Buppy

Silver Booster
  • Content count

    3,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Buppy last won the day on April 25 2017

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank
    Darth Diculous

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,211 profile views
  1. Does that mean we get to scourge you then nail you to a cross?
  2. Pray tell how you conclude that 30g, 50p is not outproducing the guys he listed? Also how did a discussion of three players turn into a discussion of one? Yeah, cherry-picking cherry-picker. I already showed you that the 02 group outscored the 08 group, by a wide margin in the regular season, and even in the playoffs. Learn what reality means, then stop hiding from it. Looking at playoffs because it was a cherry to pick. That's why you didn't do that when you wanted to use Irbe against the 02 team. I said Selke calibre, not Selke finalists. Learn what words mean. All those players won a Selke and all were still very good defensively in 02 despite any lack of recognition (also hockey-reference only shows the top-10 from 02, so Yzerman and Draper may in fact have received some votes). Are you seriously trying to suggest that "fact" is determined by a poll of professional hockey writers? Learn what facts are. Or that the 02 team did not have an excellent group of 2-way/defensive forwards? You're trying too hard to be argumentative, which I wear't dislike. You need to gain a working day of chill out.
  3. I would give a lengthy spherical of applause if, "which I wear't dislike", "consequently congrats in the direction of him!", and "Hunting back again at the Yankeesexchange" were to become part of the LGW lexicon. Also kind of surprised that, "Way too terrible, therefore unsatisfied, I think." hasn't already. Wish I knew what my portion peak and sidebar sizing was so I could make it my signature.
  4. Considering I said in my post that they were past their primes, and was comparing them to players who were decidedly not amazing, what I'm not sure of is who you think doesn't "realize this". Yeah, you're cherry picking by focusing only on the playoffs (funny how that doesn't apply when you bring up Irbe) and only on Robitaille. The trio of Yzerman, Hull, and Robitaille in the regular season played 16 fewer games, scored 14 more goals, and 45 more points than the trio of Franzen, Filppula, and Hudler. In the playoffs, they played 9 more games, 3 fewer goals, but 7 more points. So even in the playoffs they, as a group, were superior point producers. It's not just a matter of "names", no matter how much you repeat it. Those guys were still damn good players. I'd say you're also overstating the speed of the 08 team. Aside from Helm, Flip, Cleary, and a few flashes of Draper, they weren't exactly high-end skaters. I'd say Fedorov and 02 Draper easily beat any of them. Overall the 08 team might have been faster, but not by any huge amount. Both teams were focused mainly around puck control. Also, both teams were very much "200 ft" teams. Fedorov, Yzerman, and Draper all Selke calibre. Maltby was actually good then. Shanny, Larionov, McCarty, Datsyuk, and even Devereaux could hold their own. Hull was even a regular on the PK for us. Every bit as much of a two-way group of forwards as 08. Maybe even more so. I think it's you who needs to set aside the preconceptions. The 08 team wasn't a group of fast young dynamos, nor the 02 team a bunch of slow, over the hill one-dimensional scorers.
  5. Fun fact: The 08 team (Avg. age 32.1 yrs) was older than the 02 team (31.9), though the top forwards were younger. Many of the names in 02 were past their prime, true, but most of the 08 forwards weren't anything special even in their prime. I'd take over-the-hill Yzerman, Hull, and Robitaille over prime (really not quite even in their prime yet) Franzen, Filppula, and Hudler. I'd also take the prime grind line from 02 over the older mess of a 4th line we had in 08. Homer, Cleary, Sammy, Helm in 08 maybe a little better than 02 Homer, Larionov, rookie Datsyuk, and Devereaux. Datsyuk and Zetterberg over Fedorov and Shanahan. Overall forwards are pretty even. If we're thinking Avs-series-Franzen, I'd give the edge to 08. Normal-Franzen then I'd go 02. 08 gets an edge on defense, 02 in goal. 02 in coaching, 08 in system. A hypothetical 7 game series could very well come down to which team did a better job keeping Lidstrom out against the other top line. 02 team would have home ice, Bowman, and a younger Nick. Winner.
  6. If you're going to respond to a week-old post at least have the decency to read the thread so you can offer something new to the discussion. You made me think I'd stumbled on to time travel, and now I'm sad. Jerk. Also, if your intent is to ask if the Wings will retire a number, you should edit the title. As worded it is clearly asking for the opinion of the respondents.
  7. Our draft position

    Let's not exaggerate things here. What I said is that kids absolutely do have opportunities to make the team. Because they do. "Purely on merit" is fallacious. "Merit" isn't a thing unto itself. A player's past performance (which some could consider as veteran status) is inextricably included in any evaluation of merit. Organizational depth is also a merit worth considering. As can be putting players in suitable roles and/or weighing the difference between playing a big role in the minors versus a minor role in the big league. I didn't mention forwards because if I did someone would have said "we're talking about defense, that doesn't count". But since you bring it up, I have often argued the same thing in regards to all players. "Overripe" is more of a fan meme than a true organizational philosophy. Larkin, despite the ironic attempt to use a kid who made the team in his first camp at 19 as an example of bias against kids, pretty well proves my point. But even if you want to believe that "veteran status" is given undue consideration, that cannot explain these supposed examples of kids "not being given a fair chance" because of the simple fact that we have never had a roster comprised entirely of veterans. Any kid you point to as being passed over in favor of a vet was also passed over in favor of a different kid. You say Holland wouldn't move Jensen or Ouellet, but why? They aren't exactly vets, and even if you did want to define vet liberally enough to include them, I would still question why you'd think we wouldn't move them. We just recently moved Marchenko in favor of Jensen. Kindl, Smith, Quincey also fairly recently moved out. Clearly the team is willing to get rid of players when they want. I'd say people are upset not because there's a bias toward vets, but rather that there isn't a bias against them. They just think those are the same thing.
  8. Our draft position

    I don't recall ever hearing that other than on this forum, but I assume it's just another "we like our team" piece of nonsense. And as usual, when you judge things based on media soundbites, it gives a ridiculously inaccurate depiction of reality. In the last 6 seasons, we have had 15 different defensemen play at least 20 games for a total of 45 player-seasons. 16 of those 45 were players 25 or under. 855 of 2615 total games. Roughly one third of our defense roster over the last six years has been devoted to bringing in young players. 8 of the 15 played at least one year at 25 or younger. 6 at 23 or younger. Suggesting that kids aren't given legit opportunities is laughably false. The kids we've had just haven't been very good. Whine all you want about "tie goes to the vet", but the fact is neither Hicketts nor Sproul were anywhere close to a "tie" with any of our s***ty vets. One, that's not a middle ground. That's just saying the same thing while acknowledging that the kids have sucked. Two, your second question is demonstrably false (see above). The "veteran thing" is a fan thing, because the most popular player on a struggling team is the one who isn't playing. Funny you'd mention Ouellet. Several years later he still isn't as good as the several years older and worse version of Ericsson everyone wanted him to replace, and is now himself included as a "vet" that's holding back the kids.
  9. So worst case scenario: We drop to 8th. Dahlin, Svech, Zadina, and all 4 of the 2nd-tier D off the board. What do you do? Tkachuk? Wahlstrom? Veleno? Next-best D in Ty Smith? Curse the hockey gods and start watching cricket?
  10. Our draft position

    This idea is simply wrong. The vets are not guaranteed anything nor preventing any kids from making the team. We could bring them all back, plus resign Green, plus sign Beauchemin, strap Vladdy to a sled and sign him to a 3 year deal, and if we go to TC and find 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr our defense next year would be 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr. In the whole of the cap era, the best young defenseman to lose out to a vet would be a toss-up between Ericsson and Quincey. How many Quincey-Ericsson-Kindl-Smith-Lashoff-Dekeyser-Almqvist-Marchenko-Ouellet-Sproul-Jensens will we go through before you start to consider the possibility that the next in line is not necessarily the next big thing, and that the reason they're getting passed over isn't because of vets or contracts or UFA signings, but rather because they just aren't that good? It's already been said that the Wings defense is a pretty low bar. If a Hicketts/Hronek/Cholowski/potential 2018 pick can't make it over that bar, we should probably temper our excitement for them.
  11. They have an understanding for sure, but I don't think there is yet any formal transfer agreement. However, formal or informal the only reason for any agreement is specifically because neither party has authority over the other. The NHL needs the KHL to agree to act on their behalf because the NHL cannot itself tell SKA St. Petersburg to do or not do anything. And even if there is a formal agreement, if the KHL were to say, "yeah, we're not going to honor that", what really could the NHL do besides start acting the same way? Ask the UN or WTO for help? But we're maybe getting too deep in the semantics, and also too far from the point. He obtained proper permission to play in the KHL, so there is no more contractual violation than there was in the Wings trading the contract despite his NMC.
  12. That could depend on whether you see it as a single act of "retiring to play in the KHL" or as two separate, tangentially-related acts of "retiring" and "playing in the KHL". Regardless, the Wings chose not to try to block him so what they arguably could have done isn't particularly relevant. Fact is, obtaining permission as he did means he did not violate the terms of his contract. But to be strictly accurate, neither the Wings nor the NHL (nor, for that matter, any US court) could actually block a player from playing in the KHL, as none of them have any authority over the KHL. All they could do is request that the KHL itself block him, and/or ask that the IIHF threaten them with sanctions. Of course, they would most likely comply in order to maintain a good relationship, but that just puts us back at speculating on whether or not blocking him from the KHL prevents the retirement. Could very well be that the only reason he stayed for the 15-16 season is because the Wings agreed not to try to stop him the next year.
  13. Our draft position

    Smith, Sproul, Hicketts, Hronek, whoever....eventually Kr is going to hit on one of them then he's going to LW'er us and say, "See, I was right the whole time!"
  14. Both players acted in accordance with their legally protected rights, which is the closest thing we have to objectivity. So objectively, both situations are exactly equal. You are either considering some moral standard, or comparing the relative impact of the situations. Both of those are subjective. I'm sure if I were to find an example of a player no one cared about going to play in the KHL, all it would do is get people looking for some other detail that makes Datsyuk different. Point is, all these arguments are bogus. Just attempts to do what you're doing here: trying to make a subjective situation objective. No one actually cares about the specifics, we care about the net result. The disappointment of losing followed by the perceived rejection in Fedorov's case. The perceived contribution to the decline of the team in Datsyuk's. Can't handle adversity without having a target to shake our fists at. Some villain to blame for all our woe. Can't be happy without something to hate. Can't even be happy just hating on our own; we have to convince everyone else to hate the same things. Sad.
  15. I have to disagree here, and I think the complete lack of any animosity toward Brian Rafalski proves that fans are only bitter over the negative impact. The contract is just a convenient target. Had we signed Stamkos, or more specifically signed Stamkos and returned to contender status, no one would be debating anything. (Though if we signed Stamkos and still sucked, people would still likely be at least a little bitter.) Secondly, you don't seem to understand the nature of a contract in this sense. An NHL contract is an employment contract. In the US, you absolutely have the right to just walk away from an employment contract, and there can be no consequences beyond forfeiting your right to whatever you would have been entitled had you not walked away, and not being allowed to play/work for a competitor. Despite your insinuations that he wasn't allowed to retire, the fact is he was no more in violation of his contract than a team is when they trade of buy-out a player. Quitting is an inherent right of the player. That the Wings/NHL could have asked the KHL to block him from playing there is a completely separate issue from his right to not play for the Wings. I'm surprised that anyone can think that Datsyuk leaving to go play in Russia is worse than Fedorov leaving to go play for the team that had just swept us in the playoffs.