Buppy

I'd have to partially disagree. LA in particular won with defense and goaltending. That was a huge part for Boston as well. Chicago has a great top 6, but also a very good defense. Pittsburgh hasn't won anything since their Cup, their defense and goaltending being the reason. Even when they did win, they won by playing very good defense in the final two games. You do need a strong offense, but you need strong defense and goaltending as well. Could get away with an average defense maybe if you have a great goalie, or vice versa.

You act like trying to make the playoffs and trying to build a championship team are mutually exclusive goals. They're not. Nor, I think, was our intent this season to just make the playoffs. Getting into the playoffs means you have a chance to do something more. Maybe not a good chance, or even a realistic chance, but a chance nonetheless. And it's not like we traded away Crosby either. Jarnkrok was a good prospect, may yet turn out to be a great player, but thus far there's nothing that looks particularly special about him. He's out of waiver exemptions after next year. Sheahan, Jurco, Pulkkinen, Mantha, and Athanasiou are all on a similar timetable, and all look to have similar or better potential. Add that to Tatar and Nyquist, plus all the vets, grinder types, and possible UFA additions... there wasn't room for everyone anyway. Still isn't really. Jarnkrok was not our future, just a possible piece of it. Regardless how Jarnkrok turns out, or what happens with Legwand, the move made sense given our situation at the time. Giving up a good prospect for a temp isn't ideal, but neither was our situation. Maybe we overpaid, maybe we could have gotten the same results calling up Jarnkrok, maybe he'll turn out to be a star... but none of that really matters.

Neither is likely to get you very far, depending on how you want to define great and average.

I wasn't being combative at all. Sorry if it came off that way. Way too much.

But acknowledging and appreciating the success we have had is not failing to acknowledge existing issues. Or, more accurately, suggesting that the level of criticism is over the top is not the same as saying nothing should be criticized. And we are only fans. We have nothing to do with "getting over the hump", so there is no productive approach for any of us to take. If all the criticism was actually as reasonably stated, and the counters as silly as your example, I might be more on your side. But the exact opposite is true more often. It's usually the critics making the irrational, emotion-fueled posts. But whatever. If there's one thing people really love it's misery. I don't feel up to fighting human nature.

We should pat ourselves on the back. Making the playoffs last season and even more so this season, is a victory. We should be proud of our playoff performance last year, even if we did "blow" a 3-1 lead. Even if we lose in 5 to the PT winners, a team that won a Cup a few years ago and went to the finals last year, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Having some pride in what we've been able to accomplish during the beginning of our transition is not the same as assuming nothing is wrong with the team. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes being content with marginal achievements. Saying, "we did well this year, all things considered", is in no way, shape, or form a statement that we should never try or expect to improve. You say "trending in the wrong direction", but by definition you have to go down before you can head back up. To suggest that we should already be getting back to the top is saying we never should have fallen in the first place, or at least that our floor should have been a top 7 overall finish and a 2nd round loss. The expectations most people have for this team are ridiculously unrealistic. We've barely even declined (at least relative to what "decline" means for the rest of the league), and by the look of our kids this year we may already be moving back up (at least in the short-term). It's actually pretty damn impressive, and it's a shame more people can't appreciate it.

Second-tier scorer as an over-ager in junior. Also didn't get a contract from Carolina or the Rangers. I see no reason to care. We already have Tvrdon covering the "looks like he could be pretty good but probably won't" spot.

If Dats and Alfie can play like Dats and Alfie (or better yet even, slightly younger versions of themselves) I'd say so, and Abby might be able to keep the worst of Marchand in check. The speed of the kids probably would cause some problems, I just don't think they have the defensive chops to keep up. If they got enough help it might work. Mule-Leggy (or Helm)-Gus should be able to beat their 3rd line. No matter how we juggle the lines I think we should be able to get the better of their bottom 6. So if we can beat or break even with their top 6, it should offset their advantage on defense. Then it's a matter of Jimmy vs Rask. Typed out, that last line looks more disheartening than it does in my head.

Well, we don't have those options, so there's nothing to really talk about on defense. Our defense is plan is: Limit the exposure of Kindl-Lashoff, try not to get anyone in the top 4 hurt, and hope Smith doesn't go full retard. Don't think there's much chance of getting Bergeron away from Datsyuk. I'd want Glendening against Krejci anyway. Lucic and Iggy are both hotheads, so I think Glenny could get to them. With Miller and Helm I think we'd have a decent chance of neutralizing them. I like our kid line (either the Nyquist or Jurco option) against their 3rd or 4th (though I do worry a little about Campbell and Thornton douching it up). I think they could at least make up any shortfall from above and possibly even give us an edge. I'd like to see Datsyuk given enough firepower to beat Bergeron/Chara, as I think whatever we put out against Kelly-Soderberg-Eriksson will be able to hold their own. The other option is to concede the Bergeron matchup and try to exploit Soderberg. But the Bergeron line scores so well I think we need to make it as tough for them on defense as we can. Regardless, it's a hell of a challenge. We're going to need a lot of guys at their best, and probably less than the best from the Bruins.

I agree a 3 point system would be better, but that's not what was originally suggested. For the record, in the Olympic system: Det: 30-9-15-28 = 123 points NJ: 26-9-18-29 = 114 points If you go 3 for ROW - 2 SOW - 1 SOL - 0 ROL: Det: 34-5-9-34 = 121 points NJ: 35-0-13-34 = 118 points If, as you originally proposed, you only count ROW then everything that is not a ROW counts as a loss. That would be fine if every game was actually a ROW or ROL. But we have games that are tied after OT. Those should be considered. When you do, you see NJ didn't actually get screwed like you originally claimed.

I think you're over-simplifying a bit. You're basically counting a SO win as a loss. NJ does have one more ROW than us, but they also have one more regulation loss. Carolina has the same ROW, but 7 more regulation losses and you say we're even. If we go regulation/OT losses, it puts NJ at 35-34, us at 34-34, Car at 34-42. You can still make the case that NJ (and Nashville -- 36-35 vs Dallas 36-37) got screwed. As a counterpoint, I'd say the shootout has been around for 9 seasons now. Not like it's sneaking up on anyone. Shouldn't be too hard to get a few guys that can score on a PS when you know you need them. Also, let's not pretend that the SO is the only example of individual skill. There are numerous examples of goals being scored (or denied) on the efforts of an individual. And finally, if the shootout was taken out, how might that change how teams play? Everyone's playing by the same rules, so no one has cause to whine about it.

Wild in 6 Blues in 7 Ducks in 5 Sharks in 6 Bruins in 7 Habs in 6 Pens in 6 Rags in 5

If it were me: Franzen - Datsyuk - Nyquist -- Bergeron line and Chara. Abby - Legwand - Alfie -- Soderberg line Tatar - Sheahan - Jurco -- Paille line Miller - Helm - Glendening -- Krejci line

I don't think ROW alone is good enough. I think you need to account for R/OT ties as well. (Or even better, just go back to having ties...) Also, season series is the second tiebreaker, goal differential is the third. GF is not a tiebreaker at all.

I swear I thought this thread was going to be a report that he was injured again.

What I mean is you act like Babs and Kenny were trying to tout their own genius. Like they were saying, "Look how awesome we were to play the kids". Like you're searching for some negative connotation to read into what was said. Also, I think many fans interpret a kid being sent to the minors as a statement that the kid isn't ready, or isn't good enough. I don't think that's true at all. I think our management just knows that having good players in the minors is a good thing. An insurance policy. Someone gets hurt, or the team is struggling, it gives you options. While there's no doubt the Wings do like to rely on vets, like I've said before they are not nearly as opposed to youth as most seem to think. And the vets, as much as people like to call them absolutely awful, have typically been much better than they get credit for. Familiarity breeds contempt. Last year Cleary scored at a rate similar to Nyquist and Tatar, was also one of our top Pkers, and 2nd on the team in playoff scoring. Which is not to say that he should have been brought back, or that Sammy should have been signed. Just saying that it's a rare situation that a kid that really deserves to be on the team is left off. It's not the pattern you all suggest it is. Nor are kids the answer to every problem. They're just new, which makes them exciting. Drop the double standards and judge everyone objectively.

No, not really. Bert for a little bit in Abby's spot. But why let reality get in the way of a good *****-fest, amirite? This one time, I heard Babs and Kenny talking about playing Bert-Cleary-Sammy for 60 minutes a game. Decided it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the league though. Dumb ol' Babs and Kenny.

Not really sure where the "bold" thing is coming from. Sounds like you're just inventing something to criticize. I also have to question your speculation about what was "planned", since it doesn't really match up with reality. You really think Bert, Sammy, and Cleary would have been in the top 6? On a team with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Weiss, and Alfredsson? Coached by a guy who seems determined to make Abby a top-6er? None of those guys have ever had the kind of prominence some fans seem to think they did. They weren't supposed to be stars, weren't signed instead of stars, and weren't paid like stars. They're just role-players who, for the most part, have performed very well for their roles and pay grade. Just not so much last year or this. And this year their roles seemed to be even smaller than usual. (Hard to say about last year, since Bert and Sammy missed most of it.) The planned top 6 seemed to be: Zetterberg-Datsyuk-Abdelkader Franzen-Weiss-Alfredsson Bottom 6 requires a bit of speculation, since we weren't healthy to start. Helm - Seems obvious he would be a regular Miller - Played every game, even when we've had healthy options, seems obvious Andersson - 4th center until recently, seems obvious That leaves 3 spots open for Bert, Sammy, Cleary, Tatar, Emmerton, Tootoo, Eaves. With a healthy team, two of those guys are gone. Considering how the season has played out, it's probably safe to say it would have been two of Emmy, Tootoo, and Eaves (leaving Sammy out because we didn't get any real cap relief from him). Emmy was waived before the start of the year, only got to stay because we needed a center. Eaves was hurt at first, and has always been pretty much the first out of the lineup, so we'll go with those two. Sammy, Tootoo, and Tatar it seems were in competition for a spot. Over the first 9 games, only one was in the lineup at a time. Sammy and Tootoo each got 4, Tatar got 1. Tatar came back in game 10, and hasn't left since. No reason to think that would have gone any differently, since we were still pretty healthy at the time. So the last three likely end up being Tatar, Bert, and Cleary. Obviously, Nyquist should have replaced one of Bert or Cleary. But Sheahan or Jurco? No good spot for them when we're healthy. They are better served playing a key role in GR, adding depth to the organization, than fighting over the 12th forward spot here. Even if we do finagle the lineup to get them in, I don't think it makes us better. Only so much ice-time to go around.

The way the Wings handle their prospects is much closer to the way the rest of the league does than I think people realize. Aside from the high-first-rounders, most prospects spend considerable time in minor leagues and usually get their first opportunities from injuries. Also, I don't think those "worthless old hacks" have been as common (or as worthless) as you think. Bert, Cleary, and Sammy only account for two roster spots and those are already taken by Nyquist and Sheahan. Alfie and Legwand are far from useless, and while we might be able to get similar production from Jurco or Pulkkinen or Mantha, I'd rather have the extra depth. When injuries hit (and they hit almost every team almost every year) I'd rather have someone NHL ready come in.

We joke, but people think Franzen should be a 40+ scorer based on a similar breakout hot streak six years ago. If Nyquist settles in as a 25-30 goal guy, he could be our new whipping boy.

As fantastic as it would be to beat the Pens in the first round, beating the Bruins (especially if they win the PT) would be almost as good. On the other hand losing to the Pens would be much worse for me. I think our chances in either series are about the same. Add the O6 factor, it makes Boston an easy choice for me.

At last word, he's heading back to Europe. Likely to be better options anyway. Quincey is better.

I kind of doubt Almquist comes back. Red Wings (or another NHL team) or Sweden would be my guess for him. And I doubt any of the other defensemen make the Wings, so I'd say they'd all be back in GR, and probably at least one of Paetch or Evans. I think Emmerton could be back, since we look pretty thin at center after trading Jarnkrok. Sheahan is not waiver exempt so he will be on the Wings. Ferraro would probably pass waivers, but you never know. Wings might also like him enough they won't want to risk it. McIntyre, Aubry, Janmark (if he comes over)... not sure if any of the tryouts they've recently added are centers, but even so it's a weak group. Wingers look a bit better with AA and Mantha joining Pulu and probably Jurco. Frk should be back and will hopefully improve. Tvrdon maybe gets another shot. Hoggan probably back. Maybe Callahan if he clears. You mention Nastasiuk in the comments, but I didn't think he was eligible. If I'm wrong I'm sure he'd be in the mix.

Not really. Sometimes small mistakes can have large consequences. Regardless, it's a situation that very rarely occurs. No reason to harp about how we shouldn't do something when we're already not doing it.

Having NHL ready players in the minors is not a bad thing. The AHL isn't just for development; it's also additional depth. History says at some point you'll need those guys. 850-900 skaters play in the NHL each year; there are 630 regular roster spots. So every year, on average, you're looking at 7-9 call-ups per team. Many are just bodies on the bench, playing a few minutes when their coach thinks no one's looking, but there's a very good chance that at some point you'll need someone for more than that. When you do it's better to have someone who's ready for it. You don't want a player who's better than someone on your roster being stuck in the minors, but that literally almost never happens. Nyquist may be the only real example. No need to belabor this point. Yeah, we signed too many forwards, so a good one got stuck in the minors for 20 games. It's not the big deal, nor the organizational philosophy, some people are making it out to be.