Buppy

But unless we're trading Dekeyser (which would kind of defeat the purpose), we don't have what the Jets want in return. Plus we may still need to clear some extra cap. We wouldn't need to clear that much to fit Fowler. Dump Smith for a pick. Not exactly a big trade. Another small trade to dump Ouellet or Marchenko, or just waive someone. And that's only one of a handful of options. We're not a great trade fit in either case, but I'd say it's a bit more likely that we can free up a little cap space than we can convince the Jets to change what they're asking for.

Best part is that 15g, 37p isn't even bad. It's still top-6 range.

3 million or so reasons. Retaining $900k is better than paying Pavelec $3.9 million to play in the AHL.

Kings currently have about $16M in cap space. 2.5 if they send us Zatkoff. Waive Budaj when Quick comes back put's them at 3.1, or 3.4 if they waived Howard. So the cap would work if we retained $1.9M or more. They probably wouldn't want Howard anyway, since they're not exactly overflowing with cap space next year. But maybe they think Vegas would take him if his salary was only $3M-ish. Pavelec would be more attractive though, and the Jets wouldn't have to retain as much. All in all, I'd give a 0.03% chance. Maybe 0.04% if Jimmy makes himself look good tonight.

One thing to note; despite what the article claims Russo is still waiver exempt next season. Of all the jokes in that post, this was by far the funniest. It is overpaying. Grossly even.

No misinterpretation at all. I'm not arguing with the concept. I was arguing with the reality of the suggestion to trade Mrazek for Trouba. I brought up the Jets because Trouba plays for them. He's (arguably) their third best defenseman. He hasn't made their defense good enough. So why would people think he would come here, as our #1, and make our defense so good? Same thing I meant when I responded to you. Doesn't matter that a great defense can make up for a less-than-great goalie; Trouba wouldn't make us a great defense.

You think Trouba makes us the Blackhawks?

How's that been working for the Jets?

Vezina goalies lose games too. Sometimes they let in bad goals, get lit up, and look bad. Fair point, but there's always the option of lottery protection. Also, being that Fowler and Trouba are still pretty young, it's not like it'd be some big hit to our future.

Well, it's not something that requires convincing. It's not an opinion, it's factual data. But my point was just that Glendening shouldn't be lumped in with Miller and Ott, which you seem to agree with anyway. I'm not sure replacing Miller with Mantha, regardless of how the lines are put together, would really change anything, but I'm not opposed to it. And I'm sure Mantha will see a fair number of games this year anyway. I assume AA, as long as he's healthy, will be in more often than not, and every game if he looks like he did last year.

Technically, if we could permanently LTIR Kronwall, it would work even without the unrealistic waivers. Moot point though, because we can't LTIR Kronwall. We'd need to clear about $3.5 million for Fowler, and we'd have to remove a player anyway. Smith would probably be pretty easily movable, and would create most of the room we'd need. Given that Kronwall isn't expected to be out long, and we'd have 8 D at that point, you can trade or waive either of Ouellet or Marchenko. Trouba would require more cap, probably looking at replacing Nyquist with Mantha, plus moving Smith or Marchenko. The upside of that is that Nyquist probably wouldn't be tough to move, and Smith could potentially be something the Jets would actually want in a trade. The real question is whether we could actually put together a package that the Ducks or Jets would accept. Our 1st would have to be included I'm sure. Jets might like Smith. Then some extra, probably another pick and/or maybe they'd like Coreau. Outside of Mantha or AA, or another high pick, I don't know that the Ducks would be interested in what we have. Not sure that's a good price for Fowler.

Ott and Miller maybe, though it's debatable. And I think AA is good enough that he'll keep one of them out when we're healthy. Glendening though, while a bad possession player, isn't hurting us. All that negative possession isn't turning into goals against, which is what actually matters. And despite a lack of shots for, offensive production with him on the ice hasn't been bad. Over the last two years, we have more GF than GA with him on the ice 5v5. While he's not an elite PKer, neither are any of our other options.

But you're wrong. We can do that, we'd just have to move some cap in a separate deal. Worst case would be trading someone like Smith or Tatar for well under their value, which ultimately would be no different than if we had let Abby walk. Also, the Ducks have to clear some cap space. Moving Fowler would be one way of doing that, but not the only way. They do not have to trade him. Also, remember this summer when everyone was so certain that Nyquist+ was enough to get Fowler? You thinking "should do it" doesn't mean "would do it". You think Mantha and AA have such low potential that we'd be stupid not to trade one (plus a pick) for Fowler, what could possibly make you so sure the Ducks would be interested? There is no right way to rebuild. Everything has been tried, and everything fails more often than not. The reality is that building a contender is, more than anything, about just getting lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to get a superstar or two. Building the secondary cast is also vital, but it won't do anything without the stars. But if you don't want to pay "average" players or offer any term, you're not going to sign anyone. You're not going to build that secondary. Ok, maybe you wouldn't be bitching if we had a worse-but-cheaper team. Kind of the nature of disgruntled-fandom to do so when things aren't going well, and there's no end to hypotheticals one could image that would conceivably be better, but whatever. You'd be happy as a clam no doubt. We have some short-term cap issues, but it's not reasonable to think we're going to be real contenders over the next few years anyway, short of getting extremely lucky with some of our kids. Longer-term, we're fine, and having solid veteran leadership, even if they're over-payed role-players by then, will be a valuable asset to the young stars we'll hopefully have. And if we don't have the young stars, it won't matter.

Sure, there are "cheaper" ways to get everything, and I'm sure if Holland had gone that route you'd be bitching about him being cheap. If we could acquire Fowler or Trouba for a price we thought was fair, I'm sure it would have happened already. It wouldn't be that hard to clear out some cap. Getting high-end players is a lot harder than figuring out how to pay for it. Following your 'don't ever pay anyone' philosophy would only leave us with a s***tier team and some unused cap space.

I think you're confusing "top-6" and "star". I suppose you could argue that anyone could produce like he has if given the same opportunity. Kind of hard to argue against a pure hypothetical. But does it really even matter? So what if he can only produce like that because of his linemates when playing him in the top 6 means he'll have those linemates. It's not like every team (or any really) is getting significantly better production from their 6th forward.

As was pointed out earlier, the number of players we've lost isn't all that unusual. The recent surge is really the result of having a better than normal level of drafting success. Also, and I've said this many times, but normally when we have actual good prospects, they are on the team before running out of exemptions. Filppula, Hudler, Helm, Abby, Smith, Nyquist, Sheahan, Jurco, Larkin, Mrazek, Marchenko, and now AA. Sometimes they make it from camp, some have had to wait for injuries. Tatar was more aberration than norm. Fringe players like Mursak, Ritola, Emmerton, Andersson, Nestrasil, and Frk would have been in the minors in pretty much any organization. Two years ago, Frk wasn't even able to stick with GR all year. If we'd made a decision on him before this summer, he'd be in Europe. Ouellet, Sproul, and Pulk probably would have been on the team earlier if we hadn't had so many other young guys. Losing Pulk and Frk was as much about keeping AA, Ouellet and Sproul as it was about Miller and Ott. Pulk's injury probably cost us. If he'd stayed healthy and continued to produce as he had been, we probably don't look at Vanek. If he'd stayed healthy and stopped producing, lost his spot that way, he'd probably be in GR right now, or Europe (and no one would care). As for Sproul, if he was that good, I have to believe he would have been up by now. It's not like Marchenko is that high a bar to get over.

The way LTIR works is they take the cap hit of the full roster at the time. Whatever amount that is over the actual cap is the amount of LTIR relief you get. Having Pasquale on the roster meant we were able to get virtually all our potential relief. Basically gave us an extra $575,000 in cap space. Not enough to really do anything with, so kind of meaningless, but still.

Should be able to tap on the stars/circles to the left of the title, in case you haven't already figured that out. Also works on the PC version of the site.

And at that time he was a top 6 forward.

I'd rather see our 4th liners on the ice for two PP goals against from the opponents top players than see our top line on the ice for two EV goals against from the opponents 4th line. No, Ott wasn't "the problem", but neither were Miller or Glendening. No, but scoring 42g and 86p over the last two years does. I'm sure he'll be back in the top 6 before long.

"Banged on the table" over a kid who took 3 years to make it in the AHL, and wasn't even all that special once he did? Sounds like some bulls*** to hype a new acquisition to me. Or maybe it explains why they're Carolina.

Z-Pav-Dino Nick-Vladdy Vernon

Out-of-my-ass random boldness: Ovie will not hit 30g this year Dallas will be a mess and miss the playoffs Edmonton finally quits sucking and gets in

Pittsburgh in both 08 and 09 was not a good possession team. And plenty of other examples of good teams with mediocre to bad possession metrics and vice versa. There is an apparent correlation, but there's also something of a chicken/egg relationship. A good team, with strong top-end players and good depth, seems more likely than not to be at least decent in terms of possession. Whereas a good possession team, which may primarily be a result of coaching philosophy, is less likely to be a good team. There's more to the game than possession. Sure it sucks to lose Pulk while keeping Miller and Ott. But hardly a difference maker.

First, your numbers are wrong. Tatar DZ% last year was 25.5, vs Pulk at 21, OZ% was 38.9 for Tatar, 43.6 for Pulk. CA/60 was 43.78 for Tatar, 42.98 for Pulk. Secondly, study on the subject shows that zone starts have only a small impact on shots. Quality of competition also looks to have less impact than many think. All told, and as I said before, his stats are certainly inflated somewhat, but not nearly to the degree people want to think. So no, I'm not doing the same thing. I'm basing my opinion on the data as is. I'm not saying he's one of the best possession players in the league (though Tatar might be, and Datsyuk certainly was), but everything currently understood about the subject suggests he's significantly better than average. Maybe someday some new analysis will change that, or maybe not. But whatever, he's not a Wing anymore. If people want to keep hating him, I'm done caring.