Buppy

In a certain sense, you can. We can't afford enough to get anyone very good. We probably can't even afford anyone that's much better than Janik or Meech. Spending all our cap on what would be at best a minor upgrade doesn't really add much in the way of depth, and it would reduce our options in the future.

Leach is a borderline NHLer, Wallin, Murray, and Huskins are really 3rd-pair types, Demers looks decent but he's still basically a rookie. They need some help. That's why they went after Hjalmarsson. I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to upgrade Huskins and Leach. They don't have a ton of space, but they're a bit better off than we are.

Technically 14th, maybe 15th depending on how Ritola does at camp. But as others said he's untouchable. Someone has to go; Eaves, Miller, and Ritola are the only options (Maybe Abby, I think he is still waiver exempt). You can still call up replacements for short term injuries that aren't eligible for LTIR exemption. But with a full roster there'd have to be 4 such injuries before it became an issue. And we don't really have anyone to call up anyway, so it's even less of an issue. But $1-1.5 million isn't going to get much of a defenseman. Saving ~$800k for a deadline move though, would allow us to add $3M+ in salary. Not sure who might be available in that price range, but likely much better than anything we could get for around $1M.

He's also 35 and has played an average of around 55 games/year over 11 pro seasons. He would have played on our 3rd pair. He's good for the Ducks crappy defense, but here he just wouldn't be worth the price.

Goalies that face low shot totals generally have a worse save%. No question that Turco is a better deal, but he is 35 and he's been on a generally downward trend since the lockout. Niemi was a rookie who had a very good season. It's too early to say he's just an average goalie. He could become one of the leagues best. I still think Chicago gave up their future goalie for a bit of relief this year.

Nothing wrong with having 14 forwards. Especially since we don't have many (any) NHL ready forwards in GR. I can't see moving both unless it was to bring in a defenseman.

So which forward do we move, Miller or Ritola? And what could we get in return?

$2.125/year according to capgeek. Did the Ducks walk away from Wisniewski?

I have to question this move. It would have been tough, but Chicago could have fit Niemi in under the cap. This move makes it a little easier this year, but I'm not sure that it really improves their team (it could make them worse, if Turco continues to degrade). Apparently, there were some concerns about the future, since Niemi was awarded a one year deal and would have become UFA after this year. But I don't see how giving a one year deal to a 35 year old helps that situation. Niemi had a very good rookie season, and overall his playoff performance was decent. With the bonus overage being just a one year thing, Chicago's cap situation next summer would be much better. With Seabrook and Brouwer the only other important FAs, keeping Niemi then wouldn't have been too hard. Now they have to find another goalie next summer, and who knows what will be available. I think they're taking a big risk here for a pretty minor gain.

We could afford around $1.5-2 million, depending on what we give Abby and Helm, and whether we go with 13 or 14 forwards. Boynton is about the best option left (maybe Sutton, if he'd be willing to settle for around a million), which isn't saying much. If we're to the point of considering Ward, it probably means our best option is to let Meech and Janik fight over the spot until the trade deadline when we could maybe add someone that's actually good.

With his age and injury history even $2 mil is an overpayment. I wouldn't give him more than $1M.

He could take $500k if he was willing. The minimum raise is ONLY for qualifying offers. His actual contract can be for any amount, from minimum to maximum.

Lol. He's been to the playoffs twice, 9 games, 8 points. Not enough experience to say he's a choker just yet.

Not really. They can be deferred, if the team was over the cap the previous year, but for the most part bonuses count against the current year's cap. Bonuses are calculated as salary for the purpose of determining the average amount on a contract. So they are figured into the cap amount for each player that has one. There is a bonus cushion up to 7.5% of the cap, so teams aren't penalized for bonus money they don't pay, but if they do use that cushion, the excess counts toward the cap the next year. Also, if at any time during the season, a bonus becomes impossible to reach, the amount of that bonus is removed from the cap.

At most, he would be an RFA. There is absolutely no chance LA would fail to at least qualify him. And there is very little chance we could possibly offer an amount that LA would fail to match. It would have to be something in the $7.5-8+ mil range to even have a prayer, and that would mean giving up 4 first round picks. It is 100% certain that we could not get Doughty without giving up something.

I'm not worried. Maybe a little just because it is a negotiation and anything can happen. But I don't think there's any issues for either side big enough to risk losing another season. Teams and players are both doing pretty well, a lockout or strike would hurt both sides in the short term, and I can't think of any long-term gain that either side would want badly enough to make the sacrifice.

More like Kronwall + Hank/Mule + a good handful of prospects/picks. It would have to be something like the Lindros deal, or even more since Doughty actually plays, and is probably a better prospect. We could probably offer every prospect in our system and every one of our draft picks next year and LA would say, 'No thanks'. I suppose we can hope for a slump next year to drive his value down, but right now he's looking like the most valuable commodity in the league. Anchor defensemen who can play every situation have passed goalies/top centers as the key to team building, IMO. Nick saw to that.

I wouldn't say it's too much, but unless our goal-scoring prospects look dominant this year and see some time in the NHL, that trade would hurt in the short term. Even then it might still be worth it. I wouldn't expect Doughty to be the next Nick, but next Pronger (ability-wise I mean, not his personality) is probably a good bet. That's still saying a lot. Realistically, there's likely no way we can end up with Doughty or Weber or any of the other really good looking kids. Chara would probably be the best single player we could get, or Markov. We'd need someone who can really run a PP, I don't have a ton of confidence in Rafi and Kronwall, nor Kindl and Smith so soon.

I'm sure there's a few more starts Osgood could or should have been given and wouldn't have hurt. But at the same time, I don't think a backup missing a start or two should be a big deal. The specific stretch I mean was from Dec. 23 - Jan. 17 when Jimmy started 12 in a row (right after the Chicago game). In the first 8 of those games, Jimmy allowed just 13 goals and had a save% of .953, and won 5 of them. In that situation, I see no problem in riding the hot hand. The next game was against the Islanders on Jan. 12th. Jimmy had a poor start, and was pulled about halfway through after giving up 3 goals on 20 shots. Osgood came in and gave up 3 more goals on just 11 shots. It had been over three weeks since he had played, so a bit of rust is forgiveable, and he could/should have started the next game, but again I don't see any real fault in going back to Jimmy. After then, with just 30 minutes of game time in the past month, Ozzie probably shouldn't have started against Washington. He should have gone earlier against either Carolina or Dallas. That might be the biggest mistake I would lay on Babs. It's hard to say what might have been different otherwise, but that game seemed to really hurt Ozzie and Babs' confidence in him. Ozzie did get another 'regular' start a week later against Minnesota, but he didn't look good, and took his permanent bench spot after. Who knows how things might have gone if that little stretch had been done differently, but that's getting into guesswork. It's just as probable that nothing would have been different. I liked Ozzie in the Chicago start, but I'd agree he could have been given one in between, like the TB game. I would have wanted Ozzie against Chicago regardless though. It was a back-back, Ozzie's last start was solid, and he was great against Chicago early in the year. He wasn't bad in the Chicago game either, though if memory serves he did let in a weak one, maybe even two, early on. But either way... In a nutshell, I'd probably agree that things could have been handled a little better, just not to such a degree that I think it warrants any real criticism. That's assuming that no permanent damage was done in the relationship between Ozzie and Babs, nor Ozzie's confidence. But I don't think either is the case.

I have trouble finding more than two extra starts Ozzie should have been given. Though he was the backup by the start of December, he was still getting regular time until late in the month. Then Jimmy got really hot, and that plus the fact that the team wasn't in great position you can't really say it was a bad decision to skip one of two of Ozzie's regular starts. An NHL backup shouldn't suffer that much going 3 weeks without a start. Then Jimmy had a poor start, Ozzie came off the bench and was worse, so Jimmy still got the next start, but he did get a couple more games in after Jimmy cooled off. But Ozzie played poorly in those games, so he missed his next start. I would have given him one more before the Olympic break, after the LA game when Jimmy played poorly. That's one. After the Olympics, I thought Ozzie should have gotten a start in the first 4-6 games, maybe after Jimmy was pulled against Vancouver (even though Ozzie wasn't very good in relief). That's two. After that, Jimmy heated up again, and the team was playing very well. No good reason to change anything then. Once Jimmy cooled off and we were in good shape for the playoffs, Ozzie did get another start. Might have been able to work two in there, but either way, if you look at the situation we were in and how Jimmy was playing when Ozzie missed his regular starts I just can't see how you can say it was really mismanaged; at least not to any great extent. Two or three extra starts for Ozzie wouldn't have changed anything, nor really lessened any risk.

I think you're reading a little too much into that statement. But regardless, I just wanted to point out that the earliest Helm and Abdelkader could become unrestricted free agents (barring the Wings failing to qualify them or walking away from an arbitration decision...) is 2014. They could sign 1, 2, or 3 year deals, or 3 1 year deals in a row, etc., and they would still be RFAs.

Doughty-Enstrom Weber-Boychuk Myers-Hedman Smith

Weber is a far more realistic option. And by more realistic, I mean around one in a billion odds.

In five seasons in either the AHL or NHL, Flip has played 78, 76, 78, 80, and 55 games. In four such years, Bolland has played 66, 55, 81, and 39 games. I don't know why he missed so many games from '06-'08, healthy scratch maybe? But again, given the nature of Bolland's injury last year, I would certainly be more suspect of his durability.

One serious injury in five NA seasons and Flip is 'somewhat injury prone'? If anything, I'd be worried about Bolland's herniated disk that required surgical repair, since that's the kind of injury that could bother a player for their entire career. He's only two years younger than Flip too. Again, I have to ask, are you really referring to Dave Bolland? From Chicago? It's like saying 'Man, I really wish Flip had a slightly higher cap hit' since they're pretty equal players.