Buppy

I disagree. In our position we're looking a few years down the road, and I think AA will be more valuable to us than either of those guys. Further, I don't think it would cost a top prospect anyway. The Ducks are a contender (at least borderline) and are looking to get over the hump. They're going to want something that makes them better now. Does Murray think Nyquist (or Tatar, but the cap makes that a little more complicated) for Fowler does that? If so, we wouldn't have to add a top prospect or high pick. If not, we probably can't make a deal no matter what we add (barring a stupid overpayment). He'll find a better deal elsewhere. And if he's super high on one of our prospects for some reason, we would likely be able to work something out with a lesser roster forward. I also wouldn't think WPG would be interested in that kind of deal either. I've said before I don't there's a deal to found between us and Jets. The only thing I could see would be something like Smith+1st+top prospect. Too much for Trouba IMO.

Call it nitpicking if you want, but the fact is their offense wasn't much better than ours. Two years ago, we had one of the top PPs and the Ducks were near the bottom. A handful of bounces over the course of a season can make what looks like a big difference. Ducks offense may be better than ours, but not by a whole lot. And I don't think the trade would be high risk (though I guess it depends on the specifics of the deal). With the forwards we have, PP and prime-scoring-line time is already going to be tough to spread out, and that's without including AA, Mantha, Jurco, or Pulkkinen. We can't possibly use all the skilled forwards we already have. I think the chances would be reasonably good that we could replace one of Nyquist/Tatar even without considering the benefits from gaining Fowler. I'd agree that there wouldn't likely be more than one big trade (at least in the near future), but if we're not a good fit for any of the other rumored deals I don't think it matters. Pretty much Ducks or nothing I think (or someone worse than Fowler even). Or blind hope that something better materializes. I wouldn't give up Nyquist/Tatar plus a top prospect, or give up AA for any of the rumored guys since we're not that strong at center looking ahead. And as far as Ducks defensemen, I think Vatanen might be cheaper and a better fit for us. But I certainly wouldn't just dismiss an opportunity to land Fowler.

Ok, their PP scored 6 more goals than ours. Point is he was a key player on a good team. If he was good enough for them, he's good enough for us. Doesn't mean anyone thinks he would solve all our problems, or even that he's the best possible option. But to say he's "mediocre" is silly. Even if Nyquist/Tatar are our best assets, it doesn't mean we can get anything better for them. Realistically, neither by themselves would even get you anyone as good as Fowler. Adding something extra with them isn't going to get an elite player, even if there was one available. We certainly have the potential to replace them from within, so it's possible we wouldn't even miss them. So what are you saving them for? WPG would likely want a different type of package. Sakic has denied that Barrie is or ever really was available. StL reportedly wants a top-6 center. Aside from maybe going after a different Anaheim d-man, I don't think there's likely to be any better potential opportunity.

Really? It seems obvious... 1. Nicholas II was born in St.Petersburg, where Datsyuk now plays 2. Nicholas II was executed in Yekaterinburg, where Datsyuk was born 3. ? 4. Datsyuk is Rasputin Plus, photoshopped pictures don't lie

You think Fowler will get $8+ million? I'm not a huge Fowler fan, but what that scenario has going for it is that it looks like it might be a good match. We can sit around all day listing defensemen we'd rather have, but if there's not a good trade fit it's pointless. Anaheim has a surplus of good young defensemen, and at least one is almost certain to be traded at some point this year. They have reportedly been looking for a scoring winger. While I wouldn't say we have a "surplus" of them, I would say we have enough promising kids that it's worth the risk in giving up one of Nyquist/Tatar plus a little extra. Dickie wasn't talking about points. Fowler led the Ducks in ice time per game. And for the record, the Ducks only scored 6 more goals than the Wings.

No, Tsar Nicholas II was.

I wasn't before, but now I am:

And he was born, and is now interred, in St. Petersburg. I can only assume that means that Datsyuk is actually Rasputin.

Trading Trouba would create a bigger weakness than anything they currently have. Their defense is already weak. I don't see any trade happening that doesn't include a realistic replacement for Trouba going back. Maybe if they get super desperate. But I just don't see a good trade fit between us and them.

Hellebuyck is their Mrazek. Highly regarded prospect, great size, athleticism, and performed very well for them last year. They might want a good vet as a mentor/insurance, but I doubt they'd want Jimmy with his contract. Technically, Fowler did lead the Ducks in minutes/game. Their defense is stacked and aside from the PP they don't seem to worry about deployment at all, so it's hard to really identify a top defenseman. But he did spend quite a lot of his time playing in key situations and against top opposition. I don't disagree with the assessment that he probably won't take any major steps forward, but it's probably going a little too far to say he's just a 2nd pairing guy. Low-end of 1st-pair spectrum, or maybe a 1st/2nd tweener at worst.

But if that's true, and it would be such an obvious win for us, "stupid not to"...why is the other team making the deal? We aren't going to get an elite player, because none of the guys rumored to be available are elite players. Maybe they could become elite, but far from a sure thing. There seems to be a good fit with Anaheim, where we both have what the other is looking for. But that doesn't mean that they like the exact players we have to offer, much less like them more than any other offer they might get.

For the 23 and under kids, and because not enough good European teams.

Regarding the bolded: No one has ever said that, or even anything close to it. In fact, your trade proposals aren't substantially different than what everyone else is thinking, including Holland I would wager. Some people think more highly of AA's potential than you apparently do. And maybe they're over-valuing him. So what. Some would say you're doing the exact same thing with Trouba and Fowler.

Well, we did sign Vanek, who has produced at a similar rate. That combined with the potential of our prospects certainly makes them expendable, to the extent that any important player can ever really be considered as such. Of course, for one of them AND a top prospect (let alone Larkin) I'd have to get someone better than anyone rumored to be available. For Fowler or Trouba I'd do Nyquist + something minor (2nd-tier prospect or 3rd-round pick). Bit more for Shattenkirk if he came with an extention, or less if not. Rather have Lindholm or Vatanen from Anaheim though. I'd give up a little extra for Lindholm even. I'd also substitute Tatar for Nyquist, but we'd have to work something else out to make the cap work.

I think a lot depends on this year's performance, but I'd expect Helm and Sheahan be left unprotected. I'd worry about Z, since Vegas might want some veteran leadership and may need some help to meet the cap floor. Though if he takes another step back, it may be worth the risk. And it's $950K in cap space, which would leave $3.05 in dead space. Either way though, it'd be enough to keep one of the kids, which I think is what Kliq was getting at.

I believe he's talking just about this year, and there's next to no chance (barring a rash of injuries) that AA makes it as a center this year. Needs a lot of work on his defensive game, from what I saw. Within the next few years though, I too would hope the plan is to have him at center. Both can be true. Murray would decide what Fowler would cost, reality would decide what he'd be worth.

I assume you just don't know that much about Winnipeg. Like the Wings, they are kind of loaded with mid-level forwards: Wheeler, Scheifele, Little, Perreault, Ehlers, Stafford. Obviously Laine will be in the mix. Most seem to expect Kyle Connor to make the team and some think he may be better than Larkin. Just signed Matthias. Dano looked ok for them last year. Burmistrov will probably never amount to much, but he's still only 24 so I doubt they've completely given up on him. I'd say it's hardly a lock that Sheahan or Pulk would even make their top-9, much less top-6. Plus they (like pretty much everyone) are already going to be struggling with the question of whom to protect. Then you include Smith, and either they resign him and have to protect him, or they risk losing him as an UFA. The Jets offense wasn't very good, but neither was their defense. Even losing Ladd, the potential impact of Laine and Connor plus continued development of Ehlers (and maybe a little more from Scheifele even) gives reason for some optimism there. On defense, Morrissey is the only good prospect they have. Getting rid of Trouba for anything other than a direct replacement doesn't make much sense. Maybe for a real upgrade at forward or a top pick + prospect that wouldn't need protection. Really nothing about that trade makes any sense for the Jets. The only way it would is if they get completely desperate with being unable to resign Trouba, and just go for the highest bid. But you already admit that wouldn't likely be us. The Anaheim deal is a bit better, if you presume they are still looking for help at forward. I'm not sure they still are, but they do have a lot of good young D. Not so sure Nyquist + Holmstrom would get Fowler (E and Bieksa is more or less a wash), with Nyquist coming off a down year and with a longish-term contract. Also not sure Fowler is even good enough to be worth Nyquist.

I like how you use a fan blog as evidence that your trades are realistic.

There was also a first-round pick in that deal. So even assuming the Ducks would have taken Nyquist and Jarnkrok, it would have also cost us Larkin. Also, over the last 3 years, Nyquist has more goals than Ryan.

Most likely is "a little of this, a little of that" kind of thing. By and large, any one stat can't tell you a whole lot. Our shot blocking is probably systemic, since we're bad across the board. League average block% is a bit over 25%, and Pulk is the only one we have close to that, most of the team is in the 19-21% range. Corsi Sv% (% of shot attempts against that are blocked, missed, or saved) is probably the best indicator of defense quality, but even that is probably only a loose correlation at best. For what it's worth, league average is about 96%. We had 6 players (Andersson, Pulk, Richards, Miller, Glendening, and Larkin) above that, and 7 more (Dekeyser, Ericsson, Marchenko, Datsyuk, Quincey, Zetterberg, Helm) in the 95.5-96 range. As a team, we were only a little below average in that respect. I don't think that info leads to a solution though. The top "defenders" (for lack of a better term) are either gone or poor possession players, negating most of the benefit. Pulk is almost certainly skewed by usage. Without replacing several players with better players, improvement is only going to come from a pretty much team and system wide focus on being just a little better all over. It's not hopeless, of course, but I don't think there's any simple fix to be found.

Yes, CF%. Seems likely to be the best indicator of actual possession time. I would consider myself to be "pro-possession", but I also believe it's only one part of a very intricate whole. Also, the difference between good and bad possession is not that large, really. Not enough that we should consider possession to be a replacement for "traditional" defense. To illustrate, last season we were near the top of the league in corsi against. Only LA and NJ allowed fewer. But we were the worst shot-blocking team in the league, and our opponents also missed a lower-than-average % of shot attempts against us (suggesting we were allowing higher quality shot attempts, and/or more second chances). The result is that we were only middle-of-pack in actual shots against as well as goals against. We were pretty good at possession, but poor defensively, and the result was mediocrity. Then of course we also had our struggles offensively as well. Average or below pretty much everywhere. We need to improve our traditional defense and we need to improve both the quantity and quality of our offensive production. And it all ties in together; improve in one area and it will help in others. But I don't think it's as simple as just "play skilled kids".

Maybe. No doubt we are in a pretty good spot in terms of skill depth. Though I do doubt that a skill 4th line would contribute much more offense, and maybe not enough more to make up for the loss of defensive play. I would like to see us give it a try though. Do you realize that we ended up as one of the better possession teams last year? Not much worse than PIT really. Better than Chicago. Carolina and Toronto were 2nd and 3rd. Looking back over a span of 4+ years, only LA and Chicago have really been better.

Not lack of skill in the sense that he couldn't potentially be better, or do more if given more of an opportunity. But it is lack of skill in the sense that he's just not better than the guys who have played above him. Helm and Sheahan are both better offensively than Jurco, as well as better all-around. Everyone else that's played above him is far better offensively. I'm saying that hasn't happened at all. For one, he went from being a decent-but-hardly-exceptional highly skilled goal scorer in the QMJHL, to a mediocre scorer in the AHL for a year, then a pretty good scorer in the AHL the next year, to a mediocre scorer in the NHL. Funny to see you of all people talking about junior scoring as if it translates to the NHL. He may get stuck playing with defensive players sometimes, but he's not used in the same way at all. He wasn't given near the same defensive responsibility that Glendening, Miller, and Andersson got. And though I've said this often enough to doubt that anyone will pay attention, he spent a lot of time this season playing with players at least as or more skilled than he is. 207 combined minutes with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, and Larkin. 262 combined minutes with Richards, Helm, Sheahan, Pulkkinen, and AA. 272 combined with Andersson, Miller, and Glendening. Close to two thirds of his total ice time with at least one somewhat skilled player.

BS. No one is trying to turn Jurco into a grinder. He's played where he's played because all the spots that would be a better fit for his skills have been filled by better players. That's it. He's not even expected to play any differently. He (and everyone) is expected to compete defensively no matter where they are in the lineup. He (and everyone) is expected to compete offensively. He doesn't play against top competition, and his deployment isn't especially defensive. He doesn't kill penalties. The only thing different about him playing on the 4th line is that he has less pressure to produce. He's a spare part as a player, and he's used as such.

More or less, depending on what you consider "far exceed" or "much much better". I'm saying I don't think they'd want to risk losing a player, and potentially regretting it if we're hit by injuries, if they'd only expect to gain a few goals over the course of a full season. I think they'd have to expect a real impact.