Buppy

But the fact that we have been winning, despite how terrible you think they've been, says that we don't' need to change anything. There's no good reason to risk making the 2nd pairing worse. And what I'm saying about the kids is that it doesn't matter how much they've played. It still wouldn't change the need to leave a spot or two open for them down the road. We can still upgrade, it just has to be something short term. We could have played every one of our kids for 82 games each this year and it wouldn't have changed that.

We have five guys who run out of options after two more years, and all of them look like they have NHL potential. Nothing we could learn about any of them this year would make us give up on them. Regardless of how much they played, or how well/poorly, we'd still need to leave room for them in the future. If anything, in regards to bringing in outside help on defense, we needed to further gauge Smith, Kindl, and Lashoff (and Dekeyser, though it's seemed obvious basically from the start that he had a future here). If we decide Kindl and Lashoff have no future, we can plan to open those spots when the kids are ready and make a longer commitment now for someone to replace Quincey. And we're 6-3-1 with the Kindl/Lashoff pairing. Hardly as crippling as you suggest.

Most of our injuries were at forward. When we did have injuries on defense, we gave three different kids a look. Giving anything more than that would have meant taking time away from Smith or Lashoff (two young guys themselves) or Kindl (who isn't all that old, and showed a lot of promise last year). You're not necessarily going to find out in 10 or 20 games whether a kid can be an NHL player or not. Some players can look good at first, but still take a while to fully develop. Some may not look good at first, but still develop into a good player. Our defense prospects still have two years of waivers. Plenty of time to evaluate them more thoroughly.

What about the last few years for Tampa Bay? Half this board wants Kenny crucified because we've declined to borderline playoff team. Yzerman started with a team that finished 7th overall (only 1 point less than Detroit that year) and went to the conference finals, dropped to 20th overall and out of the playoffs the next year, 28th overall and fighting for the 1st pick last year, and now rebounded to a similar spot as us and still worse than when he started. Board went ape nuts when we traded a kid who had never played in the NHL, I can't even imagine the hell that would have rained down had Kenny traded Datsyuk for Callahan, much less been rumored to be the reason for Datsyuk demanding a trade. If what's happened in TB under Stevie had happened here under Kenny, I'm sure someone here would already have a time machine built and Kenny's mom would be in big trouble...

Don't forget Washington. They can still get to 91, though they can't win a tiebreaker against us. Both Toronto ans Washington have tough games tomorrow, but regardless what they do our job is the same: Beat Buffalo then give everything we got to get at least a point in Pittsburgh.

Well, it's not the automatic way it's done. More often than not the really good players do earn roster spots before they run out of waiver exemptions. Usually because they're good enough to earn an injury call-up prior to that, and perform well when they do. Occasionally it's just because we have an opening. Fischer, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Filppula, Helm, Smith, Brunner, Dekeyser... all of them did it. Possibly Hudler and Kronwall as well. Maybe even Abby (I think 07-08 counted as his first year, but maybe not). Tatar and Nyquist are more exception than rule. The guys that normally get left down until they're out of options are the guys like Kindl, Emmerton, Andersson, Kopecky, Ritola, Mursak... Free agency is a narrow window, and once you let that opportunity go you can't go back. Sign a proven player and leave a kid you think is ready in the minors: It doesn't work out, or you have injuries, you have the option of using that kid. Pick the kid instead of a proven player what happens if it doesn't work? Fall back on another kid you didn't think was as good as the first one? And now we're getting to a point where kids are competing against other kids. Emmerton lost his spot to Andersson. Andy may be headed the same way, or if not then there's less opportunity for Glendening, Ferraro, and Callahan. Could be hard to find spots in the lineup for all of Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, and Pulkkinen, even if we leave one or both of Jurco and Pulu in GR next year and that's not even considering Mantha possibly jumping one (or both) of them. In short, nothing about how we handle young players needs to change. Mostly because we already handle them the way you're all suggesting anyway. The way we handled Nyquist this year should have been different, which is to say it should have been the way we handled other good kids in the past. But that's in the past, it worked out pretty well regardless, and there's no good reason to think it's a pattern or particularly likely to happen again.

I think Bylsma should get consideration, though I wouldn't say they've had more injuries to important players. It's fairly even, with the Wings being worse at forward and the Pens worse on defense. I think it comes down to what value you want to assume for Weiss and Vokoun.

I could see Bert getting back in, maybe Cleary or Andy if we're struggling. Most likely though it would take some injuries for any of them to get another chance.

Let's not get carried away here. He'll be 25 in a few weeks, and it's not like he's a Selke candidate. I agree the lack of offense shouldn't be a big concern, but it is worth noting. As it is, he looks like a decent 4th-line/reserve forward at a decent 4th-line/reserve price. Nothing to really get excited about.

I think the only one who might be considered better was Ribiero.

Meh. I wouldn't complain too much since there isn't really a ton of options out there, but I'd like to see a bit more on defense, and I'd like a penalty killer with some scoring upside. Someone who could be a direct upgrade over Miller, Andersson, or Glendening.

Rich was talking about an ordinary course buyout, not compliance. You can use an ordinary course buyout on as many players as you want, but you still take some cap hit for it. Rich gave the numbers in his post.

You're ROW numbers are off. You're giving total wins. NJ Can get to 38, Ott to 34, Tor to 33, Was to 31. So 9 pts so long as two of the wins are regulation/ot.

Wait... you're not going to say anything about it? I'm growing to like the new playoff format. Promotes divisional rivalries, but I think also compromises enough to minimize the chance of any team getting screwed out of a spot. The divisional champion thing, if they are actually doing that, just seems wierd. That shoud stay a regular season thing. The regular season is meaningless enough as it is, there needs to be something to it other than just making the playoffs. Back on topic though; it really says something about the severity of our injuries this year that apparently everyone here thought that any kind of April Fool's prank on the subject would be in poor taste.

Yeah, it was a desperate situation. Fighting for a playoff spot, Weiss having a setback, losing Datsyuk and Helm (and uncertain if any of the three would be back healthy this year), plus Zetterberg already out for the year, plus Franzen just coming back, and it was our last chance to add anything. And you are suggesting that the "logical" thought in that situation is play yet another kid with no NHL experience (and not exactly lighting up the AHL) rather than a proven performer who had 40 points already this year. The desperation likely contributed to the overpayment. Good job by Poile to recognize he had us in a bad spot and take advantage. However, given how well Sheahan has done, as well as Glendening looking like a quality 4th-liner, and all the other good looking prospects we have, I'd say we could afford it. Jarnkrok had one more year of waiver exemption. We have Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss, Helm, Sheahan, Andersson, and Glendening as center options for 3+ years. Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkkinen, and maybe Mantha in the same time frame as Jarnkrok. Then add several 4th line/reserve options. There wasn't much of an opportunity here for him. Even had we kept him it would have cost someone else an opportunity. Regardless of whether Jarnkrok becomes a top line player, or even a bona fide star, making the trade was a solid decision. And good decisions are as important as results. You shouldn't judge everything based on hindsight and speculation. We'll never know if we could have done the trade without including Jarnkrok so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is we had an immediate need and more "future potential" than we have spots for. You trade from strength to address a weakness, and that's exactly what we did. How it works out is also important, of course, but just not the only important factor.

At the risk of going too far off-topic, I think we need to keep this "kid" thing in perspective. It's not like these kids are fresh-from-the-draft teenagers. They're 22, 23, 24; most with multiple years in the minors to mature. If the evidence of anything is pretty strong, it's that "over-ripening" works. And it's not like we've ever been particularly averse to giving young players an opportunity, even when they've had a year or more left of waiver exemption. There's a fair-sized list going back to the 90s when we were just getting good, through Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Fischer in the early 2000s, then Filppula and Hudler, followed by Helm, and you could even count Brunner last year. The only thing noteworthy about the current youth injection is the number of good prospects we've accumulated in recent years. And while that quantity is definitely a good thing, it also means there just isn't room to give all the kids a chance.

I wouldn't consider being competitive in many of our losses to be a bad thing (and for the record, we've actually had a lead at some point in 22 of our 40 losses). It's not like we're blowing big leads all the time. 6 times we've lost after leading by two goals at some point. 3 times when leading by two in the third. Of course it's something that needs improvement, but I think pretty far from our biggest issue. Really, losing games where we're competitive suggests that we'd probably be winning a lot more if we were healthy. If we were getting blown out all the time I'd be inclined to think being healthy wouldn't help.

53 goals and 90 asssits in 137 games isn't just a playmaker either. That's a good all-around player who spent a lot of time with the puck. He had 371 shots in GR, virtually identical to his shots per game this year.

Losing Filppula we did need center depth. Could have used even more as it turned out. If we needed a power forward, which is debatable, it would have been in place of Alfie. Of course, seeing how the power forwards from last summer are working out, I'm kind of glad we didn't get any of them.

No, it isn't the same type of start. It's just some numbers that happen to be in the same ballpark. Bert in his first season (20/21 yo) scored 18g, 39p then regressed a bit for the next few years. Lucic scored 8g, 27p as a 19 yo rookie, then improved to 17g, 42p in his second year. Then had a regression year where he missed 30 games before breaking out for 30g as 23 yo. Kassian at 20/21 scored 4g, 10p in 44 games. 7g, 11p in 39 games the next year. So far this year his goal scoring pace is down from last year. He has not had the big rookie year of Bert, nor the big improvement of Lucic. There's nothing really similar except that the total goals is somewhat close after a similar amount of games. There's no real similarity between Bert and Lucic themselves, much less between either or both and Kassian. Again, all Kassian has done so far is not score a lot. Plenty of people have done that. Some good, some bad. Point is, Kassian is not very good right now. We don't have many (or really any) roster spots. Those we do have are better used for other needs.

Pretty big stretch to say "tracking like Bert and Lucic". So far all he's done is not score very much. Sure it's somewhat similar (though lower), but it's also similar to a mile long list of players who went on to never score very much. May not cost much to get him, but it would cost a roster spot (which are in short supply around here). He's a tougher (though hits less), less disciplined, defensively inferior, Abdelkader. TootooTwo. If we want that, might as well just put Tootoo back in since he wouldn't cost anything.

Just crazy enough to work!

I wouldn't consider Montreal out of reach either. They're 6 points up, but we have two in hand and play them twice. @Toronto @Boston Buffalo @Detroit @Florida @Tampa Bay @Ottawa Detroit @Chicago Islanders Rangers

Good news on Helm. Hopefully he has a new uniform made of kevlar bubble wrap so he can stick around for awhile. Seeing as we don't really have anyone for Pulkkinen to play with atm I can't complain too much, but I'd still rather see him than Bert, Emmy, or Ferraro. You'd think, since it's Helm coming back, we could afford to take out a current PKer.

He wasn't demoted. 18 of his 27 shifts were with Kronwall, including one in OT. PPs/PKs looks like the main reason they were separated at times.