Buppy

Hmm... Richards back to TB? Lot of speculation that NY would buy him out, but a trade might be better, even if the Rags have to retain some of the salary. Shave a mil or two off his contract and it doesn't look too bad.

So if I decide to ignore half our defensive prospects, does that make us thin there? Or are you the only one who's allowed to decide which prospects count?

How is it that when I type "unlikely" you all keep reading it as "impossible"?

Actually, for every O'Reilly there are a hell of a lot of Kindls, and Marek Zagrapans, and some Hanzals, Coglianos, and Downies. That's kind of my point. It's unlikely we'll find a star drafting outside the top 10. Good players aren't that uncommon, but "good" isn't going to replace Pav and Hank. Replacing them isn't a good reason, by itself, to target a certain position. We're not "thin" just because you don't like, or want to ignore, half our forward prospects. Maybe a bit stronger at defense, but we're not weak. Most organizational rankings agree that we're pretty deep all-around. We're good everywhere, but not great anywhere. We do lack star power, and at every position. But we probably won't find that, at any position, where we end up picking. All other things being equal, I'd give preference to a center, then a winger (especially if they have some center potential), with defenseman last. But if there's a guy available, regardless of position (except maybe goalie), that looks significantly better we should take them.

74 or more games in 7 out of 10 years prior to signing here. He also played in the AHL during the lockout. 80 games. 8 out of 11. 62 and 64 (out of 68) games his first two years in the OHL. 53 total games 01-02, not sure how many he might have missed from injury, since he was on the Florida roster for part of the year then went back to junior, but I'll still say he could have played 68. He's played 72 out of 73 playoff games his teams have played. All told that's 988 out of 1140 possible games. ~87%, 10 of 13 years being better than that, and one more year being unsure but maybe lower. Typically, around half the league misses 8 or more games every year. In 11-12, there were around 8300 man-games lost to injury (out of 44280). Almost 19%. Average of about 13 games lost for each of the 620 regular roster players. Injuries happen, and happen to most players at some point. Minor injuries happen to most players every year. But even if you do assume he will miss time, you should still assume he would put up decent numbers...since he has done exactly that over his career. The least we should expect is 14-15 goals, 40-ish points. Maybe not great for almost $5M, but his recent history does suggest he should be better than that, at least in the short term. If you don't like Weiss, fine, just say that. Stop acting like there's some statistical evidence that proves he was going to suffer a major injury this season, or will in the future, or that his production would decline dramatically.

Meh, if he's really looking for a deal in the 7yr/$6.5-7M range, I want no part of him. That depends on what you mean by "do all they can" and "upgrade the team". If you mean upgrade for this year, there's a hell of a lot that could be done that would be incredibly stupid from an organizational standpoint. If you mean upgrading the organization as a whole, upgrading for the future without sacrificing this year or upgrading this year without sacrificing the future (or both), that "all they can" list is likely to be pretty short. Sounds to me like you just want to see something happen so you have some news to get excited about. But easing fan boredom is a poor excuse for making a trade. I would agree (though not necessarily with "crap and going to get worse" part), and it would seem Holland does too. However, not all deadline deals are expensive and/or rentals. Something like the Stuart deal would make sense; a veteran defensive defenseman wouldn't likely cost a lot. Most teams looking for defenseman at the deadline tend to focus on puck-movers. A scorer probably isn't likely, since the demand is usually so high. But there's a lot of teams with little cap space, so who knows.

Like I said, possible but unlikely. That you can cherry-pick a few (or even a few dozen) very good to great players from the hundreds drafted outside the top-10 in the last decade doesn't disprove that. Center should be a priority, but only because we don't have that many. Six I think, and two of those seem unlikely to make the NHL. Has nothing to do with replacing Datsyuk and Zetterberg. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore a better player in favor of a center based on an unreasonable expectation.

Possible, sure. But unlikely. And I wouldn't consider O'Reilly "great".

Replacements for Pav and Hank will most likely come by drafting high enough to get a truly elite prospect. If we're picking outside the top 10, or maybe even top 5, we're probably not going to get anyone all that much more promising than Jarnkrok or Sheahan. Again, not saying we shouldn't look for a center. Just saying we shouldn't be expecting to answer the Pav and Hank question in this draft.

You don't necessarily need twice as many forward prospects. More, just not twice as many. Forwards are generally easier and cheaper to obtain as UFAs or in trade. Also, prospects don't cease to exist because you decide you don't like them, nor is GR the only place we can have a prospect. But even just in GR we should have the 4 you list, plus Jarnkrok (already has more points than Jurco had last year, in 20 fewer games). Jurco and Glendening could both be there. Frk probably deserves as much consideration as Jensen, and probably more than DeHaas (still has 2 or 3 years of college before we really begin to evaluate him, certainly seems unlikely he'll be in GR anytime soon). Janmark deserves as much as Backman, both are doing fairly well overseas, and neither is certain to be in GR next year. And we do have several young forwards on the roster already. While we have some young defensemen as well, I think the forward group has proven more capable thus far. I'd agree that a top-6 center prospect is our biggest need, just not by such a degree that we absolutely have to take one in the first round, or focus on that area (or forwards in general) alone. We have good depth at both forward and defense. Like last year, it all depends on who's available. If a good defenseman drops to us but the top centers are gone, it could be worth it. It may be a moot point though. Seems this draft is pretty weak at defense, there may not be any good ones available for us anyway.

Probably more than he's worth, given the year he's having. Also don't think the Isles would trade him.

That's silly. Prior to last year he had 6 straight years of 74 or more games. And that after he had major injuries in 2 of the previous 3 seasons. By your logic, that shouldn't have been possible. Contrary to what you seem to think, a player being injured does not mean they will remain injured for the rest of their career, nor that they will suffer an injury of equal (or progressively worse) degree every season. Even if any of that was true, we should still have every reason to be confident that he can produce better than he has thus far.

Not to mention Sheahan, Jurco, and Glendening. And also Nyquist and Tatar just starting out. And Helm, Abby, and Andy not much older. Weiss isn't that old. Callahan, Ferraro, and maybe even Tvrdon still have a chance...

Actually, our top 6 stacks up reasonably well against the top teams. If we assume Weiss can be productive here, he essentially replaces Alfie (assuming he doesn't come back). Add in some others and we have the making of some very nice depth. Fortunately, we could have a couple openings, and the cap space, to improve that even further. Possibly even some pretty big improvements. Our defense needs work. While Smith and Dekeyser may still improve, and we have some decent prospects, I think we need more. We need to be steadier on the bottom pair, a better #4, and much better on offense. I wouldn't want to count on Smith and the kids to provide that. At least not this year or next. But I think we're getting our threads crossed here. This is the deadline thread, not the next year thread. Hank's surgery gives us a bit of flexibility, but I still don't think we have the pieces to add multiple players (good ones anyway). Maybe a cheap depth scorer currently under the radar. Can't think of anyone off the top of my head. Mostly I'd focus on "cheap". I don't think we're in a position where it makes any sense to give much away.

First, you spelled "joking" wrong. There's no "*****" in it. I found it a bit funny that you've made so many posts complaining about our lack of scoring, saying we need a big time scorer and not more mid-tier guys, but now this lineup is "a great potential top 6 group". Our current roster has 7 (or more) guys that could potentially score 20+, maybe 2-4 who could potentially hit 30. Not this year as it stands, but coming in to the season you could have said that, especially considering 5 of them normally do. We have, and have had, similar scoring levels from our top 6. We haven't had the kind of secondary scoring your talking about now (though you didn't really say anything about that in the OP), though when it's been suggested that we go for depth over high-priced stars you seem to be against it, arguing that we need stars to replace Datsyuk and Zetterberg. This is basically the exact opposite of all you've been saying elsewhere, but apparently "great" because they're big. And I'm not saying it wouldn't be good. I think it'd be great if we could put together that kind of depth, with players big, small, or in between. Just teasing you about the apparent self-contradiction.

A top 6 full of 20 goal scorers is great? Isn't that your complaint about our current top 6? But at least yours is big. If we tank a little we should grab Khalil Mack. Not the biggest guy at 6'3", 248 and maybe doesn't have quite the explosive speed off the corner that Clowney has, but he doesn't have Clowney's character issues either. He'd be unblockable in the NHL.

Trying to postpone surgery until the off-season, or avoid it entirely, is pretty commonplace. And I'm not sure we'd have been better off having him out in January. We might already be out playoff contention. Also, if he was medically cleared to play, I don't think Holland had the authority to stop him from going to the Olympics.

We could only do a deal like that if we were sure Hank was out for the remainder of the season. As of yet, I haven't seen anything to suggest we're even sure he'll be out the 10 games necessary to LTIR him at all. That said, on the page linked in the Tavares injury thread, some Isles fan suggested trading Vanek and their first for Martin Jones. That'd be a move I think even Snow would be ashamed of (and technically I don't think they can trade their 1st at the deadline), but if we could pull off that kind of robbery...

You're forgetting that the whole point of moving those guys was to bring in Zidlicky (and Jagr in LWs proposal). Basically the same defense we have now, just with Zidlicky in Quincey's spot, and Ouellet/Marchenko/Sproul in the 7 spot. Depth may be a little worse, but the top 6 is better. It also frees up a bit of cap space. But I agree that a lot of people here would hate him.

Not sure you're thinking of the right player. His injury history is no where near as bad as Colas and he's much better offensively. And while he's definitely an offensive defenseman, he's not a major liability defensively. He's currently playing top-line minutes on one of the better defensive teams. He's at least no worse or more mistake-prone than Q or Smith, so we'd at least break even on defense while greatly improving our offense from the back end. And I'm not sure how moving an AHL player, who may not have a future here (and maybe not even an NHL future), a player in the scratch rotation, and a player that doesn't fit here, and probably won't be back, is shooting anything.

Isn't Pitkanen out for the season? Or did something change? Zidlicky would be a good fit, and workable under the cap if we move Quincey. I'd have to think NJ would want help up front though, they're too close to being in a playoff spot to really be considered a seller. We don't really have a lot to spare, especially if Hank is going to miss much time.

No one really has cap issues. Probably the closest is Boston with Hamilton and Krug coming up, but they should be able to handle that. Plus being in our division... Under-performing, or even just "not developing super-fast", when talking about a young defenseman, is pretty hard to tell from just plain "not that good". Adam Larsson maybe. Gudbranson. While not RFAs, Schenn or Myers might make a good target.

WAY too much to give up for Ott. At most I'd go Andy plus one pick or prospect (and not a top one either). Also, how do we shoehorn in another $2M+ in cap?

Barring what would seem to be unlikely waiver claims, we are ~$1.86M over the cap. Injuries aren't really a factor in terms of what salary we can add, unless we are certain that players will be on LTIR for the remainder of the season. That means as it stands we have to waive at least two of: Cleary, Miller, Eaves; plus one of: Sammy, Bert, Glendening, or whomever is left of the previous 3. Depending on who we'd actually send down, the most salary we could conceivably add is about $1M (though that would be with only 12 forwards, so more realistically around $100-300k). So any trade scenario pretty much needs to be dollar for dollar capwise. Upgrading at forward is all but out of the question. All the forwards we could potentially upgrade have small cap hits, so we'd need mutiple moves and we probably don't have enough moveable peices do that in any sensible way. Upgrading at defense, moving either Quincey or Kindl, is more promising, but there's only two targets (Macdonald and Gilbert) rumored to be available who meet our cap restrictions. Maybe a few others if teams are willing to eat some cap. In short, very few opportunities so we should probably expect nothing.

Sorry, had to correct your nerdness.