Buppy

The rumors that one of the Ducks young defensemen might be available came out when they were struggling to score early in the year. It was rumored they wanted to pick up a scoring winger. They have several good young D they might use to get one. Nyquist is one of the top young wingers in the league, regardless of what you may think. He's not elite, but neither is Fowler. Now, the Ducks did find their scoring touch in the 2nd half, so maybe they're no longer interested in a trade like that. And even if they are, Lindholm or Vatanen would be moved first I'm sure. But in the context of the rumors, it does make some sense. And in the Datsyuk trade, he was giving up Pulkkinen as incentive. You may not think anything of him, whatever. If a team is looking to add cap to reach the floor, it shouldn't take much of an incentive. It wouldn't be doing us a favor. Datsyuk's cap hit would be something they actually want, since it would save them real money.

Seanbrook's new deal doesn't start until next year, and is only a million more than he had been making. Moving Sharp had nothing to do with keeping Seabrook. $4M raises for Kane and Toews is why they had to move Sharp (or maybe Hossa or even Bickell would have been enough, and both would have been better choices if it had been an option). Yes, we are absolutely sure that cap space was not an issue with attracting UFAs. For one, let's stop acting like there's been some laundry list of great UFAs refusing to come here. Suter, Parise, Niskanen. Maybe Stralman. We reportedly offered Niskanen a better deal than Washington. Offered Suter a similar deal to what he got (and considering what we did to try to sign him, I'm sure we would have matched or bettered what he got). Maybe didn't go as hard after Parise, but not because of the cap. Stralman I don't think there was ever an offer. I think I remember hearing he told us he wasn't interested or didn't return our call or something. But he signed for a deal we could, and almost certainly would, have matched or beaten. Beyond those guys, we pretty much got all the UFAs we've went after.

I hate the idea of anything "colosseum". Sounds pretentious.

You're wrong. There are many trades every year involving imbalanced cap hits. Players traded for picks or prospects make up the bulk of NHL trades, and they are all wildly imbalanced cap-wise. While if we were giving up 4 players, we'd probably have to take back some of Anaheim's garbage contracts (because of contract limit's, not the cap), they wouldn't be roster players and so wouldn't impact the cap. The only reason for anyone to trade for Datsyuk would be because they specifically want the cap hit. Nothing would be retained. It would be pointless since the team wouldn't be paying any real money anyway. I don't think you're too far off with the estimations for our RFAs, I do think you're a little high on all of them though.

Except it wasn't really a choice at all. They had to dump cap. I'd bet if Holland had done that you'd call him an idiot for mismanaging the cap and putting us in that situation. And that is not at all, not even the tiniest bit, part of the reason we are where we are. We have never lost a "core" player because of the cap, nor have we been restricted from going after top UFAs. Nor would clearing out every cent of "bad" cap space we currently have, by itself, make us better. By itself it would actually make us worse. Which is exactly what the moves Bowman was forced to make did to the Hawks.

9 years ago he scored 26 goals and 58 points, and on a team that scored more than the Wings. No, I don't think 50 points is at all reasonable, and I'd say 40 would even be a stretch. He's never been any better than any of our current scorers, and I don't see any reason to believe he would be now. I wouldn't offer him even $1.5 for one year. Rather give some kids a chance.

It's actually $450 million the DDA will pay. Well, probably less since there's a good chance they'll pay off the bonds before full maturity, but well over $150M. But the criticism is mainly because if Olympia had funded the arena itself, rather than use the DDA, the new tax revenue generated would have gone to the city's general fund rather than to the DDA. Also, Michigan state taxes are used to reimburse Detroit schools for funding lost due to DDA property tax captures. That may be a criticism more deservedly aimed at the DDA/city of Detroit, but still. But I'll stop now, edging to close to political discussion. Back to focusing on LC's awful imitation of pizza. Most gas stations and party stores in my area and DiGiorno's >>> Little Caesar's >> Domino's.

He's scored 53 goals in 172 NHL games. He's turning 30 in a couple months. Why would we think he would suddenly become better if we added him? Playoff bubble team, inept offense that drove pretty much everyone's numbers down, likely losing our best player. To me that doesn't seem like the right formula to get a career best performance out of a 30 yo who hasn't played in the NHL in 5 years.

Well, there's data that says these arena deals are not good at all for the cities that make them, and I'd say that tax payer dollars go to them because politicians are dips***s who do dips*** things with other people's money. But I don't want to get too political. I'll just say that the DDA (the specific agency that will pay off the bonds) was a thing before the arena deal, and would still exist without it. It's an agency specifically created to do more or less exactly what it is doing with the arena. So if it wasn't the Illitch getting the money, it would be some other billion dollar development company. Given a choice between corporate welfare for a fancy new arena for a team I love, that I'll be able to enjoy for many, many years and corporate welfare for a new upscale condo development or office building or whatever thing I'd likely never know about because it wouldn't be newsworthy...well, I'll take the arena, even with a dumb name and an ugly, terrible-pizza-advertising, boring-non-LED roof.

Little Caesars/Olympia Development/Illitch Holdings are massive corporations. It's not like he can walk into LC headquarters and grab $6M whenever he wants. The money is almost certainly to come out of funds already earmarked for marketing. The Illitch's and other higher-ups in the corporation have already taken their cut of the LC revenue, and now they'll get a piece of the naming rights revenue as well. I highly doubt there is any difference in "monetary gain" between selling it to his own company or an outside company.

I suppose that depends on your opinion of what his ability to the puck in the net currently is.

'09 was certainly terrible, as was '06, '95, and '96 (and all of them really, hard to have such high hopes all the time), but I think the most disappointing for me was '99. I remember being so confident that we'd pull off the 3-peat when we won the first two games in Colorado. Then... Losing to them again the next year made it even worse.

At 5v5 Mantha was on the ice for 4 goals for and 10 goals against. If you're giving up 2.5 goals for every 1 you score, it's not exciting. It's getting blown out. You need to do something better. He doesn't need to be a Selke candidate, but there's some evidence to suggest he needs to be better. I don't think he's wholly responsible for all the goals against, but I don't think he's wholly responsible for all the goals for either. And I don't believe that right now his offense is good enough to outweigh his defense. At least not in a top line role.

Actually, based on historical evidence, expecting to compete for a championship even just once every seven years is asking too much. Most teams will have periodic down times, often lasting that long or much longer. I would also say that we were in fact realistic contenders from 2010 through 2012, and maybe even 2013 given how those playoffs went. Maybe not among the top few favorites, but at least 2nd-tier. Teams that are good will eventually come down. I would wager that every single team that is a contender this year will not be so every year for the next 15+ years. Most will probably not have more than a few years being near the top. Things change with time. It's the nature of reality. Being happy that we can contend for the playoffs during our worst stretch in more than two decades doesn't mean we will always be happy with that result. To even suggest it does is short-sighted and foolish. We are near the point now where the old regime is either gone or declined past the point of relevance. We have several young players promising enough to give us reason to think we will start trending back up in the near future. We're still missing a few pieces, even if what we have already pans out, but we're also in better position to gain those pieces. But whatever. Not going to waste anymore time now. This conversation has been had countless times over the last few years.

Myers has a Modified-NTC/NMC starting next year. Not sure exactly how a clause like that would work. It can't be a full NMC, or the modified NTC is redundant. Maybe they'd have to protect him or maybe not. The other factor in trade speculation is that Trouba is a pending RFA, and reportedly looking for a big deal. That may signify that he doesn't really want to be in WPG, and/or it could mean the Jets won't want him at the price he's looking for. In short, there's reason to speculate that he could be available. Though if they did move him, I would assume they would want a good replacement for him, possibly a top prospect they wouldn't have to protect or a high pick, plus extra. I personally don't think he'd be worth it, but I can understand the people who do.

I like how this one basically starts out with, 'We know our expectations are unrealistic. So what, do it anyway.'

The message was refuted. "Nonsense". If you'd like something more detailed, please feel free to read any of the many Holland topics from the last few years.

Aren't all the writers on WIIM just fans? It's basically just a message board like this dressed up to look like news. Can't remember the last time I read anything there that wasn't nonsense. But I will say that Holland is just not very good with the media.

Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco has been only marginally more effective, and that only because the line with Nyquist struggled a little this year. People have faulty memories and think that line with Jurco was a lot better than it really was.

Yeah, you used a much more proven and productive player as an example to try to make your point, and said it was the same. But it isn't the same at all, or even close. And I've never said that I preferred Andersson, nor that I even necessarily wanted Mantha out of the lineup. What I take exception to is that you and some others don't think it can even be a question whether or not he should have been in the lineup. That is why I think he's being over-hyped. Well, that and Rich blowing the fanfare after he had one two-goal game in the AHL. Mantha played 10 games in the NHL. He didn't produce much. It is hardly a leap of logic to think that an inexperienced prospect who hasn't been producing much would continue to not produce much. Nor to think that his defensive game wasn't yet developed enough to warrant playing on a top line in the playoffs. Nor to think that if not used on a top line, his chances of producing anything offensively would be even less. Nor, finally, to think that if we're going to have someone in the lineup barely playing and with little to no expectations, it may as well be a defensive-minded center. And again, it isn't just that you disagree with the conclusion. It's that you don't think there should even be any debate that makes me say you're over-rating him.

The Caesarena. That's what I'm going with. If there is solace to be taken, it's that the capitalistic rapacity that gives us corporate-named arenas is also what provides us with lives so comfortable that this is probably the worst thing to happen to us today.

Don't have to say he's great. Right here you are seriously comparing a kid who's played 10 games and scored 2 goals to someone who has scored 19, 29, and 21 goals in his first three years. Tatar is tied for 43rd in total goals in the NHL over the last 3 years. 68th in goals/game. Mantha isn't even top 40 in the AHL in his two years. There is nothing about that comparison that is "the same". That is over-hyping him. MAYBE Mantha could be as good as Tatar. I would even say that one day he should be. But he's played 10 games. To say that taking him out is in even the slightest way similar to taking out a proven good NHL goal-scorer is the definition of over-hype. Also, in the 10 games he played he was on the ice for 10 goals against. By a good margin the worst 5v5 numbers on the team. It's very likely those numbers are skewed by the small sample size, but it is no stretch to think that maybe he was in fact a liability. If you want to use the PP success as evidence of his offensive merits, you should be prepared to accept the negative stats in the same way.

He's being over-hyped, plain and simple. To make a snide comment, regardless of the target, after one game is ridiculous. You don't have to think he's elite to be over-rating him. Your point about the roles is exactly what I meant about not comparing him to Andersson. You are comparing Mantha to Helm, then comparing Helm to Andersson. I'd agree that Mantha's potential as a scorer is higher than Helm, though I'm not sure he's actually there yet. Maybe Mantha would capitalize a little better on his chances. But would he get those same chances? Not so clear there. Perhaps more importantly is what would happen to the chances against us. Wouldn't matter if he scored better than Helm if we also gave up more goals against. Andersson wasn't bad in his limited time, so I'm not sure we can say the results would have been better with Helm in that spot. Our PP numbers with Mantha were absolutely, without question, inflated. 30% shooting percentage. Far above the results for anyone over any decent amount of time. Close to double what even most of the really good PP units get. As a team we were about 12% on the season. If you are saying that Mantha is such an amazing offensive force that he single-handedly turned a bad PP into one of the best ever, then you are vastly over-rating him. If you're not saying that then you have to agree that those numbers are anomalous, and we could not realistically expect that kind of production to continue. So maybe in the course of the series we get an extra goal or two with Mantha. And maybe we get an extra goal or two against. Depending on the timing, there's a small chance it might have made a difference. But there's about 10000 things that could have happened that might have also made a difference. To single out this one with such vehemence, as if it were so obviously some massive change in our chances, is why I think people are vastly over-rating Mantha's abilities right now. People are just overly sensitive to negativity regarding players they like. Getting defensive. Probably over-compensating because they're a little disappointed that Mantha hasn't yet become the dominant impact player they thought and hoped he'd be. The comments aren't even that critical. Mantha's first year was disappointing. Starting from the injury and all the way through him being a non-factor in the playoffs. Stating facts is not being unduly critical. The only reason those comments were made publicly is because there was so much hype around Mantha that reporters were asking questions about him. I'm sure if anyone had bothered to ask about why Pulk or Jurco weren't given a chance in the playoffs there would have been some similarly negative reply.

Well, when someone makes an "I told you so" post after one 2-goal game, there's bound to be some feedback of the "let's derail the hype train" variety. Rich did this same thing early in the year when Mantha had a little hot streak. Turns out his year in GR was not very impressive. If someone had come here to point out that he had zero goals and zero points in his first five games back in GR, some of you would've tied your fingers in knots trying to type out a defense fast enough. Two years as a pro and the kid has yet to put up any kind of numbers worth getting excited about, yet some people think it's some kind of a crime that he isn't a fixture in our top 6. He scored two goals in an AHL game. Congratulations Tony, for accomplishing something only 8 or 9 other people have so far in the AHL playoffs this year. Now keep doing it. To even say as little as he makes us better or would have given us a better shot at beating TB is premature. And he really shouldn't be compared to Andersson. Andy hardly played, and when he did the results 5v5 were actually a little better than we got when Mantha was in, albeit in wildly different situations. The real question should be whether using Mantha on the PP and/or a top line would have gotten better results than with whomever he would have displaced. A much less obvious question.

We only had Fedorov for '03. I think Pav and Hank being not quite elite when our older players left/declined was part of it, but not much. '03 I think was not being mentally prepared enough, overconfidence maybe, maybe some fatigue from the previous year, plus facing a tight trap and a circus tent stuffed with king size mattresses in goal. '04 I have to give full marks to Calgary. Kiprusoff was fantastic and their defense did an amazing job boxing out, blocking shots, and clearing rebounds. We certainly could have been better, but I don't think we were bad. '06 is the most disappointing. Even though Edm went on their run afterward, I didn't think they were that good against us. We just mostly sucked. Babs has to take a lot of blame. Didn't know how to coach a good team yet.