: Kronwall at $3.5m? :carrot: :banana: :band: I didn't really get that sufficiently out of my system there. Better emoticons here.

Well, I've already demonstrated that their cap numbers are roughly equal relative to age, prime Rafalski and prime Campbell are relatively close in terms of ability/role (#2 offensive d-man), they're both cup winners, and Campbell has shown to fit very well into a puck possession team. Given that a deal could probably include Hudler, which would ensure that we still have plenty of room to sign another d-man, giving us a D group of Lidstrom, Kronwall, Campbell, Stuart, Rightyshotgritty#3/4, Kindl, and whatever else is spare parts, and that Hudler and a 2nd is a cheap price for a d-man of Campbell's caliber, but realistic in this scenario, I'd like you to present an argument for why we're way off. Since I've already demonstrated the cap numbers, I suggest you start elsewhere.

He's not even overpaid. Unless Rafalski was in 07-08, because that's what his contract is comparable to. If Rafalski was overpaid then and we won a cup, then let's overpay some more players. Of course, many posters here don't understand that cap number isn't the real figure that matters, the percentage of cap space a contract occupies is. Rafalski's cap hit in 07-08 as a matter of percentage: 10.7% Campbell's contract under a $63m cap hit: 11.2% 0.5% difference, equal to $315,000 under the current cap. If the cap rises $4m in the next 2 years (a rise well under average for a 2 year span since the cap's institution), Campbell's contract would equal 10.6% of our cap hit at the same age Rafalski joined the Wings and occupied 10.7% of the cap. And Campbell's contract carries him to the same age at which Rafalski retired--actually, I think a year younger(while putting up 48 points in 63 games, mind). Given that they're close in skill sets, Campbell fills a hole at a much lower asset price than alternatives and a roughly equal cap price over the course of his contract. He's not my #1 option by any means, but he'd probably be the easiest to acquire for the relative talent level. Hudler and a pick/prospect probably gets that done if Bowman has any intentions of moving Campbell for cap space (and they need cap space, and they're paying a d-man for a level of play that doesn't fit the role on their team...) Main downside is he's a lefty shot, but we can still pick up a 2nd pair quality righty shot gritty guy... you know, the sort available in FA right now. And sorry guys, but conference/division doesn't have near the impact it does on trades in the post-cap world as compared to pre-cap. Plenty of big in-division deals have gone down post-cap.

Hudler and something (pick, prospect) for Brian Campbell. Much more realistic than anything else I've seen suggested here. Things to consider: Campbell has roughly the same impact on the cap as a matter of percentage that Rafalski did when the Wings signed him. Both have NTCs. Their offensive skill sets are very close; Campbell is a bit larger and a little more well-rounded. Campbell is locked up long term, but not to as old of an age as Raffi was on his current deal. The Wings have a history of doing well with players into their mid 30s. Chicago needs cap space. Campbell could be available on the cheap. Meanwhile, there are also some righty shot options in FA who could be cheaper additional acquisitions, giving us a blueline that includes Lidstrom, Campbell, Kronwall, Stuart, a righty shot and Kindl/Ericcson/Smith

Another take by me on N/S, this latest one is my favorite of the N/S options. Yet another repost from HF. Worth pointing out that the conference names probably make a little more sense if they're reversed.

Eberle's was a toe drag past one defender and the goaltender. Pavel undressed three or four players on his play. Still, due to the fact it was Eberle's first goal, we see stuff like that regularly from Datsyuk, and The Canadian Factor, Eberle will easily take it.

Wow, he didn't go bald.. all of his hair just migrated to his forearms.

Actually, I see Kronwall splitting #1 minutes with Lidstrom next year, with Lids on the PP more and Kronwall on more at ES (roughly equal PK distribution) so I wouldn't say he's all the way off. Like it or not, Lidstrom is going to be gone sooner rather than later and there's no reason not to give Kronwall more responsibilities with the gap between their play slowly decreasing. Anyhow, I think Kronwall can be our #1 guy in the future if we get him a solid #2/1b guy. He's no Nick, but he's more responsibly defensively than a solid number of top line NHL defenders, he demolishes people, and he's top 20 in offense from the D (with 2nd PP line minutes).

Another observation... someone argued that if the league went with a 15/15 Northern/Southern conference scenarion, the SC would essentially be a weakass semi-relegation conference. I decided to explore this on HF boards: South (organized by seed this year): Was 1 Sj 2 Phi 2 Pit 4 Ana 4 Nsh 5 Tb 5 La 6 Phx 6 Dal 9 Car 9 Stl 11 Clb 13 Col 14 Fla 15 Avg: 7.07; elaboration: only 4 teams that were bottom 5 in their respective conferences, 2 teams that missed the playoffs by a game, and 9 of this year's playoff teams with 2/4 of the teams of the conference finals, 4/6 the teams of the teams of the conference semi finals. 6 of HF's top 10 for org depth. North: Van 1 Bos 3 Det 3 Mtl 6 Buf 7 Chi 8 Nyr 8 Tor 10 Cgy 10 Nj 11 Wpg 12 Min 12 Ott 13 Nyi 14 Fla 15 Avg 8.86; elaboration: With the exception of 3 decent teams in the top 3nd, the other 4 playoff teams were bottom end this year, with 2 that made it in by the game. The rest of the conference is a collection of teams that are either on the rise or decline, but were solidly out of the playoffs in any case this year. It would be an opportunity for some of them to finally start make the playoffs regularly. Holy crap, the South is stacked.

Forget Weber and Doughty. It ain't happenin'. However, this certainly does make 2 of Kaberle/Bieksa/Babchuk/Wisniewski/Brewer/Ehrhoff a possibility, with space to sign a 3rd, gritty bottom pair guy as well.

Actually, I only got the idea because I read some article or another that said that the NHL might delay any divisional changes this upcoming season (keeping the Peg in the SE a year), because they were considering more sweeping changes, including possibilities of a 3 conference system. Otherwise, it would have never come up for me But just looking at it, it definitely makes a lot more sense with the current layout of teams.

Repost from HF, regarding a 3 conference system: Since a 3 conference idea has been mentioned, I thought I'd fiddle with that: Scenario 1: All O6 in one Northern Conference Great Lakes Division Detroit Chicago Toronto St. Louis Ottawa Northeast Division Montreal Boston New York R New York I New Jersey Southern Conference Atlantic Division Buffalo Columbus Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington Southeast Division Carolina Dallas Tampa Bay Nashville Florida Western Conference Northwest Division Edmonton Calgary Colorado Minnesota Winnipeg Pacific Division Vancouver San Jose Anaheim Los Angeles Phoenix Still some travel issues, but not near as bad as now. At least I managed to work it out so noone travels more than 1 TZ in their own division and no more than 2x in their own conference (and this only happens in the WC because of Minnesota and Winnipeg). Swapping Vancouver and Colorado is arguable based upon your opinion of distance travel (north-south) vs TZ travel (east-west). In a Pacific scenario, Vancouver could actually do division games where they start at home, play in SJ, then LA, then ANA, then PHX, then PHX again, then ANA, then LA, then SJ, then back at home. This would greatly cut down on travel and arguably result in a lesser travel schedule than being in the Northwest. As a mild alternative for the NC and SC, you could put Buffalo in the GL division, St. Louis in the Southeast division, and Carolina in the Atlantic division. I think that works just as well; it becomes a matter of losing St. Louis vs Chicago/Detroit or Buffalo vs Toronto/Ottawa, but all of those rivalries are small potatoes (or at least, St. Louis and Buffalo are small potatoes, BOG-wise). I'd imagine this would run on either an 84 game schedule where teams play each div rival 6x, conference rival 4x and extra-conference 2x, or 82 game with each div rival 8x, conference rival 6x and extra-conference 1x Here's a map, because we like MS paint drawn maps:

The Blues have more talent within their young system. However, the Wings have both a good team now and very solid talent in the system as well (not as much depth as the Blues, but definitely upper half of the league). Seeing as the Wings are both good now and look to be good in the future, I'm giving this to the Wings until the Blues actually do something instead of just have something.

They get moved somewhere at the end of next season. Probably QC as it'll be easiest to find a prospective buyer for there at this point, even if the arena is utter crap. At least the crazy canadians there are trying to pass a law that would prevent people from challenging the public funding of a new arena.

Posted this on HF, I think it would bring many benefits to the league and a number of teams. Among them include: 1. Better ratings for Phoenix 2. Marquee players in the West for media attention 3. Crosby, Ovy, and Toews all in the same division 4. Many struggling (be it on-ice or financial struggle) expansion teams given a better chance to compete, most notably in the Southeast 5. All of the NYC area and New York teams together, plus with Philly. Northwest: EDM CGY VAN WPG MIN Pacific: SJS LAK ANA COL DAL Central: PIT WAS CHI NSH STL EAST Southeast: TBL CAR CLB FLA OTT Atlantic: NJD NYI NYR BUF PHI Northeast: DET MTL BOS TOR PHX

The part that makes me zany is that the Thrashers both draw more and lose less than the Yotes and moving the Yotes wouldn't even force realignment.

I posted something like this on HF. Without conferences, a 30 team league with 6 divisions of 5 can have each team play their other division members 8 times a year (4 home and 4 away per), plus every other team 2 times a year (1 home and 1 away) for a total of 82 games. More travel due to more opposite-coast games would be somewhat made up for in playing more in-division games. This lack of conferential play much better balances the travel for all times. So, for example with the current divisions, Detroit would play: Chicago Nashville St. Louis Columbus 8 times each and every other team (out of 25 remaining) in the league 2 times each. This totals up to 82 games (32 in division, 50 out of division). Even road/home distribution for all team matchups. That looks much better than our ridiculous conferential system right now, unless you're a spoiled northeast/atlantic team.

If we can't get some sort of value of him (read: better value than we got for Leino, who sucked worse at the time than Hudler did this season), then I'd be okay with keeping him. But honestly, I don't think he really fits anywhere in Babcock's current line schema and that's not a good thing when you're eating $2.8m in cap space, so I don't expect him to be back. Honestly, I'd rather not see a forward come back in such a trade. Give me a pick/prospect/d-man.

Wings won't move. Columbus or Nashville will. Nashville would be the only CST team in the East, so I think all the East owners would whine about that, but on the other hand, CLB makes less sense in the Southeast.. and I think moving CLB to the Southeast would kill that franchise. 0 big draws for them in their own division. Nashville seems inevitable, and I won't miss playing against them. Let the east deal with Trotz. The Wings, however, will move in what I feel to be an inevitable expansion in the next couple years that will almost certainly add two teams to the west (Kansas City and one of: Houston, Seattle, Portland, Vegas). In such a move I feel that the league would also try to realign things in such a way that Chicago joins Detroit going East. Quebec City will not see a team from expansion, but rather, relocation of an East team.

I love this option someone on HF suggested, but the league would never have the cojones to do this. All the O6 teams in the same conference with divisions that make sense? Yes please.

Holmstrom does not have the toolset to be a 4th line/grinder. He's a scoring line complementary player/specialist.