Buppy

Probably, though the list Chaps protected the choice would be Dekeyser (or Abby/Helm) or Sproul. Technically speaking, we could expose only big contracts that at least some people have complained about. My point was more about deflecting the idea that making a trade to dump or protect a player is not the great move people are going to think it is. It would at best be a mostly irrelevant move.

Makar is ranked ahead of Foote pretty much everywhere. If he hasn't had as much media attention, it's only because his dad isn't Adam Foote. More likely is that you just haven't seen 99.99% of the information that's out there.

Our "bad" contracts are not so bad, nor our need for cap space so pressing, nor our potentially unprotected players so good that we should be in any hurry to give up assets. I wouldn't necessarily be upset if we were to throw in a late pick to get Vegas to take Howard or Ericsson, but it isn't needed.

Getting high picks is a good way to get good players, but high picks alone will not build a team. Edmonton's failure wasn't wasting their top picks. It was everything else. The biggest problem with their top picks was that they didn't have the top picks in the years the best defensemen were available. You won't find a successful team that hasn't had a lot of luck in finding players that turn out better than would have been expected. Late draft picks, players producing above their skill level, cast-offs from other teams, etc. Then there is also luck to get the high picks at the time when the right players are available. That is the what makes rebuilds take a long time. Not GM incompetence. Our problems this year were not the result of a AA getting a few less shifts than he maybe should have. Mantha was near the top of our forwards in ice time, only dropping a bit later in the year. Plus we had a better record without Mantha than with him. This whole "ice time/misusing players" thing is just as exaggerated as the "everyone is way below their normal production".

I believe he was saying "if we don't land the #1 pick", meaning Patrick isn't an option. Colorado is in year 8 of that philosophy and just put up the worst record in the cap era. Florida is in year 20-something basically. Edmonton in year 10. Chicago and Pittsburgh are the only two to have any success, both took a lot more than 3 years and both have taken a lot more than just a few high picks. You have no idea what you're talking about. Even worse, you will never learn enough to even understand that you don't.

Not true. From 2002 to 2008, the Wings rebuilt almost the entire roster other than Lidstrom and Holmstrom. (There were a few others still on the team, but none really in the same role.) That is as much of a rebuild as any GM has ever done. We just got lucky and didn't have to suck while we did it. Lombardi started with Kopitar, Quick, and Brown (plus maybe some other stuff).

I bet that isn't the reason at all. They were crap for almost 2 decades and then their "glory days" lasted 3 years. Two years and a couple months really. Holland is garbage because he couldn't keep the Wings a contender forever. Lombardi is one of the best even though he couldn't keep the Kings a contender for even a handful of years. I guess there is no amount of failure that won't be overlooked as long as it happens somewhere else.

You just admitted earlier that you've never even heard of a kid that is consistently ranked as an top-half-1st-rounder by every major prospect site. That says everything anyone will ever need to know about your knowledge of who the Wings should draft. And for the record, Tippett ranks 20th, 11th, 4th, 6th, 6th on the same lists Petterson ranks 12th, 5th, 16th, 9th, 7th. (Leaving off the central scouting ranks, since they're not ranked against each other.) Pretty evenly ranked.

Maybe all the comparisons are just confusing things, so let's simplify. 1. Kronwall has a legitimate knee injury. That is a fact. It has been widely reported that his injured knee is not going to get better on its own. 2. LTIR is not a disability benefit. It has nothing at all to do with retirement. It is a cap exemption for players who will be on the injured list for at least 10 games/24 days. That's it. There is nothing in the LTIR clause saying a player must be permanently disabled, or at severe risk to his future well being. Kronwall was in fact on the injured list twice this season for his injury. While we didn't claim any LTIR exemption, it had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the injury. You can only claim LTIR if you actually use it, and we couldn't make use of it. So if you are saying that Kronwall would not be eligible for LTIR if he decides he can't play, then you are in fact saying that either a doctor or the league would say his injury isn't severe enough. There is nothing at all in league history that suggests that is even a remote possibility. Can you name even one example where the league has even tried to dispute an LTIR claim?

But the context was that Trouba would cost both our 1st rounder AND something like AA/Larkin/Mantha.

Why did we start this "1A" garbage? In what way were the numbers 1-6, that everyone in hockey has used for generations (and also 1 fewer character to type), insufficient? Especially odd since "1A" and "1B" designations are typically used to describe two things that are essentially equal, such that it would be unfair to refer to either as a "2".

Godmotherf***ingsonofabitchbastards***assdamnit, no. Stop. Just stop. For the sake of all humanity, stop. I don't actually believe in god, but since this is the kind of s*** that would bring down all sorts of fire-&-brimstone-y wrath, I have to hedge my bets and beg you to stop. "typical Holland experimental pick" is not a thing. Stop trying to make it one. Cholowski was not an experiment. He was the highest rated defenseman available. Even if he was, one pick is not "typical" in any sense of the word. And also 15 other GMs also passed on Chychrun. Stop acting like he's hockeyjesus. Petterson, for what it's worth, is the 2nd ranked EU skater. 12th on Craig's list, 5th by Hockeyprospect, 16th by ISS, 9th by Future Considerations, 7th by McKeen's. Hardly an experiment even if they do take him. (Which is probably unlikely since he's a winger we don't need. Button just saw someone compare him to Zetterberg, and said "hey, Wings!, Swedish!" even though the Wings haven't drafted a Swede in the 1st round since Kronwall.) So just stop. There are legitimate things to criticize and intelligent ways to be critical. Please stop trying to bring on Armageddon.

I think you are genuinely serious about this, which is hilarious. How would he fix our defense? Winnipeg's defense was worse than ours (and has been over the whole of Trouba's career there). He's a good player, been a good player for all 4 years he's been in the league, but not good enough to make a bad team better. That's probably not going to change. I don't think we could get him for peanuts, but that doesn't mean we should pay any asking price. We should not be so desperate to add Trouba; he isn't worth desperation. There's only a tiny chance that a pick in the 7-10 range ends up better than Trouba (and this year from the sound of it, even top 3 probably won't), but I still wouldn't do even just our 1st. We can find players with similar impact for cheaper. People like to s*** on Dekeyser, Green, Smith, Kronwall even when he was scoring 40+, etc... but, again, our defense has been better than Winnipeg's. Go after him as a FA in three years. We will hopefully be heading back into contention then and have a decent chunk of cap space. Since he's from here that should give us an edge. If someone locks him up before then and he turns into the next Hedman, oh well.

Not making any excuses. Just pointing out that the biggest criticism of Blashill is rather exaggerated.

Push for (and in fact, earn) a playoff spot is exactly what we did last year. This year sucked, of course, but I don't think you can necessarily put that on Blashill. You won't find a roster that shouldn't at least push for a playoff spot. Someone has to lose. This "most players playing well below their abilities" thing is getting overblown. Most of our players are actually fairly close to their previous production. Half of them have hardly enough history to even have an established norm. Tatar just had his 2nd-best season, Nyquist had a career high in assists. Vanek had his best season in 4 years. Zetterberg had a bad year last year but rebounded this year. Blash didn't change. People were just wrong to blame Babcock for our struggling offense. Not really. Gallant's coaching record is no better than Blashill's. Ruff has had some decent success, but also had his share of failure. Same for Therrien, or Tippett is becomes available. Hitchcock (if he even wants to coach again) has the best record (and the only Cup win), but also the biggest history of playoff under-achievement. And that's kind of my whole point here. Not saying Blashill is great, or even good, or that there isn't reasonable cause to think he's bad. Mostly just saying that given the transitional state of the roster, I don't think we can make a fair assessment of him so far. And since we're unlikely to be in contention for anything of note next year, I don't think there's any good reason to go chasing after someone just because they have a name we happen to recognize. There will be coaches just as good (and maybe better) available next year.

No one said anything about a guarantee. But it is reasonable cause for some optimism. And it's not like there's anyone available with a wildly successful NHL career, and even if there was, past success isn't a guarantee either. You come off as having the opinion that every player on our roster is s***, but you also expect success from Blashill. It's pretty obvious you have no objectivity and you just hate everything about the Wings right now. Probably pointless to even try to debate. Objectively speaking, the results Blashill has gotten are at worst only slightly below what we should expect. I don't see a problem with having some patience with the guy while we're rebuilding.

Not at all worth that. Can't elevate Winnipeg even as their 3rd-best defenseman. Only way I'd give up our first is if their first was coming back.

Again,not the point. No one is arguing that they can restrict a players actions to some degree. I'm saying they should not. (And I believe Kip is saying that the PA should negotiate to reserve certain rights, to take that ability away from the league.) I'm saying they shouldn't because, in general, I don't believe an employer should have the right to govern an employees actions outside of normal working hours. Sure, they may be some exceptions, where some actions could be particularly harmful to an employer. But I don't believe playing in the Olympics falls in that territory. Your argument seems to be that they should just because then can.

Because personal liberty is something we should consider to be an unalienable human right. Some things should transcend the almighty dollar. Call me an idealist. Why should the league/owners expect to "get" something from every activity their employees are involved in?

And yet NHL players have participated in the last 5 games. Maybe contracts say something about the Olympics or hockey in general, maybe they don't. That's not really the point. I'm not making a legal case here. I'm saying the league should not bar players from the Olympics, not that they can not.

Same thing that happens if Crosby and Malkin go boating together, have an accident, and drown. Hockey players have lives independent of the NHL. I do not believe the NHL or an individual team should have the authority to govern all risk out of a player's life. And it would be hilariously hypocritical for the league to try to argue that playing hockey is so dangerous that players should only be allowed to do it if the league is making money off it. Nor should the league or its teams assume they should benefit from any activity involving players. I believe that even in the realm of big business there is room for some humanity. Furthermore, if this ends up contributing to another labor dispute you could argue that the league is hurting itself by not allowing players to go.

Don't try to twist s*** around. I'm not saying Franzen or anyone else can play, in practical terms. I was pointing out that "can't" is a subjective term. Or maybe more accurate to say "play" is a subjective term. How much pain is enough to reach "can't play" territory? How much risk of further damage? Why would you think that you or the league are the ones to answer that question over Kronwall and his doctor? And you're not just drawing a line between Kronwall and Franzen/Pronger. You're drawing a line between Kronwall and literally every single other player for which LTIR has been claimed, even in cases where you admittedly don't know the details. You started with a premise that Kronwall is somehow ineligible for LTIR, and you're just going to stick with it even in the face of several examples of players in a similar situation. But forget all that. Let's just focus on the facts. Kronwall does have a bona-fide injury. If he were to decide it's too much to play through, why do you think the league would suddenly pick him to say, "nope, your suffering isn't enough"?

But I don't think anyone (fans at least) is asking or expecting the league to assume the costs. What I find unreasonable is that the whole thing should not be the NHL's business at all. Players are not just assets. I understand not wanting to interrupt the season, but it's not like they're losing any games. The league is already shut down for ~4 months every year. Shouldn't be a big deal to squeeze in a couple weeks every four years.

Not saying it wasn't an issue. I'm saying it isn't any more of an issue than Kronwall's knee. Robidas wasn't playing with a broken leg. He had previously had a broken leg which had subsequently healed. Healed well enough to allow him to play 52 games the following year. He was indisputably capable of some level of play. How is Robidas being "hampered by soreness" worse than Kronwall being hampered by soreness. Here's a quote from November 2015: "Even with the time off, I'm not too optimistic," GM Lou Lamoriello said Monday. "He's not skating yet." Robidas appeared to be OK at training camp, but he started the season on injured reserve due to some "wear and tear" and there haven't been many updates on his status ever since. Who decides who can and can't play? Franzen isn't dead. He isn't paralyzed. He has legs, he can see, move, think, hold a stick...as far as I know there's no force field preventing him from stepping on the ice. Literally speaking he is in fact capable of playing. The reason he isn't is because the discomfort and risk of further injury is too great. It seems you're trying to draw a line for "injured enough", and concluding that Kronwall is below while Robidas (and everyone else) is above it even though you admit you don't actually know why he retired. Call LTIR a loophole all you want, but Kronwall does have a bona-fide injury. Maybe the NHL could fight LTIR if they wanted, but that'd be a pretty dangerous game with no benefit to the league. LTIR isn't just used for players that are retired, much less only players who are retired and whose contracts would carry some kind of penalty if that player were to officially retire. Is the NHL going to start scrutinizing every long term injury to make sure that all players are in enough pain to really prevent them from playing? Kronwall does have a bad knee. That is a fact. Also a fact that every time he steps on the ice he is risking further injury and suffering further "wear and tear". Also seems accepted as fact that he is suffering some degree of pain due to the injury. Also a fact that he has missed several games this year, presumably because of the injury. Also a fact that several players with injuries similar in scope (as far as we know) have already been granted LTIR. Do you really think a doctor would tell Kronwall to "toughen up", and that his pain level (which you have no idea of) isn't high enough? That the risk of further injury and further erosion isn't something he should worry about? Or that the NHL would risk a potential major lawsuit for literally no benefit to themselves other than the thrill of sticking the Wings with a recapture penalty? None of us know the criteria for passing/failing a physical. For all we know, Kronwall could be in a gray area where the team has the option of whether or not they are willing to accept the liability of him playing, and that's what Holland meant when he said Kronwall can make his own choice. But regardless, the argument that the league would try to fight LTIR for Kronwall is absurd.

People are blaming the league because it was the league that made the announcement that the league wasn't going to allow NHL players to participate. I'd bet if it the league had said, "We have no problem with NHL players participating, but we aren't going to pay the expenses", few people would have any problem with it. From the IOC's perspective, they likely figure they'll make just as much money whether they have NHL players or not, so why should they pay? The logical choice for who should cover the costs is the individual national federations, since they're the ones who actually benefit. But ti seems to be less about costs than the league not wanting "their" players to play unless the league gets paid for it. While I can to some degree understand their position from a business perspective, but in a more broad sense, they're taking away from the fans and denying players a possible once in a lifetime opportunity. All because a bunch of rich guys want to make a few more dollars. Not saying you shouldn't also hold the IOC partially responsible, nor saying they aren't also greedy bastards. But the NHL is not blameless here.