Buppy

No need to get defensive. Like I said, it just seemed you weren't appreciating the other aspects of his game, so I pointed some out. But I would add that he doesn't have to score to make it an effective zone entry, it just needs to lead to possession. Some of those shots will end up in face-offs, some will get picked up by our guys, might even get lucky and see one go in. All in all not likely any less effective than a dump-in.

My point was that in your damn-he-does-that-a-lot hyperbole, it seemed maybe you weren't fully appreciating how frequently he does in fact do other things. I didn't just pick 6 randoms goals from the season, it's 6 (or 5 really, taking out the EN) goals that came in the span of 4 games. Even if those were the only such chances he had in the whole series, if he can get chances at close to that frequency in the NHL it'd likely make him a 20+ goal scorer. Successful even if every other time he touches the puck it results in nothing. But in reality, "pull up and fire" probably isn't a whole lot less effective a zone entry method than Datsyuk trying to split the D or Zetterberg's curl into the boards and shuttle the puck to the corner. It's hockey. Almost everything everyone does fails almost every time to generate a good scoring chance. Ideally, on the Wings he wouldn't be the one bringing the puck in. When he does, throwing it at the net would probably be the best option for him most of the time.

Pulkkinen's 6 goals: Game 1: Finds a soft spot in the slot, gets off a shot, then goes to the net to put home his own rebound. 2nd one going to the net for another rebound. Game 2: Finds an open spot at the right faceoff dot for a one-timer, 3v3 rush. Game 3: Breakaway and an EN Game 4: Slapper from the top of the circle, playing the point on the PP He already has more than that shot.

I disagree. White was very good his first year, not so much the 2nd. Overall though it was a decent signing. Just looks worse because we lost Rafi then Stuart and Lidstrom, but he wasn't supposed to be our savior. Just a cheap fill-in. Commodore was signed basically to be a #7 and insurance in case Kindl struggled too much. He wasn't expected to help much. Coliacovo much the same. Bit more expected maybe, but still just a depth signing. Tootoo was just fine his first year. The second, with all the injuries and all the kids we just didn't have a spot for him. Sammy too was just a depth signing (and I still believe there was some kind of trade plan that season, before the lockout derailed things). While none of those players (except White) really helped much, none of them were expected to. I believe after missing out on some of the big names, we mostly expected our improvement to come from the kids. Up front it's worked pretty well. On defense, Smith and Kindl have been disappointing, but Dekeyser has been good. The guys we've brought in from outside that were expected to really contribute (not counting Deke and Brunner, since they were more prospects than real UFAs) were White (so-so), Quincey (solid, even though most still hate him), Weiss (fail), and Alfie (good). 2 out of 3 with 1 push. Add in the kids and overall we've been pretty damn successful.

I understood what he meant. But there's also a difference between saying someone is a good trade asset and someone should be traded.

The poster I was responding to said Howard was our best trade asset. I disagreed and gave a list of other players I believe would be better. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone, let alone Mrazek, actually should be traded. To make it even simpler: I don't think either goalie should be traded right now.

Couldn't this go in the "Things you'd like to see thread..."? Trying to follow two threads on the same topic is so confusing.

If we get Phaneuf he'll most likely be in the same situation, but older and probably playing on his off side. Even considering that, he might be the best d-man available.

I'm genuinely surprised that so many people have such poor reading comprehension. Also surprised that all of the people who misunderstood my point are upset about Mrazek, rather than Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

We lost 3 games other than game 4. 3 games in which we scored 3 total goals and never led.

"underperforming veterans" is a funny way to spell Weiss.

Opens as soon as a team is out of the playoffs. At least it used to be that way and I haven't heard of any changes.

A more appropriate comparison would be looking that their first two full years. Datsyuk was 23 when he came over. Zetterberg was 22. Tatar was 23 for his first full year. Nyquist was 24 (and it wasn't even quite a full year). While Zetterberg was a bit ahead (especially on defense), both Tatar and Nyquist compare pretty well to early Datsyuk. Not that it means anything.

And what, if not an attempt to rag on Babs, would make you assume that "Datsyuk and Zetterberg" means specifically Datsyuk and Zetterberg at their absolute peak? Some believe Babs may be looking for that kind of player because he specifically mentioned those two (and Kronwall). Then he said, "You've got to have big-time players up the middle and on the back to be successful". Big-time players. Not "90+ pt Selke finalists and generational defensemen". I'll bet you won't find many successful teams that didn't have big-time players. Look at Zetterberg in terms of his whole career rather than just his best year and you could argue that Kopitar and Toews are at a very similar level. Crosby and Malkin aren't as good defensively but much better offensively, and most would say they're better overall. Getzlaf, Seguin, Giroux, Tavares, Stamkos, and I'm sure several others could be considered close or even better. Same goes for Datsyuk, really. Maybe not a lot will reach their peak point totals, maybe none who are also Selke candidates the same year, but you're the only one taking it so overly specific. Teams are rarely successful without superstars. Replacing ours is a legitimate concern. Most likely isn't going to happen until we get much worse. I'd be surprised if that concern isn't a major factor in Babs' decision. Fortunately, there aren't likely to be many teams that are better off in the "star" department and also looking for a coach.

Strome or Hanifin would be better than anything we could offer. I don't think even Mantha + Larkin + our 1st would get us that pick.

Of course you'd suggest that, it was your idea. I would counter-suggest that both Tatar and Nyquist are better goal scorers at this point than Zetterberg. While Hank is certainly the better player overall, I don't think he'd really be any more effective. Thornton = Zetterberg. He hasn't really been better for about 5 or 6 years. Doesn't have the injury concerns, so maybe he'll age better, but maybe not. He hasn't so far. Vermette = Sheahan/Helm. He used to be better, but not so much over the last 5 years or so. Even playing more minutes and with generally better linemates, he's barely outproduced Helm's pts/g and goals/g. Sheahan's numbers are even closer, though he's also had some good linemates and decent PP time. Sheahan's also 23 and should be expected to get better, while Vermette is 32 and should be expected to get worse. Green is certainly better than Ericsson offensively, probably enough so that it would be a de facto defensive improvement as well. But you're also making a big commitment to an injury prone 30 year old. Maybe not any worse that what we already have committed to Ericsson, but it could be if his injury woes get worse. Bottom line, I guess I would say it'd be a marginal improvement, but still doesn't put us over the hump. Pretty much all the improvement comes from Green, which would be a much simpler and more realistic move by itself. (Though if it were more than a 1 year deal, I'd hope to move Ericsson or at least Kindl out so there still a spot for a kid the following year.) You also have two goalies with little experience. I wouldn't be too worried about it, but it is a risk. And Jurco and Pulkkinen (who's out of options btw) need to be in the lineup or traded. Wasting them in the pressbox doesn't do anyone any good.

Yes, not much value, which is exactly what I was saying. Though a 3rd at best would be the pessimistic end of the spectrum. Yeah, because I was totally suggesting that we should. Totally.

Howard in a package would get you whatever the same package without Howard would get plus a 2nd. Not going to help. Plus it limits your options only to teams looking for a goalie. Howard is very, very far from our best trade asset. Helm, Abby, Tatar, Nyquist, some of our prospects, picks, maybe Quincy or Ericsson, potentially Datsyuk or Zetterberg even. Hell, Mrazek is young, cheap, and has shown a lot this year. He'd bring a better return than Howard, and probably wouldn't hurt us long-term nearly as much as some might think.

Awful lot of work for a roster that isn't any better. I don't think you could make those trades even if you were the GM of both teams. That Toronto package wouldn't get you Phaneuf +2mil and Dick Van Dyke

Best we could reasonably hope to get for Howard is a 1st-rounder. 2nd (or even a 3rd) or some mid-tier skater that isn't any better than what we already have is far more likely. There's no good reason to trade him.

Goalies generally do not garner a big return. A goalie with a big contract for 4 more years and coming off a bad 2nd half and being benched for the playoffs certainly isn't. Trading Howard wouldn't solve any problems but could potentially cause one.

Only saw the highlights, but McCollum looked very slow and porous in game 1. No matter how "clutch", you're not going to win very often when you give up 6 goals.

LOL. You're not even in the ballpark. Wings have 18 icings so far in the series. Can't determine forced/unforced, but I'd say most icings tend to be unforced. TB has 12. You can find the info in the play by play reports on NHL.com. Far too much work to go through the whole season, much less to do so for the whole league. Like most other stats, I would assume the Wings are between a bit above or a bit below average.

Drove past there this afternoon, didn't notice anything. Not sure they'd be doing anything noticeable that quickly though, and I tend to ignore the blight areas when I go downtown anyway. That said, it's ridiculous that any kind of city improvement could be held up on account of those two eyesore hotels. Abandoned for decades. Plain, boxy, boring architecture. "Historic" primarily because no one has had the means and motivation to tear them down in the last 40 years.

'95 series against Chicago was a great one. 3 OT wins. Game 5 especially awesome. Belfour was unreal until the last goal. Plus, anything that ends with a sad Jeremy Roenick is great. The demolition of the Sharks in the 2nd round that year was fun too, though you need to watch the 94 series first for the full "gratifying revenge" effect. Crashing back to Earth against NJ was much less fun to witness.