Buppy

It's not the "Hall of Only the Very Best of the Very Best Ever" either. "Fame" doesn't mean much of anything specific.

September 2014: Gary Bettman says NHL has no immediate plans to expand. June 2015: NHL will begin accepting expansion bids. March 2016: NHL says 'no final decisions' reached on expansion June 2016: Las Vegas awarded NHL franchise Translation: Expansion announcement to come next year.

Why should we think it isn't simple? We have two expensive goalies, and we're tight on cap space, and we have a third goalie out of options coming off a good AHL career. Mrazek's coming off an awful year, and as his detractors like to point out he's had his share of down moments even prior. Howard is coming off an excellent year, apart from the injury. As I've said, there are benefits in him being selected. Given that we now know of at least two credible rumors of Vegas being paid to take goalies, (and Holland has said he's been talking to other GMs so he was likely aware of that even before we were) it would seem the chances of him being selected weren't as high as we might have thought. Put it all together and it's hardly that outrageous that he was exposed, even without resorting to speculative character assassination. I don't think you even have to conclude that we wanted Vegas to take him. Just that we'd be OK with it, which is reasonable to assume based on fact alone. I don't think it really says much. If they were already selecting two goalies, one of them already fairly expensive, plus several other options like Grubauer and Raanta... There's never a big market for goalies, so it's not that surprising that they wouldn't want too many or would think a player would be worth more than a 3rd-rounder or whatever. They do still need to build a team. More surprising that they would pick Nosek ahead of Sheahan if they were taking a forward (assuming they weren't paid to take him). Maybe they're pinching pennies, or maybe even GMs get overly swayed by what-have-you-done-lately thinking.

But it isn't just Holland. Several teams have goalies that might be claimed but haven't traded them. People are looking at expansion like the Wings were supposed to gain something from it. But everyone is losing something. About the best you could hope for is not pay too much to dump a bad contract and maybe sort of break even. Even if we were able to trade Mrazek for a 3rd or something, we'd still lose someone else in expansion. There are benefits to losing Mrazek. Pros and cons to everything. I don't like the prospect of losing Mrazek either, and I hope he isn't taken, but I don't think it's that bad if he is. This is why people shouldn't speculate. Casual comments from people who don't actually know anything have a way of turning into "fact" when they're repeated enough. We don't know, or have any particularly good reason to suspect, that Mrazek has any real attitude problem.

Yeah, in all the years I've been watching hockey, I can't even count the number of games I've seen decided by pull-ups.

Given that Coreau is out of options, I think he'll be up if we lose Mrazek. A lot of us thought the same thing about Howard when he came up, but the team gave him the chance, and Coreau has had the better AHL career (even without considering the Calder Cup).

Still get paid on LTIR, and he's at $3.5M this year. Probably not a good fit, but maybe next year. Frazen is a little better @ $4M cap hit for 3 years, and only $2M, $1M, and $1M in salary.

Or they take Sproul and everyone ******* that he should have been protected over DD. Or they take Green and everyone ******* because we should have traded him for something. Or Nosek and everyone ******* because we protected Sheahan. Or Coreau and everyone *******... Or ... and everyone *******...

Looking at the Mrazek exposure from a slightly different angle, it could serve as de facto protection of other players, while also freeing up cap space and freeing up a spot for Coreau if we don't want to risk waiving him. I don't believe the "attitude problem" theory about Mrazek, nor that he has been as bad or as inconsistent as some make him out to be. But realistically there's little chance he ends up being anything more than an average goalie. If the organization thinks Coreau has as much or more upside, it makes some sense.

And De Haan isn't one of them... Pulock has some promise, and I admit I don't know anything about Pelech, but...exposing Nelson, Strome, and Baily. I guess if they were going to protect Pulock, they could have only protected one of them anyway so it doesn't really matter. Then again, there are likely to be deals we don't yet know about making some of this moot.

Not that it really matters, since we can only lose one. I think if Vegas would take one of Ouellet or Jensen, they'd take either, and we can't protect both (much less both plus Sproul). I doubt they would take Sproul ahead of either of them, but I kind of hope they protect him just in case. He probably won't ever be any good, but there's always a chance, so... But it's probably Kronwall, and people will go irrationally crazy over it.

Habs thought they'd lose him in the expansion. I mentioned him in another thread as someone I would have liked to go after. The cost is about what I expected. Oh well.

I thought you'd throw out Jeff Carter, then I could have said "How'd that work out for Columbus?". Victory! But you ruined it, thanks a lot. Burns doesn't quite fit, since it was a late 1st plus SJ got a 2nd back. I think the #9 plus Saarijarvi (or a similar prospect) is just too much to pay for what is a fairly minor upgrade over Tatar/Nyquist. It could be worth it in the right situation...if Duchene actually was the piece we thought would put us over the top...just not in our current situation. Short term it's only a small upgrade, plus probably pushes Larkin to the wing. Long term, assuming Duchene even stays around past UFA, I don't think it helps unless a lot of other things go well. But if things do go well, it removes a lot of the need for someone like Duchene. I get that center is a position of concern, and that he could potentially solidify our top-6 centers for many years. And sure, that'd be a good thing. Just not #9 + Nyquist good. Our 2nd instead would be worth it, and I'd do that if I was convinced that we couldn't get a defenseman. I would probably do the #9 alone, but that would have to come with a few extra moves to make the cap work. But I don't think trading Duchene for a forward makes sense for the Avs unless they're getting overpaid. Similarly I don't think it makes sense for us unless we're underpaying.

Umm... Both my original reply and my follow-up directly refuted the argument that our kids are being blocked by vets. In case it was lost amid my half-cocked, over-the-top melodramatics, I refuted it specifically by pointing out our current roster situation and citing recent history as evidence that your concerns weren't particularly warranted. But hey, I'll concede the 'false narrative' argument. I can't really prove you meant something. Instead I'll ask for some clarification so we can have some genuine discussion. If you were implying that Pittsburgh is doing something differently with their prospects, what exactly do you mean? And if you weren't implying that, what was your point in bringing up Pittsburgh? What specifically is this culture that needs to change? And if promoting kids from GR is the way to change it, how did it become stagnant when we promote kids from GR every year and why are our current kids any more likely to change it? And if you want to argue that your point was all about cost-cutting and getting rid of players, what specifically do our kids have to do with that, since we don't have enough good kids to both fill out the rest of the roster and replace the players you mention?

Reading into some things: McPhee talked at the combine about how he was talking to other GMs about who they wanted to protect, contracts they wanted to dump, players Vegas likes, etc. The implication being that teams have a decent idea about what's going to happen. Nothing set in stone of course, but a general notion. Kenny says he's talked to pretty much everyone, and one of the main reasons is trying to move a goalie. Also says he isn't making a deal with Vegas. Putting all that together it sounds like Kenny believes Vegas has some interest in our goalies, possibly because McPhee told him.

Ironic, calling my post "over the top melodrama". For the record, I didn't mean that to be offensive. More just trying to point out that you seemed to be ignoring or unaware of certain realities. As for the false narrative; there is the persistent idea that young players don't get a fair chance here, always being held down by vets. Largely fueled by the perception that our kids are better than they really are and that our vets are worse, plus some confirmation bias, and a little exaggeration thrown in for good measure. We currently have 3 open forward spots, and 3 (some might argue 4) forwards in GR that could feasibly contribute in the NHL. Our vets, regardless of how middling and overpaid you think they are, aren't blocking anything (unless you want to count Frk). We average about 3 rookies per year seeing significant time. Assuming that continues (and why wouldn't it), we should assume that all our good kids will see significant time next year (and there will be new kids in GR that everyone will think are being held down). Just like not long ago when our overpaid middling players were themselves the kids everyone wanted. Circle of life. When you say we need to change our culture and bring up Pittsburgh, it implies that you don't know (or are willfully ignoring) the actual facts. We had more games played by rookies this year than Pittsburgh. How exactly are they doing something we aren't (pertaining to promoting young players)?

Red Wings fans: There's nothing we can't turn into a negative.

And none of them were traded for a 45-point player plus a top-10 pick plus a good prospect. I don't think anyone is really arguing that Duchene isn't a good player, just that he isn't capable of carrying a team. If he's being held back by a bad Avs team, why would anything be different on a bad Wings team? Basically, the only way Duchene would work out here is if our kids turn out as good or better than him so he doesn't have to carry us. But if that happens then we don't need him. We'd be better off trading him for a defenseman. Maybe get Liljegren from the Avs after they take him with our #9. He has hit 70 points once. Came close one other time at 67, and had 43 in the lockout year. Sure, he's better than Flip, Tatar, or Nyquist. Just not that much better.

Just start watching hockey yesterday or something? Mantha, Jensen, Ouellet, Larkin, Athanasiou, Marchenko, Pulkkinen, Sheahan, Dekeyser, Jurco, Glendening, Andersson, Smith, Tatar, Nyquist.... Literally every year we bring kids up from GR. Lack of kids is not the reason for our decline. Nor is promoting every kid we have the solution. Nosek will almost certainly be on the team from camp (unless he's dealt, taken by Vegas, or passed up by other kids). We will likely have 2 or 3 other open spots at forward, and it's not particularly unlikely that one or more will go to another kid. Even if not, injuries happen every year, and someone will see a fair amount of games.

You're out of your mind. Teams normally pay a 2nd rounder to move up just a few spots in the teens. You really think they would expect to move up 18 spots, into the top 10, for the same price? Go check out some past trades. I probably wouldn't even do the #9 for the 20, 27, AND their 2nd.

Not that I would compare Mrazek to Hasek, but your facts are wrong. At Mrazek's age, Hasek had still not played his first NHL game. It would still be another 3 years before he became a perennial Vezina candidate. Same offense played in front of both also. They just played much worse.

You're right, he's a 60 point player. No, we aren't told that players like Duchene aren't available. That would be dumb since players like Duchene are traded almost every year. Elite franchise cornerstones are the players that aren't available (though even that does occasionally happen). Your package would probably get it done if the Avs can't get a defender they like. But how does it make sense for us? Duchene is a 60 point player. Not much better than Nyquist or Tatar on their own. And to throw in the #9, which could easily turn out better than any of them, plus a good D prospect? Plus he makes an already bad cap situation worse. No thanks. Not even swapping the 1st for our 2nd. Change for the sake of change is almost always the wrong move. Unless the Avs are looking to shake things up and are willing to overpay us, then I want no part of Duchene at all. Rather use the assets to try to help our own defense.

Careful....that's why Roger Podacter's dead.

Well, at the very least the "ass" part is right.

Pretty sure Islanders already have 7 forwards they'd want to protect, plus 5/6 defensemen. Tough spot for them. Tip too far toward "rebuild" and they increase the risk of losing Tavares, but trading for proven players doesn't help them in the expansion draft. Losing one of De Haan or Pulock to Vegas probably hurts them less than trying to trade their way out of losing someone. Also pretty tight on cap space. But if they want to give us De Haan for a 3rd I'd do it.