Buppy

This is pretty close to what I think too. If any of the top 3 D falls out of the top 10, move up if it's not too crazy a price. I don't want to trade down, at least not more than a couple spots, but I'd love to add an early pick or two. I like Brown and Bellows a little more than the 2nd-tier defensemen. Kind of doubt Brown will be available, but Bellows could be there even if we moved back a little. Then try to add a few picks and take the best D we can find in the first 3 rounds. Fabbro seems to have fallen a little in the latest rankings, could be there late 1st, though I'm not sure we could do anything to get another 1st. Hajek could be there mid-2nd. Niemelainen has fallen a bit too, could go 3rd round. I'm sure there's more, but info on anyone but the top prospects is tough to find.

I've always liked the Blues. Probably because we beat them in the playoffs so much during our peak. Like Dallas too, probably because we've never lost to them in the playoffs. I'll be good no matter how this one goes. Hard to pick a winner. Porous defense and sub-par goaltending .vs a long history of playoff failure. Guess I'll go Stars in 7. Blues suffer a letdown after the emotional high of beating the Hawks, go down 3-1 or 3-0, come back to make a series of it but fall just short.

While 6 years is pretty unusual for a player like E, it's not unheard of either. I don't believe anyone ever expected or hoped he would be more than a top-4 guy. Nor do I think we'd have to hope for an elite top-pair guy to justify moving one of Nyquist/Tatar. Larkin maybe, but I don't think we'd move him regardless. There's some risk in trading away a proven scorer, but we have a lot of kids that could potentially step up so it'd be worth it. I disagree that the players you list are any better than what we already have. I think that's just grass-is-greener thinking.

He's played 2 years in the NHL.

I think we might be too high to make a meaningful move up. I think getting into the 2nd-tier, 4-10 range would be too expensive to be worth it. Maybe if Chychrun or Sergachyov is still there at 9th/10th it might be worth a look, but I wouldn't pay a whole lot. I don't think those guys are that much better than what should be available at 16. If we're trading anything, I'd like it to be for another first rounder, or an early 2nd. Bean, Fabbro, Neimelainen, and McAvoy are all guys who could end up as good or better than the top D prospects.

I doubt it would cost anything near a first rounder, but it would cost something. At least taking a bad contract back.

Nothing smart and savvy about being forced to dump cap. It was either dump someone with a high hit or try to fill like 10 spots for under a million each. I have no doubt that Holland (or any GM) would make the same choice in the same circumstance. Most of their highly paid players were obviously better/more important to the team. Their options were Sharp, Bickell, or Hossa. Sharp was arguably the worst of those choices, but maybe the only one they could move. Yeah, there's definitely some things to be optimistic about. Though if the kids do step up to become the next Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom, I'd say luck would be a huge part of it.

It wasn't even "such a lopsided mistake". In 7 years, Hossa has 56 more goals and 143 more points than Franzen. 8 goals and 20 points per year for $1.3M in cap. The way he's looked this year, and with 5 years to go, they may find themselves wishing he had some concussion problems. Being pretty liberal there. Sharp was part of the core up until they traded him. Are we supposed to be impressed that he chose to trade Sharp instead of Toews or Kane? Probably would have been better to trade Hossa instead. You made it a point that he was traded rather than not re-signed, as if they got something in return that would help them. They got Daley and Garbutt. Traded Garbutt for Sekac, who they promptly lost on waivers. Traded Daley for Scuderi, then Scuderi for Ehrhoff (retaining half of what they owed Suderi). So basically they traded $4.775M of Sharp's $5.9M hit for nothing. Would have been better off if they could have let him walk. Chicago has remained competitive despite their moves, not because of them. Bowman deserves to be applauded for maintaining a solid secondary cast, but Holland and the Wings have been doing the same thing for twice as long. It is far harder to replace your very best players. I'd venture to say it's impossible without a great deal of luck. We'll see how Bowman handles that when the time comes.

That is exactly what has been happening. For the last several years we've been slowly moving in young guys. Marchenko and Larkin basically full-time this year, plus Pulk and AA for a good bit, plus spot time for Mantha, Ferraro, Ouellet, and Nosek, plus Mrazek is still inexperienced. Last year was the first full year from Sheahan and Jurco, Pulk for another fair amount, Ouellet and Marchenko for a bit, Mrazek for a while, spot time for a few more, year before that was the first full year for Dekeyser, Tatar and Nyquist (not quite a full year), plus Sheahan and Jurco for decent time, plus a few others here and there... Yeah, you don't want to have too many guys with too little experience next year, but your solution is that we should have had too many guys with too little experience this year, or the year before, or whatever. We've had a lot of young players stick with the team over a short period of time, and some that didn't stick, and even more to come. No way to do that without at times having an inexperienced roster.

Sharp was traded as a cap dump. No part of that move was "to keep the team in a position to win everything".

Marchenko played 66 games this year. He's not a rookie. Wings had 250 games played by rookies this year (including Pulk, not technically a rookie, but basically). If we'd been playing kids any more than we already have been in recent years, it would've been the exact thing you think you're complaining about.

Um...nothing?

I don't think the numbers are too bad, and Nyquist, Tatar, Pulk (who's RFA, so yeah, we could trade his rights), and Smith aren't "dead weight" (gross overpayment for Trouba actually, though not likely the kind of package the Jets would be after). Trouba is probably the furthest off, and it most likely would work as given, but he also didn't move Howard or Datsyuk's deal. Might not be workable regardless, but it's not totally outside the realm. The bigger problem I have is that that lineup doesn't look fantastic at all. Looks like at best it would be a little better, assuming Larkin and AA (and Mantha and Svech) can take a big step. Backes and Lucic aren't any better than Nyquist and Tatar. 5 players potentially playing in a role over their head. Z probably declines further even in a reduced role (especially if playing with Jurco and Svech). Trouba is not such a huge upgrade over Q/Smith to offset that. Most likely I'd say that roster would be just good enough to avoid a top-10 pick but bad enough to miss the playoffs. And replacing a 26 yo with a 32 yo means we'd have another key player declining that we'd need to try to offset in the coming years.

I think people are reading too much into the comments on AA and Mantha. Taken at face value, the comments are saying nothing more than that expectations should be tempered. A lot of people have unrealistically optimistic ideas of what those guys are likely to do, whether they admit it or not. Of course, those same people would be the first to defend AA and Mantha if they were given a chance and didn't produce, most likely saying "expectations were too high". AA is exactly the kind of player that should be getting limited minutes. Most of the time he's on the ice, he's giving up more than he's getting. But every once in a while he'll pop off a great chance with his speed. Keep his minutes down and it's easier to shelter him. You increase the chance of getting the good stuff without the bad, and you have more premium minutes to give the guys who are more likely to produce a positive result. Mantha .vs Andersson is a different story, but I don't think Mantha should be in our top-9 right now anyway. I would rather see Jurco in for Andersson (or just about anyone really), but I also don't think anyone would make any meaningful difference from the 4th line either.

Yes, in the playoffs. Game 2 last year Mrazek gave up 4 goals on 18 shots and got pulled after the 2nd. Game 4 allowed 3 on 29. Game 6 allowed 4 on 27. Maybe none were terrible, but several were as "questionable" as what Howard is often criticized for. He was excellent overall, but people act like he was '02 Hasek or something. Howard was great in games 1 and 3 .vs Boston. Game 2 was questionable. Very similar overall performance, aside from being only 3 games to 7 for Mrazek. In 14 games in '13, Howard had a .927 or higher save%, and allowed 2 goals or less in 7. 4 more with .911-.923 sv%. He was easily the main reason we were in the series against Chicago, and a big reason why we beat the Ducks.

While it's maybe not ideal, that line has actually been pretty effective this year. Of the 15 line combos with 40+ minutes 5v5 this year, they're 4th in CF% and SF%, 5th in GF60. They've had some defensive trouble, being 11th in GA60 and 7th in GF%, but to say they don't work isn't accurate. Fact is, there aren't any good combinations that don't rely on players just playing better than they have lately. I would argue that Howard against Ana/Chi in '13 was much better than Mrazek last year, and the 3 games he played against Bos in '14 was also just as good or better. Mrazek was up and down last year. He was excellent in a few games, average in others. His performance last year is way over-rated.

Great offensive weapon, lol.

Western Conference: Wild v. Stars in 5 Hawks v. Blues in 6 Sharks v. Kings upset special in 7 Preds v. Ducks in 6 Eastern Conference: Islanders v. Panthers in 7 Wings v. Lightning in 6 Flyers v. Caps in 6 Rags v. Pens in 5 Why are the Blues a polar bear?

Man, this thread has taken a turn... I apologize for contributing to the nonsense earlier. So we'd score 1 goal a game with Andersson; what would you expect with Mantha? People getting all worked up over this like it makes some huge difference. Like it's so unbelievably stupid to not have him on the team. But at the same time you don't expect him to make a big difference. Just a bunch of Mantha fans who want to see him play. Hopeful, maybe even optimistic, that he would be a difference maker but you wouldn't criticize him if he didn't. You have no real expectations for what he would do. Maybe some unquantifiable "look good" that he'd be sure to do since it's just a matter of your opinion. I get it, I want to see Pulk back in for the same reason. I'm just not getting bent out of shape about it. I think we are all hopeful that Mantha will become an important part of this team sometime soon. But he isn't right now. Maybe he would be if given more of a chance. Maybe he wouldn't. We don't know. Whether or not he is a better option than the least significant player in our lineup isn't worth all the hostility.

Got it. AA is the best player on the team, Tatar is better than Datsyuk, Nyquist is better than Larkin and Zetterberg, Pulkkinen is better than Mantha. AA-Datsyuk-Tatar Nyquist-Z-Larkin Pulk-Richards-Abby Mantha-Helm-Sheahan Or wait, Tatar and Nyquist are terrible 5v5. Must mean that's important. AA 2.38 Larkin 2.01 Nyquist 1.69 Tatar 1.69 Helm 1.42 Abby 1.39 Datsyuk 1.31 Sheahan 1.22 Zetterberg 1.13 Glendening 1.09 Pulkkinen 1.07 Jurco 0.94 Andersson 0.87 Richards 0.83 Mantha 0.62 Miller 0.22 So Andersson is better than Mantha after all. Helm and Abby are better than Datsyuk. Sheahan is better than Zetterberg. AA-Larkin-Nyquist Tatar-Helm-Abby Sheahan-Datsyuk-Zetterberg Pulkkinen-Glendening-Jurco Turner Elson is the best player in the whole league. Wonder if Larkin+Mantha+1st would be enough to get him. Patrick Sieloff is the game's best goal scorer, and he's a defenseman. Damn, shame Calgary didn't play them all year, they'd be Cup favorites. Larkin, Mantha, Dekeyser, 1st and 2nd rounder this year and next, Howard (50% retained) or rights to Mrazek. Maybe have to throw in AA as well. Wishful thinking I know. Holland never makes big moves.

Going in circles here. Go back and read my posts. I never said he didn't provide offense in the games he played, nor that he wouldn't if he were to get back in the lineup, nor that he shouldn't be in the lineup. You chose to read all that negative connotation into the word "potential". Again, doesn't matter how good or bad he's looked. He hasn't played enough. Maybe read that a couple times. Are you saying he's proven that he's a 16g, 24p player, who can only score goals when he's left uncovered in the low slot on the PP. Almost in the top 200 in 5v5 GF60, and absolutely killer on the PP, but a net wash overall because of his 2nd-worst in the league defense? I didn't think so. It's a two-way street. None of the bad stats are necessarily indicative of what would happen short-term, and almost certainly worse than his long-term outlook. Much the same can be said of the good stats. Means next to nothing short-term, and only confirms what we already knew long-term: he has potential.

We have been transitioning. Half our team has played 3 or fewer full seasons. Playing Mantha or giving AA more minutes isn't going to make a difference in anything. Whatever the kids become will be determined by their physical abilities, their talent, the years of dedication, training, and hard work they've done and will continue to do going forward. Not by a few minutes with Datsyuk. In regards to the second part, it's important to realize that the variances in possession are not really that much. It would probably surprise most people to learn that in 5v5 CF%, Detroit was tied for 8th in the league this year. 51.7%. Pittsburgh was 2nd at 52.7%. LA was first with one of the best seasons recorded at 56.4%. While Sutter and others may make hyperbolic statements about always defending or always having the puck, those are extremes that just don't exist in the real world. They're just exaggerations to make a point. Also worth noting that Sutter's and Hitchcock's teams, despite being very good teams with loads of talent, don't really score very well. (Neither have Tippett's, but he hasn't had much talent either.) Not sure you can say "listen to these guys" and "don't stifle scoring ability" at the same time. Adding on to what I was saying above, that Tippett quote is a gross exaggeration. The variance between players isn't that extreme. This season, there is a pretty extreme (relatively speaking) difference between Smith and Ericsson (7.5% by Corsi or 8.3% by shots) that's 2-3 times the difference it's been in the past. Adjusted for zone starts and competition, the difference this year would probably drop to around 5.5-6%, and virtually nothing in past years. Also, by goals the difference is about 1.8% this year, and 1% historically. Again if adjusted it would be even closer. Maybe Smith has progressed enough this year that he deserves to be ahead of E on the depth chart, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as people think. Technically, Mitch Albom said that Datsyuk's agent said that "the Wings" said they wouldn't do that. But regardless, let's be realistic. If Datsyuk leaves, the chances of actually improving drop to more or less zero, regardless of how much cap we have available. There just aren't enough good players available. The only way we're better next year is if we sign Stamkos or if the kids take a huge leap forward. We can go after Stamkos whether we dump Datsyuk first or not, so that's irrelevant. We'd likely have to trade his hit if we did land Stamkos (or at least that might be the easiest), but not to make him an offer. To be honest, I'm not even sure that Stamkos would be worth going after for what he'd likely cost. If we don't sign Stamkos, there isn't much sense in going after any second-tier players who have already proven to be incapable of leading a team to a Cup (or even in many cases, to the playoffs). Ride it out with the kids, see where we're at, then maybe make moves at the deadline if the they look good enough to build around.

Yeah, looked good to you. Not so good to the coach apparently. But that's not the point. Doesn't matter how good he's looked, or how bad. He hasn't played enough to be anything more than potential. You're acting like saying he's unproven is saying he sucks and will never do anything. And my argument isn't whether or not he should be in the lineup. It's that we shouldn't consider him as "providing offfense". That we shouldn't expect him to be the answer to our offensive struggles. If he does play, and he doesn't score much, you'll be right here saying we shouldn't have expected him to in the first place. Thanks for proving my point from my earlier post.

Yeah, people always see the best in players they like. But the simple fact is he hasn't proven anything. He is the definition of potential. He's played 10 games.

Just to fan the flames, we have...when Mantha was in.