Buppy

Goon slappies tend to include Shanny as one of the fighters we've had. You can include Drake if you want, doesn't change my question. No, neither Downey nor McCarty were a part of the team in 06-07 (which is what I meant by 07) and they combined for 17 games in 09. We had Brad Norton for 6 games in 07. Neither year we really carried a regular enforcer. For that matter, we didn't have anyone in 05-06 either. Yes, May was a more effective NHL player than what was available in the AHL last year. At least while he was on the roster. Abby was the only guy really any better and he was here for the majority of the time May was. While there have been a few guys with more offensive skill, we had no one that would likely have been any better than Downey or May. And also, we didn't have to risk losing them to waivers to make room for those guys. We're already facing losing Ritola. An enforcer would mean losing Miller or Eaves too. While I don't think it would make any difference, it would be pretty pointless and somewhat unprofessional considering we just signed those guys.

So in the late 90s/early 00s we had minor leaguers better than McCarty and Shannahan? Who did we have in the AHL in 08? Whose spot was May taking last year? Why didn't we have an enforcer in 07 or 09?

The long-term contract loophole is now closed. Boston could offer a fifty year deal if they want and it wouldn't circumvent the cap. For contracts over five years, any years when the player is 41 or over do not count toward the average value. And if the average of the three highest years are $5.75M or over, any years the player is between 36-40 will be valued at a minimum of $1M. It simply isn't possible to circumvent the cap in the way the Kovalchuk deal did.

They've proven time and again that they can win while still at or near the bottom of the league in fighting majors. It's not like there have been many occasions where the Wings or any other team have gone without someone that could fight. 07 and 09 we didn't really have anyone and I suppose if you really want to believe that having Downey or another goon then would have made a difference, I probably can't change your mind. But really, getting someone to come in and fight 10 times then not play in the playoffs isn't going to make one bit of difference. Thinking otherwise is stupid.

Remember that betting odds aren't just a prediction about how good a team is. Any fan or sports book knows it's a long season and anything can happen, so pre-season odds under around 10-1 means more than anything just that those teams can still get a lot of action that low.

I think you're overestimating the talent most teams have in their systems. Drew Miller will likely be our 13th forward. Most teams struggle to fill their 3rd lines with players that good. The majority of 4th liners and bench forwards around the league are fringe NHLers who aren't going to put up more than 10-15 points at best. Most AHL forwards either aren't any better or are being kept in the AHL for development reasons, or high draft picks that would cost substantionally more. A team looking to fill out the bottom of their forward roster is likely choosing between guys with marginal talent. Some might score a few more points than others, but lack a physical game of defense. Some might play physical and maybe fight, maybe play decent defense, but with little offense. Some are good fighters and usually decently physical, but are a bit worse in other areas. None of those things is particularly valuable. I think it's less about how much teams value having an enforcer than it is about how little they value a slightly better player who can't play physical. Either way, the Wings have proven they can be successful without an enforcer or fighting, and we already have more forwards than will fit on the roster. Come back next year when we might have a couple spots open.

Speaking of that, do any arenas still use the tempered safety glass? I can't recall a good shattering in a few years. Seems everyone has plexiglass these days.

Come on Russia, it's been almost 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union. Why still so far behind the fashion curve? Heroin Chic went out of style in the late 90s. Though I suppose she could really be a smack addict...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html That's from the 08-09 season, so most revenues would be up from there. But the cap has gone up as well. Yes, there are a few more teams that could afford to spend over the current cap, but still few who could afford to spend millions more. But that's really beside the point. I don't see what's 'better' about this proposal. In fact, it's really no different than it is now. It's still a hard cap, just harder to reach. Parity would probably suffer to some degree. Maybe generates more for revenue sharing, but any benefit from that is negated by requiring teams to spend more. How exactly is it any better beyond giving Detroit a minor competetive advantage? I think the pre-cap years proved that owners aren't all that smart. I think many owners probably see their teams as more than just a business. They want to win as well. Then there's also the fact that winning is generally good for business. So owners may feel that they need to spend more to be competetive, even if they can't afford it. Either they want to win badly enough, or they feel winning will bring in enough extra revenue. But spending more money is only part of the equation. You also need to spend wisely; more wisely than most everyone else actually, and there's only so much success to go around.

It boggles my mind to see Red Wings fans who still think enforcers are needed. For pretty much the past 20 years, the Wings have been at or near the bottom of the league in fighting majors (dead last every year since the lockout) and still been the most successful team in the league. Even allowing that fighting is a valuable ability for a team to have, it is painfully obvious that the lack of it can be compensated for in other areas. Instead, the pro-enforcer crowd just overstates the value of whatever 'enforcer' we've had in the past, even though they probably spent the whole year complaining about how soft we were. People talk about the 96-98 teams like they were some great monument to team toughness, but the reality is they still rarely fought and were considered 'soft' compared to most of the league. McCarty was never so tough that he scared anyone. People who spent all of 08 whining about how soft we were now talk about Drake like he was one of the great all-time fighters. This year will likely be no different than any other. We'll have a handful of fights. People will cry about how soft we are, blame every minor injury on our lack of fighters. If we aren't successful it will be because we weren't tough enough. But if we happen to win a Cup, it will be because of great enforcing from Bert and Abby or whoever happens to have a couple fights during the year. The simple fact is that any deficiency can be overcome by enough strength in other areas. A strong defense can make up for a weaker offense or sub-par goaltending. A strong offense can offset a less than stellar defense. Great depth can overcome injuries or below average play from your stars. Dominant stars can compensate for a lack of depth. There isn't any one thing that is an absolute must have. It's the general level of team talent, coaching and system, great effort, and a bit of luck that wins Cups. We have the talent, coaching, and system, despite any specific weaknesses we might have. All we really need now is the effort and luck.

Still 6 games, so yeah, I think it does matter. Moreso a division like the Northeast where 95 points might get you first place. But mostly because of how tight the races for the last few spots usually are, a team like Tampa having just a few extra games against the likes of Washington, Altanta, Florida, and Carolina looks a hell of a lot better than a few extra games against Detroit, Chicago, St.Louis, and Nashville like Columbus, or the Ilses against Pittsburgh, Philly, New Jersey, and the Rangers.

Yes, they either need to get rid of the cap floor, or get rid of the teams that aren't performing well enough to afford it. But that still doesn't change the simple fact that right now, only the Wings, Toronto, Montreal, and the Rangers are really making enough money to afford a luxury tax system. But most teams aren't that healthy. It wouldn't do any good to put money in the pockets of struggling teams if that money comes from teams that can't really afford it. And if the teams that can afford it start taking talent from teams that can't, teams that are growing like Washington, Pittsburgh, LA, Colorado might become less successful and start losing revenue. And then you require teams to spend more to get revenue sharing, and spend more than they receive from revenue sharing. It looks like no more than an across-the-board spending increase without any increase in revenue to support it. Higher spending doesn't guarantee higher success on the ice, and even if it did it doesn't guarantee an equal or greater amount of increased revenue. For one thing, on-ice success is a finite resource. If one team gets better, another team gets worse. The current system isn't perfect, because teams are still allowed (and in some cases forced) to spend more than they can afford. And some teams just don't seem capable of making decent revenue. Revenues have been growing, but spending is growing just as fast (technically, a little faster since the players share % has also been growing), and we still need abit more growth. Those things need to be addressed before loosening controls on spending. I know it sucks fighting the cap every year, but at least we're pretty good at it.

Miller is only 26, and last year was his first full season in the NHL. He could still improve a bit.

I'm a firm believer that anything can happen so I'll go out on a limb and say they'll all make it. Or possibly none. Seriously, the NE and SE divisions are both awful. Washington should run away with the SE again, but I think two more teams will get in from there. Tampa probably one of them. Any of Carolina, Florida, or Atlanta could sneak in. Similar situation for Edmonton. Outside of Vancouver, none of the NW teams are any good. They'd probably need some luck with other teams struggling, but stranger things have happened. Boston has good players, but they had that last year and still sucked most of the year. Buffalo might be good again, but they've also had problems with performing up to expectations. Neither Ottawa nor Montreal are very impressive. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Toronto were to capitalize on their division's weakness to sneak into a spot. I wouldn't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Islanders have next to no chance I think. That division is too strong. I think the same goes for Columbus. In the West, the Wings, Hawks, Sharks, and Canucks seem to be the only real good teams though. The bottom 4 could be almost anyone, but it's hard to imagine more than 3 teams from the Central getting in, and I expect Nashville to be the third.

I like Miller as well. He's young and could still be developing, and already has all the tools for a good 3rd/4th liner. But I would rather keep Ritola to at least see what he can do at this level. But whoever stays will be the 13th/14th forward, barring injuries. It would take a serious string of injuries for either to get more than few games above the 4th line. It's not like it's a hugely important role. So either way I don't think it's worth making a big deal about. And I think there's a fair chance Ritola can clear waivers. Hopefully he will, and then takes Draper's spot next year.

Your proposal is ignoring the fact that many teams just don't have the revenue to be profitable even under the current system. And if I'm understanding correctly, you would actually make that worse by requiring even higher spending in order to be eligible for revenue sharing. Part of the problem is that teams are already allowed to spend more than they really should. The system now allows something like 57% of revenues to be spent on player salaries, but the actual salary cap is higher than that. The league projects revenues, takes 54-57% (sliding scale depending on projected revenues) of that, subtracts the cost of benefits to get the players share, then divides that share by 30 to get the midpoint. The salary cap is $8 million above that point, the floor $8 million below. But total league-wise player compensation (actual salaries and bonuses, including all time on IR) can not be more (or less) than the players share. The remaining share is supposed to pay for the costs of operating a franchise with any left-over being profit. Currently, average revenues are expected to be about $90 million per team. Operating costs seem to be in the $35-40 million range (though a few teams seem to be a lot lower, and some significantly higher). In theory, a team making $90 would spend about $51.5 on salaries, and come close to breaking even or turn a nice profit if their non-player expenses are well managed. Teams making a lot of money can spend to the cap while still maintaining a profit, while teams with low incomes can spend less. But there are some teams that aren't generating enough revenue to spend even league minimum and still make a profit, and many teams still spending more than they can really afford on players. And current revenue sharing isn't enough to make up the difference. While I don't have much sympathy for a poorly managed team, I think for the good of the league as a whole, we still need to keep spending in check for a while. I'd love to see a luxury tax system, but right now I think it would hurt more than help. We're close though, a good increase in revenues this year and next (similar to what we've been seeing post-lockout) and maybe relocating a few teams could maybe get us there by the time the next CBA comes around. Once we get to that point, we need a cap/revenue sharing system that allows a team to spend what it wants, but encourages spending within their budget. The details would need to be a lot more involved than what I'm willing to figure.

Don't mean to intrude on a good pointless argument, but it should be pointed out that if Kopecky had been healthy that year, Mac would not have played. He only made the lineup due to injuries and a lack of options. He wasn't very good, but he was better than Downey or Mark Hartigan.

One note, the forward situation is about roster space, not cap space. While the cap is certainly leaving some poeple without an NHL spot, I think a lot of teams are just looking at younger and faster players and a lot of the fringe guys would be out anyway. Overall, I'd say having the cap is better for the league than no cap, but a soft cap would probably work just as well while still allowing high-revenue teams like us to use that advantage.

The pre-season nameplate designer is lazy and sucks.

Matt Lombardi has some wheels. Duchene from what little I've seen could be up there. Lebda was fast, maybe just a step behind. A lot of guys could probably match the top speed, but not the acceleration. Flip can fly, just takes him a few steps to get up there.

I still don't get it. The Pronger hit seemed more 'blindside' than half the supposedly illegal hits. Rafalski didn't even get hit in the head. Most of those icing calls weren't 'obvious'. And most of the altercation stuff is pretty harmless.

They have a goalie (Pearce), D pair (Piche & Kolosov), and forward line (Coetzee-Minard-Parkes) in reserve apparently. (Plus Draper out)

If Martin is worth $5M, Nick is worth a lot more than $6.2. It's debateable whether either Martin of Michalek could crack our top 4. Orpik and Letang for sure wouldn't. Goligoski has some potential, but still a long way to go. Never heard of the other guy, and you still don't have a 7th. Yeah, Nick is getting older, but he's still one of the leagues best. Rafi has issues, but he's not as bad as some people think. His offense makes up for his defense. Both had a better +/- than anyone on Pittsburgh. Kronwall and Stuart are as good a second pair as you'll find. Our third pair is a question mark, but Kindl and Ericsson have a lot of potential, so we'll see. They could be great or they could suck. Salei is alright for a 3rd pair guy. The Pens defense is pretty good, but I don't think they compare to ours.

Hasek - Chicago Trottier - Pittsburgh Luongo - Islanders Coffey - Boston Klima - 2nd time with Wings Lindros - Toronto & Dallas (I honestly forgot he had played at all post-lockout)

Not much of a point. Consider the fact that Ellis has in just the last two years made more money than ~90% of Americans will make in their lifetime. Consider that at age 45, assuming he is credited for 160 games played, he'll get a pension of $45,000/year or more. Consider that retiring from hockey doesn't mean he is unable to work at all. Consider that his high income now gives him extraordinary investment opportunities. He really doesn't have anything to complain about. I too can understand being upset about losing 18% (or whatever it was) of your expected income. Only natural. But he should also be grateful enough about what he does make to not worry about it. And he damn sure shouldn't be whining about it on the internet. That was just downright stupid. Lol.