Buppy

Too early. Probably never going to be a star, but he could still easily develop into a decent top-4. Or he could be Lebda...

Don't know that I'd call Bogo a "stud" really. Kinda reminds me of Souray, where you think, "He has everything, he should be one of the best in the game", but then he isn't... Also not sure WPG is hurting all that much on the left, even assuming they lose Stuart. Clitsome is pretty good, and they have some young guys who look like they could be good. That said, I'd give up E for him, depending on how much we had to add. Smith is a pipe dream at the moment, and Dekeyser will probably be better. Though, like the previous poster I think if they were to move anyone it'd be Buffy. Not interested in that.

No reason to trade anyone now (not counting Almquist), all our D have two more years of waiver exemption. The longer we wait, the better idea we'll have of what they'll be. Most likely they'll all go up in value too. After next season, or the 2016 trade deadline, is the time to start shopping. Max their value, but before the immediate pressure to move them.

It's not really close on injuries. On defense, we have had 6 games played by call-ups. At forward, 117 (or 124, depending on who we want to consider a call-up). While almost everyone on defense has missed games, most of those injuries were one at a time. At forward, we had several guys out at once, most of them being our better scorers. Smith, Kindl, and Lashoff are mostly interchangeable, and one of them would be sitting every night if we were totally healthy. I don't count their injuries. Kronwall, Dekeyser, and Ericsson have combined to miss 38 games. Only 2 of those from Kronwall. At forward, our top 4 scorers, in PPG (and 2-5 in GPG); Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Alfie, and Franzen; have missed 73 games, many of them overlapping. Nyquist and Tatar, 5th and 7th in PPG (1st and 6th in GPG) have missed 34 games, albeit not all from injury. I won't even count Weiss, on the basis that he sucked when he was playing anyway, nor Helm, on the basis that even though he got kinda hot for a bit he's not really an important scorer, nor Abby for mostly the same reason. It's one thing to say "good teams fight through it", quite another to face the reality of having 2-5 key scorers all out at the same time. Fighting through it, on the rare occasions teams find a way to do so, is rarely a matter of depth or even having enough star power so the next guy in line is just as good as anyone who gets injured. It's a matter of good team play and guys stepping up to contribute more than you would expect. Say we do sign Vanek, and then he gets hurt, and it happens to be at the same time Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen are out (as they inevitably will be, according to you), would we not be a "good team" if we can't still score 3 goals a game then? Would our forwards still suck because there wasn't another 30 yo "star" to throw $9M at? Would we need to then throw $9 or $10M at Kane or Ryan the next year, because "good teams" apparently are supposed to have so many stars that it's impossible for injuries to have any effect? As for the defense, we don't need a top-notch player to improve on a bottom 4 of Smith, Kindl, Lashoff, and Almquist. Should we not look at the defense at all, because, you know...Vanek? I don't really get your opposition to discussing the defense.

If I'm paying for a season, and getting a season, I really don't care about the exact disbursements. Like I said, there could possibly be an issue with trades (or injuries) and whether or not the percentage of payments made equals the percentage of service received, but that should be a rare case. If it were an issue, just make sure the paychecks are scheduled roughly in accordance to games played, and not have a pay period during the break. I was kind of being a smartass with the "free country" thing, and didn't mean to spark a political debate. My point was just that it really isn't much of a risk. It's hockey, not a Russian Roulette tournament. The likelihood of injury is small. I don't think it's reasonable for the league to prohibit participation. By all means, make the players bear the liability if they do get injured, but don't say they can't play. For the "property" thing, there are no words to describe how wrong that is. So I will invent one now... Negoggliotic. So far as I found, this is all the CBA has to say on the Olympics. "24.5 The NHL and the NHLPA shall continue to work together to jointly create and exploit other international projects and initiatives involving NHL Players other than International Hockey Games, including games, series, events or contests (e.g., the World Cup of Hockey, European Champions' League, Victoria Cup Competition, Olympic participation, etc.)." Sure, if the players agree to not play, the whole thing is moot. But from all being said so far, it sure sounds like the league will be making the decision on its own.

The checks get written regardless. Doesn't really matter when or what the player is doing at the time. Might be a minor complaint if the break causes there to be an extra pay period prior to the trade deadline (but no games to offset it), but I'm not sure if that's the case. The injury thing should should be a non-issue. I assume we still consider this a free country, and we are generally opposed to the notion of letting our employers dictate what risks we are allowed to take in our private lives. While I might agree with the notion of owners requiring the players bear some of the liability if they were to get injured (though I'm pretty sure they already have insurance for that), I don't think there's any justification to stop them from playing. Injuries, much less serious ones, aren't really that common. It's not an unreasonable risk. As for the loss of interest/profits from the break; do you have any data to support that? 2010 saw record revenues, and I think 2006 did as well and that was right after the lockout year. Not sure about 98 or 02, but I know in general revenues have been skyrocketting for about 20 years now. It's disruptive and a pain in the ass from a scheduling standpoint. Big deal. It's once every four years. This is nothing but a power play from the owners and league, because they think of the players as property. They think any minor concern they might be able to think of matters more than anything the players might want. I'd like to say it will eventually come back on them, but it probably wont. Lockout #4 will come, the owners will win again, and by the next year no one will care.

While scoring tends to rule in the regular season, strong defense is more important in the playoffs. Secondly, our injuries up front have been much worse than on defense. Third, the two are not entirely separate. The top scoring teams this year all have defenses that score more than ours. About 12 more goals and almost 30 more points on average. The high-scoring Wings teams of the past also had high-scoring defense. Fact is we need to improve both areas (and goaltending needs to be better as well). On defense, we need to improve in both ends. At forward, we're mostly fine in our own end but need to be better on offense. I'm inclined to believe we'll see more improvement from returning forwards than we will from returning defensemen. Barring trades or buyouts, we have 2 openings at forward (or 3 if we count Tootoo) and 1 on defense. We have 4 more forwards either out of options or NHL ready, 1 defenseman out of options, and 2 or 3 maybe ready, but I don't think any of them really meet our needs. We should leave some depth in GR, and if any of the three guys out of options make the team, it should be in the place of a current player. So still 2 forwards, 1 defense. No matter how good you think Vanek is, he can't fill all three spots. We need to replace Quincey, with someone better. A high-end two-way defenseman would be perfect, but there aren't any. So a good shut-down guy is the next best option. For offense from the back-end, we can hope that Kindl, Smith, or Almquist can provide that but I'm not too optimistic. I'd rather see us add someone else. Again, no matter how badly you think we need Vanek, or how awesome you think he is, he can't fill a vacant spot on defense or upgrade Kindl or Smith. At forward, we probably need one penalty killer, though Sheahan, Abby, or Weiss might be able to take that role. Glenny might take this spot, though I'd rather he stay in GR unless he replaces Miller or Andy. Ferraro or Callahan could take it, but again I'd rather they replace Miller or Andy if they earn it. Tootoo I'd like to have on the roster, in the scratch rotation (if we're lucky enough to have one), though I wouldn't be heartbroken if one of the kids takes his spot. Still, I think we want someone who can kill penalties for one of the FA adds, so we don't have to play Miller and Andy every game, or rely too heavily on Sheahan, Abby, or Weiss (or Pav and Hank). This is where I like Kulemin. Worst case he's a PKer with a bit of offense who throws his body around. Best case it's the same but more than just a bit of offense. For the second forward we just need someone who can score. There's your spot for Vanek, if we can get him. I think he'll want too big a commitment, but hopefully I'm wrong.

I'm ok with it. Pretty much once in a lifetime opportunity to represent your country on your home soil. He has every right to play. If something unfortunate happens, so be it. Same goes for any other player. NHL players have played in 4 games so far, which has coincided with a period of enormous growth for the league. The Olympics probably has had little to do with that growth, but at least we can safely say there has been no discernable negative impact. And I'm guessing these games won't either. Sure it would be better if the games didn't interrupt the season, but a little break once every four years can not be that great a burden.

Yeah, can't blame Kenny for not going after a defenseman last summer, since we were actually good in our own end and Dekeyser seemed to work so well. Now though, I think it's obvious that Q just can't be productive in our offense, and he's not reliable enough on defense to make up for it. Kindl looks like a lost cause; so disappointing after last year. I think we need a vet stop-gap, both a stay at home guy and an offensive guy. Zidlicky (doubt Boyle goes anywhere) and Greene would be great. Hopefully a couple years later, Smith would be ready for a top 4 spot, Deke a #1 shut-down, and two of our five prospects that will be out of options will be ready for a 3rd pair spot.

I'd like Gilbert, but not interested in Kulikov nor in giving up Smith at what's probably a low value point. Also not crazy about the idea of giving up a nice prospect for a pending UFA. Maybe if we could work out an extension in advance. Kindl, a lower prospect (Ferraro, Callahan, Almquist), and a conditional pick?

$16 million, which I think could be a little optimistic, really isn't that much when you're talking about paying $9M to one guy. But the cap isn't really my issue. We look like we should be in good shape for the next few years in that regard. My issue isn't even "Don't sign Vanek". My issue is this ridiculous false dilema you're creating where every alternative sucks, like we're teetering on the edge of oblivion and Vanek is the only thing that could possibly save us. We don't need stars. We have stars. Most teams, most Cup teams even, don't have more than a few real stars. (And if we do have a need, it's on defense.) You just don't believe we can depend on the stars we have, even if you don't want to admit it. Problem is, if we can't, then Vanek won't save us. Vanek can't carry a team. If we're going to be successful, Pav, Hank, the secondary scoring, the defense, Jimmy...all have to be good. You seem to have this idea that that will all be true if we add Vanek, but all be false if we don't. And really, Cleary, Bert, or Sammy are the other options? Really? Alfie, Jagr, Iginla, Moulson, Gaborik, Heatley, Stastny, Boyes, Raymond, Setoguchi, Vrbata, Kulemin, either Jokinen, Bolland, Cammalleri, Michalek...I'm sure there's more. Of course not all of them will be available, or have a good price/term, or be a great fit...but there are options between Vanek and Sammy. Some may be better options than Vanek. Personally, I like Seto and Kulemin. Go for depth over power at the top. Either or both really click, it should open up some options to trade for defense. They, or the team in general, struggle we should still have some trade flexibility. Should also be able to accrue some cap space to add a rental or two at the deadline, if the situation warrants. Over-commit to Vanek and things don't go well, probably won't have many options to fix it.

And if that's true, it's also true with Vanek. You act like we'll be a terrible team, like it will take a miracle to avoid getting shut out 82 times, if we don't get him, but we'll be some top contender if we do. It's absurd. Whatever we'll be, we'd be at most a little bit better with Vanek. You're being irrationally optimistic about Vanek, and irrationally pessimistic about everything else. And I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the only two options are Vanek or stand pat. Believe it or not there are alternatives. The uncertainty you're so anxious about is all the more reason to maintain some flexibility with the roster. To sign a couple guys for cheaper and leave Jurco and Glenny in GR, while holding some cap in reserve. To keep ourselves open for opportunities beyond next summer, for wholesale changes if we decide we need to go that route.

Injuries, in the general sense, are not an anomoly. But injuries (major injuries costing more than a few game at least) to specific players almost always are. There are few players with particularly bad luck or some condition that's likely lead to recurrent injury. Case in point in last year. The majority of our games lost came from Helm, Bert, Sammy, and Cola. All 4 players have been healthier this year, with only Helm missing any real time. While we will certainly have injuries next year, it will probably be some different players, and probably not so many important ones all at the same time. All that being beside the point though. Point is Vanek wouldn't have any impact on our injuriy situation.

That's pretty pessimistic. It is far more likely that our injuries this year are anomolous. While players may suffer more injuries and take longer to recover on average as they get older, it's unlikely to be a linear progression where each year is worse than the year before. Furthermore, I was including Nyquist and Tatar in that quantity, neither of which were due to injuries. Weiss is also not all that old, and has generally been fairly healthy. Alfredsson is the one likely to be replaced. Hank, prior to this year, has been healthier in his 30s than he was in his 20s. While Datsyuk has had some trouble in recent years, he only missed one game last year. Franzen is the only one I'd be particularly concerned about, because of the concussion history. However, even if we assume the injuries will get worse, that's no less true if we sign Vanek (who's already 30, so with this logic we'd need to be concerned about his health soon). So again, if our situation is so dire without Vanek, it's not all that rosy with him, even if you think Jurco is the only alternative. Of course he's not the only alternative though. There's likely to be several other options good for 20-25 goals or more. If we want to be as optimistic about some other guys as you are about Vanek, we could say there's a handful with 30+ potential. Vanek is far from a necessity. Personally, I think someone will offer him something similar to Getzlaf/Perry. 7 years at $8M or so. And I wouldn't be too surprised to see someone go even higher. I think getting him for less than 7 years will cost a very significant premium, unless he wants to go the Hossa route. I don't see any of those scenarios being very favorable to the Wings. We'd probably be better off aiming for one or two of the lower-on-the-radar guys like a Setoguchi, Vrbata, or Raymond. Or try to turn Kulemin into a scorer. Add more assets so we have the flexibility to try to flip some for defensive help. Bottom line, of course give Vanek a call, but if we miss out it's not that big a deal.

They are fine. All defensemen make mistakes. All defensemen get scored on. All defensemen have occasional bad games. Statistically, our top 3 measure up fairly well compared to the top 3 on the better defensive teams (.9 GA/G on average for the top 3 in average ice time from LA, StL, Bos, and Pit vs ours at .96 GA/G). The 4 and 5 spots, Quincey and Smith, are a significantly bigger difference (.66 vs our .97). Our bottom could use some help too (.53 vs .66). Adding a top defenseman, especially if it was someone good enough to move Kronwall to the second unit, would certainly help tremendously. Pushing Q to the 3rd pair, with less exposure to top forwards, probably helps that unit as well. Of course, needing a top defender (especially since we need a guy who's good at both ends) doesn't mean we have the ability to acquire one, or fit one under the cap. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't be very good if we somehow did.

Say that enough and you're going to convince yourself that they're actual offers, and get pissed at Kenny for rejecting them. I see no reason why either of those teams would have any interest in those offers. Even if Boston was desperate for a defenseman, I don't see why they'd have much interest in Quincey, much less give up Morrow to get him.

You're the one being silly. We're hovering just above being a bottom 1/3rd team now, and our top 7 forwards have combined to miss 137 games. Basically a third of the season from each. And that with a defense corps that's almost completely ineffective offensively. Assuming Vanek would score 40+ is optimistic. Sure, he had a great year last year. 26, 32, and 28 the 3 years prior. On pace for ~28 this year, even though he's playing on one of the best lines in the league. There are plenty of other UFAs who will be available, some not far from Vanek's level. You think our offense is that bad, but you think adding Vanek (or more accurately, replacing Franzen with Vanek) would make us good? Realistically, he'd likely add 5-20 goals over whoever we add if we don't get him. He is not the hockey messiah. He's not Gordio Gretzman. We're not doomed for all eternity if we don't get him. We're an ok team (possibly better, hard to say) without him. There's probably 5-10 guys who could push us into the realm of good. I'm all for getting Vanek, I'd even overpay a bit if we could get him for 2-3 years. I'd be ok with 7 years if it was a good hit. But you're blowing both our need and his value way out of proportion.

True, one more deal isn't going to be that great a burden (unless we seriously overpay, and $7M wouldn't be). For me it's more a matter of principle. You don't want to make bad decisions just because you think you can survive the consequences. Furthermore, we do need to start thinking about a true rebuild. And that's true even if we do sign Vanek. While I understand the desire to try to build another Cup team around Pav and Hank, that shouldn't be our only thought. The real risk in making a long commitment to someone like Vanek is falling into the trap of building a team with no real foundation. We add Vanek, in a few years Pav retires, but we still have no replacement. Maybe Hank is no longer top tier, Franzen declined further, or even both retired... we still have some decent players, still a playoff team, still maybe that illusion of being just a piece or two away... so we start thinking about what we can add to Vanek, bring in some new FA and repeat the process. A cycle of mediocrity where we're never quite good enough to win but never bad enough to get a true foundation player. Maybe it's worth it if we win a Cup in the next couple years, or maybe we recognize the trap and take steps to avoid it, but Vanek doesn't guarantee anything. Doesn't even guarantee that we'd actually be a better team than we are now. While good decisions offer no guarantees either, and can even have terrible results, at least you have the consolation of knowing it was a good decision.

Well, without going into whether there is, or should be, a self-imposed cap; Datsyuk will have a hit of $7.5M, and a salary next year of $10M. Hank is getting $29.5M in the next 4 years. They are at elite level salary even if Hank does have an artifically low cap hit. That may not be high enough, if indeed we aren't willing to pay more than that, to get the top UFA in any given year, but it is plenty enough to get a very good player. Failing to land Vanek, which is certainly possible (likely even) no matter what we're willing to pay, would not be the end of the franchise. There are other options, including just going with our own kids and hoping another opportunity presents itself later or we just get hot at the right time. Handing a blank check to the best UFA available is generally a poor way to build a team. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a good chunk for Vanek, since it looks like we have a mostly full and pretty cap-friendly roster for the next several years. But I'd be reluctant to make a long-term, big-dollar commitment to a 30 year old, and that's probably what it will take to land him.

$9M for Vanek isn't too outrageous, maybe a little high. That's just the way FA goes. I'd be very surprised though if he signs for anything but 7 years. Buying out Franzen makes little sense. Upgrading from Franzen to Vanek isn't that big a difference, once you scrape away a few layers of irrational hate. Considering there isn't likely to be anyone available to really fix our defense we want to add to our forward strength, not just upgrade by 5-10 goals.

Maybe a little. I wouldn't mind picking him up in a swap for Kindl (I doubt they'd want Q since he's also a pending UFA). I don't think someone like that makes a big difference though. I'd still want someone better for the top 4 next year, and he'll likely be too expensive for the bottom pair. But if we could pick him up now, get a little cap relief, then flip him at the draft to at least come close to recouping whatever pick we'd have to add with Kindl...I could go for that.

Quincey is serviceable. We don't need another team's Quincey, we need someone who's better than serviceable. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the better-than-Quinceys moving. At least not for what we have to offer.

So basically... It's ok to drive drunk if you're good at hockey?

Academic now, in light of the news on Kindl, however... We only need to clear space when Weiss and Franzen are back. (Technically, we're only claiming LTIR exemption for Weiss, but if Franzen is going to be out even after the break we could retro-actively claim it for him too.) Waiving Cleary now (as opposed to later) does absolutely nothing for our cap situation. We'd still be using the LTIR exemption, just less of it. But you don't get to save any that you don't use, so there's no benefit in that. Eventually, assuming we do get healthy and there are no salary-dump trades, we'll have to demote Sheahan, Jurco, Cleary, plus one of Miller or Eaves (or both if we want to keep a kid) to be cap compliant. That assumes no one would claim Cleary (or Bert if we waived him). Now that I've looked, we have the space to keepGlendening (and we wouldn't get any real benefit from demoting him, since he has such a small hit), so he'll likely be here for the rest of the year.

Weiss's play has hurt us more than the others, because he was supposed to be an important player. Sammy didn't get a regular spot until we were out of bodies and cap space, and even then it was 8 minutes on the 4th line. Neither Cleary nor Bert were as important, and both have produced more. That said, regardless of performance, the evidence of past performance strongly suggests that Weiss should be a more effective player than any of the kids. Having him over Sheahan and Jurco is a no brainer, considering we do need penalty killers, we have 12 forwards better than both of them. They should not have been on the team. Tots only missed 8 games early in the year, and in those games the 4 vets produced 6g, 8p. Replacing any one of them with Tots wouldn't have made any significant difference. The only real complaint is with Gus, who had the unfortunate distinction of being waiver exempt.