Buppy

You're thinking of Draper. Chelios is "Advisor to hockey operations". Though on the Wings mobile site, he's now listed as an assistant coach.

Strome is pretty good defensively himself.

For Sharp? They wouldn't get that even if he hadn't sucked this year.

I think the biggest reason is because he missed World Juniors with an injury. Also didn't play all that great afterward. Got demoted to the Swedish junior league. Also a defensive liability right now.But he has elite skating and skill by all accounts. Good sense. Someone will be happy they grabbed him in the late first/early second.

Yeah, probably wouldn't want a D back. Tvrdon probably doesn't have much value, but Nosek might be a piece they'd want. Center is about the closest thing to a weakness the Ducks have (aside from someone to win a big game). Not sure if Nosek projects as a center in the NHL, but he's said to be a versatile two-way guy. Good size too. They might also want a winger if they think they're going to lose Beleskey. They don't really have a need to move Wis; they have plenty of cap space and if they want Beauchemin back they could dump Fistric instead. We may or may not need to add anything, depending on how much they want to move him and what any other teams might offer. A late pick like you suggested or someone like Andersson or Ferraro. I wouldn't want to give up more than that unless I was sure to get either Kylington or Roy (or similar) at 27, or they were sending something else back.

I think the laziness argument gets thrown around too much. Professional athlete and lazy don't really go together. I think some players may develop a habit of poor effort when they can still be successful that way, not out of laziness, but more of a natural path-of-least-resistance instinct. And habits can be hard to break. Back on topic, the more I look at the prospect pool this year, the more I think Kylington fits the Red Wings mold. A few mocks have him falling out of the first round now. Betting we'd feel safe trading back too. Ducks always seem to be active around the draft, wonder if we could swing something for their 1st and Wisniewski.

Having a bunch of prospects really only means they'll have more washouts and trade throw-ins when they run out of contract slots to sign all those guys. I don't put much stock in HF ratings. 6.5 seems like their default rating. Could mean a pretty decent player like Marchenko, or someone who will almost certainly never see the NHL like Aubry. The letter grades seem to be C by default, B if the player is just about at the predicted rating already, and D if the player is all but washed out. Yeah, we lost three defense prospects this year, so our total number is low. But that's no reason to go chasing Chicago's garbage. We already have more guys running out of options than we have room. We need a few guys that are further away than what Chicago will be trying to dump. We'll try to draft a few this year, a few more next year, and so on, and our shortage of D prospects will be taken care of that way. If we're going to trade for D, it needs to be someone better than someone on our current roster. Besides, Chicago's depth is nothing. Dallas has the real goods.

Not sure what point of Kip's you think I agree with. Smith sucks? Yeah, I'm with him on that one. I do not agree that Babcock was holding back our offense, nor the production from our defensemen. Nor do I think he was over-rated. The contract situation was over-hyped perhaps, and that hype probably gave some an exaggerated opinion of how highly he was regarded. I think the opinion of Babcock is, in general, that he's one of the best coaches in hockey, and I'd agree. I would concede that if a coach were to come in with the goal of maximizing Smith's offense, that coach would probably get more out of him. Most likely at the cost of defense and better production from a more capable player being denied the opportunities given to Smith. Kindl was a stud in juniors no doubt, but that never translated to the AHL even. He just never really developed. While I guess the same logic above would apply to him, I kind of think he'd flop no matter what. Though really his offense hasn't been too bad. Over the last 3 years, out of 200ish defensemen to play 1500+ minutes, Kindl is in the top 60 in points/60 minutes. (Mostly due to a limited role and a good/lucky year this year.) I don't know how the jury could be out on Dekeyser. No question he's produced well. Wasn't even considered an offensive player, but he's in the top 60 in total points over the last two years and just outside the top 60 in P/60. Could he still improve? Certainly. He's 25 and has played two seasons. He should improve. As for the skating thing, I think you are greatly over-simplifying. Sure, tight gaps and quick passes may be the general plan, but you're ignoring literally hundreds upon hundreds of occasions where our defensemen; Lidstrom, Rafalski, Schneider, Kronwall, Dekeyser, even Stuart and Ericsson, have and do use their skating. Starting the breakout, skating through the neutral zone, joining the rush...happens quite a bit. Smith just isn't good enough to know when he should go that route. If he was, and he could have actually been effective doing so, I'm sure he would have shown it and thus earned the confidence from Babs to be a bit more free. However, I'll further concede that maybe Smith is one of those cases of a player and system/coach just not clicking. It happens. Hopefully he will flourish under Blashill. But even so, when 8 or 9 other defensemen did just fine for him, it does discredit the notion that Babcock was hurting offensive defensemen in general, as krsmith was suggesting. The onus for his poor performance thus far is squarely on Smith.

Don't let Kip's anti-Babcock bias confuse you. Babs always got good production out of capable defensemen. It's far more likely that Smith just isn't very good than that he (or anyone else) was being held back by Babcock. Not saying that Blash won't also, just that I wouldn't expect any dramatic improvement.

May, Miller, Eaves, and Bert didn't come here until 2010 (except for Bert's brief stint in 07). Quincey was barely a part of any of those teams. Abby too. Helm and Ericsson really only for the playoffs. Shanahan, McCarty, Avery and Fischer were gone before we added Downey, Stuart, or Drake. (And Avery never even played a full season here.) It's not like all those guys were on the same team, and I wasn't saying our current team is grittier than all the collective gritty players we went through during that whole decade. While "much more gritty" probably isn't right, our current group (Abby, Helm, Glendening, Miller, Sheahan, Jurco, Andersson, Ericsson, Quincey, Smith) compares well against any single Wings team from that era. Maybe not in the fighting department, but Rich made it clear that that wasn't what he meant by "grit", so I assumed it would be clear that I didn't either. Again, not talking about fighting. Fights and penalties were much more common back then. If our current players played back then they would have fought more often, likely taken more penalties, etc. Pittsburgh led the league in penalty minutes with 1123 this year. One of 2 teams over 1000. In 02 there were 26, and Pit would have been 22nd. Florida had 120 majors that year, the top 3 teams this year combined for 118. Winnipeg's 374 minors led the league this year, would have been 23rd. There were 46 game misconducts assessed this year. 186 in 02. Florida alone had 18. Different era. Doesn't necessarily mean "grittier". Even if it did, if the whole league is collectively less gritty and we're still in relatively the same place, then it's still a wash. In the 8 seasons from 83-84 through 90-91 we finished below .500 six times and missed the playoffs twice. Our best year being 93 points (5th overall, 3rd in conference, lost to the Oilers.) Next best was the year after with 80 points. Those were the two division titles. Hence the "mostly .500 or worse" comment. The two years immediately prior to Bowman coming in we were starting to get good (98 and 103 points). Top seed in the conference in 92 and got swept in the second round by Chicago. 2nd in our division in 93, led the league in scoring, lost in 7 to Toronto who finished 4 points behind us and had the 2nd best defense in the league. Disappointing for sure, but hardly "winning 55+ games per year. yet in the PO's when the refs look the other way we lost every year". And I gave Bowman plenty of credit for our Cups. I just disagree that it had anything to do with team toughness or personnel decisions made by Bowman. Sure, some of the guys he helped bring in were invaluable, but most of the team was already here. Personally, I think we'd have still won if we'd kept Primeau and Ciccarelli and not added Larionov and Shanahan.

Your memory isn't as good as you think. Bowman became coach in 93-94. Prior to that we had only been good for 2 years. (Before that we were mostly a .500 team or worse.) This notion that we were some regular-season powerhouse that fell short in the playoffs before Scotty saved us is false. We got upset in the second round by a Chicago team that ended up going to the finals, then lost in 7 games in the first round to a Toronto that was pretty much just as good as we were. The first three seasons with Bowman were all bigger upsets than anything that happened prior. Secondly; Konstantinov, McCarty, Lapointe, Pushor, and Ward were all acquired prior to Bowman. Draper came a couple weeks after, but Bowman didn't become co-GM until the next season. Ramsey wasn't part of our Cup teams. We also got rid of Ciccarelli, Drake, Burr, and Probert. It's not like Scotty came in, added "toughness", and then Cups happened. Bowman, as a coach, deserves plenty of credit for our Cups. The commitment to team defense won us the Cups, not any kind of grit. As for the current team: Abby, Helm, Sheahan, Miller, Glendening, Andersson, and Ferraro. Maybe could include Jurco. Prospects Callahan, Bertuzzi, Nastasiuk, and I'd say AA and Larkin could be called gritty to some extent. Traded for Cole. Maybe lacking a bit on defense, but Quincey, Ericsson, and Smith aren't exactly soft (nor are Kronwall and Dekeyser for that matter). The general talent level of our team has declined. That's why we aren't as good, not because we're too soft. If anything, we're much more gritty now than we were from '02-09.

With all the promising kids we have coming plus potential UFA additions, I can't imagine Ferraro or Callahan have any future with us regardless.

Yeah, kinda. He's not at all what we're looking for.

I think Larkin is being way over-rated around here, like Mantha last summer. Strome will almost certainly be far better, and Larkin, Mantha, and the 19 probably wouldn't get it done. I think when Maloney talks about trading the 3rd he's meaning an offer he can't refuse or something that includes a pick still in the top 10.

Wisniewski could be available, though I wouldn't give up Tatar to get him. For that matter I wouldn't give up Tatar for any of their defensemen. At least not right now. No sense in fixing a hole by creating another one, and none of their guys are so good that it would make up for the loss.

College players get more time since they lose their eligibility if they sign a pro contract. I think it's two years or 30 days after their college career ends, whichever is later. It is disappointing, both looked promising in their draft years. But I don't think it really changes anything. Especially not if we get that Reilly kid.

There are two Sebastian Ahos, we should draft them both. This team needs more Ahos. Plus, confusing. Aho1 Aho2

It's also one of the few things that are somewhat effective against the semi-trap 3-man front most teams use on the PK these days. Not sure why everyone hates it so much.

Not as bad as losing Hiller I think. Though our PK started off on fire, it ended up being our worst season since '08-09. Defense wasn't anything special either. I'm sure we can find a good replacement.

People would make a big deal about it, and it would be pretty funny. But in all seriousness, for a spot at the bottom of the roster he's probably better than most options. Sort of an extra coach/mentor. If we needed someone to contribute on the ice we could call up a kid. Better to have Clearly sitting in the pressbox than someone like Jurco or Pulkkinen. Of course it all depends on what else happens with the roster.

I agree, he probably is worth that money, which is why Boston would match. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they matched anything under top-level compensation, maybe even a bit over. I'm not so secure in the direction of the team (even with Hamilton) that I'd be too happy giving up 2 firsts for the right to over-pay him, sure as hell wouldn't give up 4. And I bet it would take more than a random piece of garbage to get our 3rd back. Someone that genuinely looks to be an NHL player. Otherwise there's no reason for NJ to do it, especially since we'd be asking specifically for our pick and thus cluing them in that they are the one and only supplier of what we want.

With the expected cap increase and LTIR for Savard, they'll have about $10-11M in space. Tight but I still bet they'd match. Most of the spots they have to fill can be filled cheaply. Plus they could opt to move Lucic and/or Eriksson. Moot point though, as we do not have our 3rd rounder in 2016. We'd have to trade for that pick back (not just any third, our own) before we could even submit an offer.

Couple things. Compensation goes by number of years or 5, whichever is lower. So that offer would be 4 first rounders. Second, you have to have your own picks to pay the compensation in your next draft year (or years in the case of multiple picks from the same round). Since we don't have a third in 2016, we can't make any offer that would include one. The reason offer sheets are rare isn't because GMs are nice. It's because the RFA system very heavily favors the original team.

It most definitely was retired. It was worn for a few years by his cousin, to honor him (he had died a few years prior), with the blessing of the family. Never hung from the rafters but neither did any other numbers until Ilitch bought the team. (I think Howe's was the only other one retired at that time, or at least the official ceremonies for most were in the '90s.) Whether you want to call it retired or out of circulation, it amounts to the same thing. Ilitch and the team have honored that part, they just refuse to display it for whatever reason. And back on topic, no. No to Fedorov. No to Osgood, or Datsyuk, or Zetterberg. Jersey retirement should be something truly special, and none of them are.

I think this "checking role" thing is being overstated. Probably because it was later in the season and so fresher in everyone's mind. Jurco bounced around lines quite a bit this year. I'm not going to add up all the numbers, but war-on-ice.com data shows he spent quite a lot of time on scoring lines. Looks like he was with Sheahan and Tatar as much or more than he was with Miller and Glendening. Also looks like a decent amount with Weiss, Helm, and Datsyuk. At least a little with just about everyone. And that's not including all his PP time. I'd certainly say his overall time with other scorers was much greater than his time with checkers. Furthermore, even when playing with guys like Miller and Glendening it's not like he's being told to go out and not score. Glendening had 12 goals. We've seen plenty of 4th-liners hit double-digits in goals in recent years. Guys that don't have the kind of skill Jurco has. Even if he gets used the same way next year, he can and should (and I believe, will) be more productive.