Buppy

10th pick is currently 8 points behind us. Even 13th is 4 points down. Odds of us picking earlier than 14th are probably worse than the odds of making the playoffs. 14th, 16th, or 17th is where we'll end up.

Yeah, I wasn't all that clear. Not having top performing players is a problem. What I mean is that having below average top players wouldn't be much better, and potentially worse if we lose too much depth. Relying on depth, "myth" or not, is simply reality. There are very few true impact players in the league, and they are almost never available. Stamkos may become available, and if he does I'm sure we'll make a pitch like we did with Suter. But odds are it's not going to happen. Odds are there will be no one available through trade that is so much better than Nyquist, Tatar, or Abby to justify trading two of them. Nyquist has 43 goals the last two years, Tatar has 49. There are 22 and 11 forwards (respectively) who have scored 10 or more above that. That's only 5 more per year, hardly a big difference even if someone steps up to equal the production of the 2nd player. 6 and 9 respectively that have averaged 10 more per year. Most likely none of them are available through trade. Fortunately, that also means that no one available would actually cost Nyquist + Tatar either, so this is kind of a moot point. Point is, despite all the contempt familiarity has bred for our roster, there are just not that many players in the league that are that much better than the secondary players we already have. The few that are we aren't going to get. The best thing we can do then is add without subtracting. While we may have some kids who could step up, it's not an unlimited supply and it's not a sure thing. Worth the risk to trade one, I'd say, but not two. And better to use the one for a defense upgrade IMO. And goals are more important than points. Even more so if we're giving up any of our better goal scorers. Someone has to finish, and actually put pucks in the net, or no one gets points.

And Green had produced at a slightly better rate the year before. 10g, 45p in 71 games to 5g, 44p in 75 games so far this year for Yandle. Green also signed a 3 year deal. I'd assume Yandle will be looking for more. He's the same age Green was when we signed him last year. I like Trouba and I'm sure that would be a very good pair. I'm just saying he's over-valued by some people around here. Yes, and if we don't figure out why they're down this year, the same thing likely turns your 35 goal scorer into a 25 goal scorer. And making others around them better means nothing if there's no one around them that's good in the first place. Bottom line is this. We are not going to trade/replace half the team. It's not possible. (At least not replace with something better.) No matter what we do, no matter who we add, any significant improvement has to come from players that are already here. With what we added this year, we should already be better. Instead we're just as bad 5v5, and our PP is much worse. We have added a ton to the team in the last few years, but we're losing just as much. We need to stop taking steps back. That means trying to make additions while subtracting as little as possible. That means not trading two of our best young players.

There were 3 players who scored 40 goals last year. Probably around the same this year, give or take. For the most part, those guys just aren't available. Stamkos may be (though he'll cost more than $9M I'd bet). With the young guys we have, it's worth looking into trading one of Nyquist and Tatar, but not both. At least until more of the kids actually prove something.

I agree that Yandle may get over-valued by some around here (though the Trouba hype from some is far worse), but I doubt he will get $8M. I would guess around $6M depending on the cap and term. We don't need 3 defensemen either. Might seem that way because we lack a real top defenseman, so we judge everyone as being not good enough. We may want to replace some for cap reasons, but I think we'd be alright without doing so. We may not even want to add more than one this summer, with expansion looming. As far as trade targets, Vatanen or Lindholm are the most realistic options. Could be the perfect storm there, as I think they are also two of the best options rumored to be available. I think that's a bit too simplistic. First, the goal is to be a good team, so we want our 1st-liners to be above average. If you have 3 guys ranked in the 50s or 60s for your 1st line, odds are you aren't going to be very good unless your depth is exceptional. That isn't likely to be true if we trade too much of what we have. Finding top talent is difficult, and expensive. Most likely, there just isn't a deal out there. We probably need to rely on depth more than power at the top, as well as the kids taking a step forward. That means trying to figure out why most of our team took a step back this year. Secondly, we need to concentrate on goal-scoring rather than just points. One major problem this year is that in terms of goal-scoring, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are very poor relative to the top forwards on other teams. The rest of the team, even having a poor year, is average or slightly above.

This just made me realize that Datsyuk and his NMC will still be on the roster at the likely time of the expansion draft. May be forced to protect him. Kind of sucks if true. We may not know if he even wants to play the following year. Even if he did, I'm not sure an expansion team would take a chance on a guy who'd be an UFA a week later. Hopefully, any potential forced protection of NMC players wouldn't include players whose contracts (or clauses) expire that year.

Typically, expansion drafts have been just prior to the regular draft. So before July 1st.

I'd agree with you on Tatar. He's been one of our best players this year. But he and Nyquist have both spent much of the year in the bottom 6, and they're outperforming Richards by a lot. Richards 5v5 scoring rate is the worst on the team besides Miller and a few guys that only played a few games. He's been doing well lately, so I wouldn't expect replacing him to do much, but probably wouldn't hurt. Glendening has also been playing well lately, but I'd take him out as well.

Many things wrong with this. One: Can't offer 8 years. 7 years is the max. Two: Can't offer $20M signing bonus (unless spanning multiple years). Max is about 14 million, depends on the cap. Three: Trouba being a potential Norris winner is a stretch. Offensive skills seem only decent at best. Four: Trouba right now is not worth close to $8M. That'd make him the 2nd highest paid defenseman in the NHL. Five: Compensation for that would be 4 1st-round picks. Trouba is not worth close to that. Six: That would create some serious cap problems for us. Seven: Offer sheets are stupid. There is a reason why almost no one makes them.

Both Fabbro and teammate Tyson Jost (who I think would be another good pick) are committed to college. They can't play CHL or they'd lose eligibility.

Something you don't like about Fabbro? I think he'd be a great pick. Kieffer Bellows is my top choice of the guys that could reasonably be available, or McLeod, though most have him in the top 10. Seems like a really deep draft this year, I'd love to see us pick up an extra first or early 2nd. Ton of guys in the mid-1st I really like, and a few ranked later. Tufte and Niemelainen could be there late-1st/early-2nd. I'd love to land one of them, in addition to one of the mid-1st guys.

None ATM, that would still be in effect for an expansion draft.

Stamkos has missed the playoffs 4 times, and swept in the first round once. The two decent runs TB has had he was 5th and tied for 3rd in team scoring. He's a good player, and worth pursuing, but not to the point of giving up anything ridiculous for him. Conditional pick or some prospect who's not going to get a chance here is all his rights are worth. Datsyuk regular season stats: 5G/60 AG/60 5P/60 AP/60 T5G/60 TAG/60 AGM A5G/Y AAG/Y A5P/Y AAP/Y 05-06 to 11-12 0.96 1.11 2.59 3.32 3.48 4.61 7.71 15.86 26.86 42.57 80.14 11-12 to 15-16 0.67 1.06 1.87 2.76 2.62 4.02 18.25 8.25 18.50 24.25 48.00 This season 0.42 0.86 1.40 2.21 2.23 3.45 16 6 16 20 41 Rel. last 4 69.79% 95.50% 72.20% 83.13% 75.29% 87.20% 236.57% 52.03% 68.88% 56.96% 59.89% Rel. this year 43.75% 77.48% 54.05% 66.57% 64.08% 74.84% 207.41% 37.84% 59.57% 46.98% 51.16% 5G/60-5P/60 = Individual 5v5 Goals/Points scored / 60 minutes AG/60-AP/60 = Individual Goals/Points scored / 60 minutes, all situations T5G/60-TAG/60 = Team 5v5/All situations Goals scored / 60 minutes AGM = average games missed, per year A5G/Y-A5P/Y = Average individual 5v5 Goals/Points per year AAG/Y-AAP/Y = Average individual Goals/Points per year, all situations Rel. last 4/Rel. this year = Performance the last 4 years/this year relative to performance from 05-06 to 11-12 The decline is there. He had a good year last year, but 4 of the last 5 years were down fairly significantly from where he was in his prime. Combined with the increase in injuries, it's a major difference.

That's exactly my point. Everything at this point is hypothetical. Assuming that Datsyuk will still be good, will even want to come back, will sign for a good price, that we won't have better options, etc., is no more valid than assuming we may not want him back. Bottom line is that is a decision we make after next year.

And if Datsyuk plays 65-ish games next year, scores 9 goals and 32 points? Then wants to come back for $5.4M per for 2 years?

Is it the start of the 18-19 season? Was I supposed to set my clock forward 9000 hours? Because I thought it was just 1. Point is, we don't yet what our situation will be, or how Datsyuk will hold up. Sure, this year it's only Jurco and Pulkkinen, and Datsyuk is still a good player. May be different a year from now.

Actually, $5M for 55 points would be pretty decent value. If we think he'd produce like that, and would sign for that hit, I'd do it. Question is if he would still be capable of that. What we don't want is to pay $5.5M for 36 points, and lose someone who could potentially help us beyond 17-18. But you don't help kids develop by not playing them at all either. Nor do you help your team for the future by giving up someone who could be a part of it in favor of clinging to the past for an extra year. But those are questions we can't make a good guess at right now. Have to wait until after next season. Pointless to talk about it now.

It's all just speculation in regards to what kind of player Datsyuk will be in two years. It's not to unreasonable to think we may want to move on by that time. If we do want to pursue some of the better UFAs, we may have little choice. It's not so much assuming that Larkin and the other kids will be able to lead us to a Cup. It's assuming Datsyuk and Zetterberg won't be able to. In the next two years, there are two potential UFAs that could be real difference-makers. And I'd bet Benn will re-sign before then. I'm still not even convinced Stamkos will be available. Beyond that, there are only a small handful of secondary players that are as good or better than what we already have. You're not going to get any of them, and keep what we have, and keep D & Z. Something will have to give.

Glendening and Richards should be switched with Jurco and Pulkkinen

Nothing that happens this year is likely to change what happens in the off-season. People seem to think Holland has been deliberately trying to not improve the team. We don't want a wake-up call. That's desperation, and it almost always leads to making things worse. We need to continue to do exactly what we have been doing. Develop our kids, draft well, and try to make smart additions. Most of what people want to see happen wouldn't actually make us any better. The secondary and lower line players that everyone hates are not our problem. We have an excess of prospects that could make some of those guys expendable, so there's a chance to make a move or two. But any move like that will not, by itself, really change anything. Might be exciting enough to appease some fans who just want to see something happen, at least until the team struggles. Then it will be right back to "Holland's done nothing". The problem with the team is Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Kronwall and Green, maybe coaching, to lesser extent. But mostly D and Z. Nothing is likely to get substantially better, the team won't be "redefined", until Datsyuk and Zetterberg are no longer the leaders of the team. Considering the $13.6M cap hit they have, it's also unlikely that we'll be able to afford a replacement from outside the system. Almost no team in the league has secondary players making near that much. Dallas, mostly because they have Benn and Seguin very cheap right now. You don't get cheap players through trade or UFA unless it's someone at least mostly unproven. One thing we have going is that we have a lot of cheap young kids, so if we can shed some salary, we might be able to make a good offer to Stamkos. But he's one player, and he'll have a lot of options if he hits UFA, so it's unreasonable to expect it to happen.

Marchenko will be back in. Ouellet will be the 7th for now, unless there's another injury.

Green: ~158 minutes, Team stats: 18 GF, 6.82 GF/60, Individual stats: 2g, 11p, 4.16 p/60 Kronwall: ~146 minutes, Team stats: 16 GF, 6.59 GF/60, Individual stats: 0g, 10p, 4.12 p/60 Smith: ~35 minutes, Team stats: 2 GF, 3.44 GF/60, Individual stats: 1g, 1p, 1.72 p/60 Smith (career): ~130 minutes, Team stats: 8 GF, 3.69 GF/60, Individual stats: 2g, 7p, 3.23 p/60 Translation: Smith would make an already bad PP even worse.

Smith isn't good offensively, which means he isn't going to compete with Kronwall and Green. That he's a good possession player means that, ideally, he should be paired with one of those two, not replacing one. Dekeyser is our best all-around defenseman, with how much Kronwall has declined this year. Also due to how much Kronwall has declined, we need some good defensive players. Despite what people here think, both Ericsson and Quincey are good. Smith is competing for a leftover spot. Play style isn't really important. We don't need anything that either Smith or Marchenko can provide (and maybe include one of Q or E in that). It's just a matter of who is more effective overall. In this case, statistically it isn't close. Smith has been better than Marchenko in every measurable way, and the team is better with Smith. Another thing is that Smith is better defensively than he gets credit for. Good enough that competition with Q or E could be reasonable. Though that's a moot point, since Marchenko hasn't been good enough to compete with them. I can only assume that Blash is more familiar with Marchenko, and trusts him a bit more than Smith.

Winnipeg is also getting one against Edmonton.

Nyquist and Tatar are not our problem right now.