Buppy

Congrats to the kid... Link to his page at RWC

Keep in mind though that he's only played 22 games. While it looks like a big difference when you extrapolate to a full season, right now it's only 3-5 points. Considering he's had next to nothing to work with on the PP, and was missing practices early in the year due to a nagging injury, that shouldn't be unexpected. Not likely. Most deadline deals tend to be picks/prospects for roster players. Something like you suggest would have been more likely in the summer. We'd have to find someone looking to dump salary for next year, and dump players usually aren't all that good. Our best return would probably come from someone actually looking for a rental. Chicago and Vancouver stand out, as both are looking for centers and both are already near the cap next year. Vancouver could make some moves to keep him long-term if they wanted, Hawks would probably trade his rights at the draft. I'd want something like a 1st and 3rd from them for him, maybe a 4th from the Canucks. It might then be possible to flip that 1st plus Gus for a sniper.

And look at the timing of that article. Early last year, when the horrible slump to end the previous season was still somewhat fresh. Lost 6 in a row, in which Franzen didn't score, then he has back to back 3 point games with a hat trick. Babcock basically said, "he's a good player who I think could be great", and a whole host of people here read it as, "lazy and sucks". There's a world of difference between expecting more effort and the criticism levied at Franzen. He's stuck in this trap where if he has a bad game the reaction is, "See how terrible he is!", and if he has a good game it's, "See how good he can be! That's why he's so terrible!". Fact is, like every player, he has good games, bad games, and games in between. But with Franzen, the only reason some people will even contemplate to explain the difference is his effort. Maybe you keep your criticism of his play at a more reasonable level. Then you wouldn't be one of those critics I'm talking about. But when I corrected another poster's gross exaggeration of his tendency to slump, you did feel compelled to post your opinion of his laziness, so...

He doesn't, but he's on the opposite end of the contract problem spectrum. The length of his deal would likely mean not getting full value in return.

I doubt that. Franzen is much better defensively, better on the boards, and harder to get off the puck than many around here would care to admit. Yet most of his critics say he's useless if he's not scoring goals. The whole "lazy" criticism is founded mostly on the falsely perceived "streaky" criticism. All because 5 years ago, before the league figured him out and started paying attention to him, he went on a ridiculously torrid run that made people think he was better than he is, and then 3 years ago he had a ridiculously icy stretch that put him more or less permanently on a lot of people's s*** list. However, the point of my post was not to compare Mule to Hank. I was pointing out that the post I was responding to was wrong, and the criticism there of Franzen is actually far more applicable to Zetterberg.

Except he hasn't. Since his breakout he's had one major slump. At the end of '10-11, where he went 14 games, then another 8 right after finally getting one. From March '08 to that point his longest slump was 6 (twice), and he only hit (or missed, maybe you'd say) 5 three other times. Last year he went 6 games early in the year, then 8 near the middle. Those were the only times he went more than 4. This year he went 6 (3 before his injury then 3 after). He's not nearly as streaky as people seem to think. Some people just hate Franzen, but Brunner still has that new car smell. For Franzen, going 2 games without a goal is like Brunner going 20. If you want someone prone to goal slumps, it's Zetterberg. This year already he's gone 11, then 9. Last year 13 then 9, plus a 6 and four differest 5s. '10-11 he went 11, 9, three more 5s. '09-10 he had a 12, a 9, three more 5s. His tendency to go cold is why he's gone from scoring 30+ to low 20s. But he's a hero so we don't care about that...

You act like he's been playing with Abby and Cleary for years, it was a handful games while some guys were injured. Over the last few years he's typically had players like Zetterberg, Franzen, Hudler, Filppula, Bertuzzi, and Holmstrom. None of them were bad. The idea that Pav would consider his linemates for one short stretch of season in his decision-making is beyond preposterous. I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to stick around for a rebuild when he won't likely last long enough to enjoy its fruits, but I'd be shocked to learn that he's such a diva that he'd be particularly concerned about his linemates for a dozen or so games.

Pretty close, yeah. It may not be "fair", but players aren't paid by the point. If star players have to be valued relative to Crosby, then lesser players relative to them, and so on...half the players in the league would be paying the owners. Teams need stars and there's only so many to go around. Parise may be more valuable to Minnesota than Crosby is to Pittsburgh. That said, had Corsby waited to hit the open market, the best he could get is ~$90M over 7 years. He's currently getting $76.8M. Decent discount, but added security of a longer deal. (Which could prove pretty valuable, given that he's already had a serious concussion issue.)

Scored 30 once, and not been over 20 any other year. He gets the same kind of "inconsistent, takes shifts off" criticism that Franzen gets. Franzen has scored 27 or more in 4 of the last 5 years, and the one he didn't was when he was injured (but he scored at a 30 goal pace that year). Franzen's on a 20 goal pace this year and being bashed to hell for it. Stafford's on pace for 6. He's big, but not particularly physical, doesn't fight. A lot like Franzen actually, not as good but younger. I wouldn't say he's as good as Flip either, but more of a goal scorer (though I think not by as much as you think). Stafford maybe fits our needs better, provided Pav and Hank hold up a little longer or one of our young centers steps up. Brunner may turn out to be better as well. I think you're suffering from some grass-is-greener syndrome. Nyquist and/or Tatar may not be better, or ever be better, but they are cheaper, and will be for the forseeable future (unless they break out in a pretty big way). They are the kind of cheap tertiary (possibly secondary, longshot at primary) scoring that you have to have to build a high-powered offense in the cap world. We do have other potential candidates for those roles, so those two may become extraneous, but I don't think they are yet. We may not be able to find any good primary scorers to spend that money on, so that might not be an issue either. I'd like Stafford here. I'd give up one of Gus or Tots for him straight up (or with one of our cast-offs), but I doubt Buffalo would. Good young teams like Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Boston could afford to give up a 1st for him (though I'm not sure anyone would, given the year he's having). Regardless, with the way the season is going, he'll likely be one of the better forwards available and there will be more buyers than sellers. Doesn't bode well for getting him cheaply. And unless he came pretty cheap I wouldn't go for it. Also worth noting that we have no idea what Buffalo would think of our prospects, or if they would want to trade with a future division rival.

Thing is, even if you think he's only a 40 point player, his market value is still probably north of $4M. If he finishes strong and ends up near 30 points then $5M+. Maybe a bit of a discount if it's 7 or 8 years, but then again, look at Zajac. I wouldn't mind seeing him back, though I'd prefer 3-4 years max. Not much looks to be available on the UFA market, and I really doubt Perry will be both available and interested. Flip gives some insurance at center, and flexibility in the lines. Wouldn't mind seeing him traded either, especially if we could get a 1st for him. We do need to open up some roster spots.

So....three years or so before the league expands (or Phoenix moves) to Quebec and we're pushed right back to the west. What do you think? Over/under?

I didn't mean anything particularly negative by "middle-aged"; just that they're not kids who should be expected to improve. And while we could re-sign Smid or Regehr, there's no guarantee that we would. I think neither our team nor any of those players are good enough to make it worth giving up picks or prospects (at least good ones) for them. If we could get them for our spare-part roster players, low-ranked prospects, or late-round picks...sure. But I don't think we could. And I don't think they'd make enough difference to be worth giving up even a small chance of finding something special.

Not that they wouldn't help, but they wouldn't help enough to matter. You don't give up picks and prospects for middle-aged players just to slightly increase your chances of making the playoffs or the 2nd round. Especially for guys who may leave in the summer.

And none of them were thought to "have" it either until they proved they did. I would say that if they actually were all that hard-working they wouldn't have been such low seeds in the first place. Some were good defensively, some weren't. Some physical, some not. Some good at some things, bad at others, or mediocre at everything... Had Vancouver won in the first round last year, no one would have been praising them for upsetting the mighty 8th-seeded Kings. No one would think there was anything special about the Kings. No one would be thinking about the Kings at all, just like no one thought about them during the season. No one would think Quick was anything special. It's all just after-the-fact redefining of our opinions to make sure that "what happened" fits our preconceived notion of "what should happen".

Acquiring all 4 would be impossible. 3 would probably be a stretch. We just don't have that many tradeable assets. Then there's the fact that two of the trade partners are current division rivals and the other two will be next year. Also cuts very close to the cap, and could potentially cause trouble the year after next when Datsyuk, Ericsson, and Quincey need to be re-signed or replaced. Fun to fantasize about and on paper it might look great, but there's only so much ice time to go around. All those guys aren't going to match or better their career highs, some may not fit in at all, and most importantly I think is that it just ignores the real problem: Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Prior to the last 7 games, we were averaging just under 3 gpg. That's boosted a bit by the big game against Vancouver, but even if you replace that game with a "normal" good game (say 4-5 goals), it's still around 2.75. Not great, but not too bad considering we've had at least one top six forward out for over half the year, and none of White, Quincey, or Smith are producing any offense. We've scored 10 goals in the last 7 games, and Pav and Hank have combined for just 5 points. Hank has 1 goal in 19 games. Any team is going to struggle scoring when their stars are slumping at the same time. Surrounding them with 2nd-tier scorers (with 2nd-tier salaries) won't necessarily help as much as you might think, as those players usually depend on the stars to get their production. Overall, Pav and Hank are still having a good year, and I expect they'll turn it around soon enough. The real worry comes in the future. If already we're seeing slumps like this (and the start of last season), what will happen in 2-3 years? If they continue to decline, and this becomes more the norm, then players like those listed aren't going to help. Or at least, not make us a contender. Just the opposite actually. We'll be fighting the cap, most/all of those guys will have much lower trade value, we'd have given up our entire next generation to get them, and likely stuck in a mediocrity trap where were too good to land a top pick but not good enough to do anything meaningful. Instead of 4 complimentary players, what we really need is a 3rd star. Someone to ease the pressure on Pav and Hank, and young and good enough to assume the lead when they decline. Complimetary roles are best filled with cheaper kids and vets, and maybe a couple in their prime. Unfortunately, the prospects for getting another star aren't good. Failing that, stockpiling picks and prospects is the best bet. It's a more certain, and likely deeper, decline; but the recovery should come quicker and be more lasting. Adding one of those guys would be alright, if the price was cheap.

We're not likely to get fully healthy before the trade deadline. At that point, the roster limit is removed so we can still keep all the kids up (assuming we have cap space, which we should). If Lashoff was going to get demoted, he certainly would have been already. At most he could spend a short time down then be back up after the deadline. Of course, if White/Cola/Huskins/trade addition were to come in and play really well it might push him out of the lineup, in which case he'd probably be sent back down for the playing time. Forwards are a bit tougher. No question that Flip and Helm will be in the lineup if healthy, along with Pav, Hank, Mule, and Brunner. I would guess Abby, Cleary, and one other PKer (Miller/Emmy/Eaves - probably rotating unless one steps up) would be in. Sammy for a RH point shot makes sense, and Bert likely makes it. Leaves one spot for Tootoo, Tots, Andy, and Gus to fight over. I think if the kids want to stay in the lineup, they need to show they can kill penalties or outscore the size advantage of Bert and Sammy.

Aside from Nyquist, that core IS what we have now.

The Ducks have plenty of space to give Perry the same deal. Especially if they trust Fasth enough to get rid of Hiller. Even if they don't think they can sign him they wouldn't move him until the draft anyway, unless we're offering Datsyuk.

I think you're failing to consider the situation when those players were signed. Flip had played two full seasons, had a career high 36 points, was a RFA, and the cap was $56.7M. $3M for 5 years was generous. He was certainly a bargain last year, but he didn't sign his deal last year. The cap when Pav signed was $50.3M. He'd put up back to back 87 point seasons, but those numbers were only good enough for 17th overall. It was before any of his Selke wins. And at the time he had a history of disappointing playoff scoring (3g, 12a in 42 games). If you look at his salary as a % of the cap, and rate it to what the cap is today he'd get around $8.5M, putting him behind only Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin. Again pretty good all things considered. Zetterberg is in the upper-tier of the league in salary. He has a nice cap hit with the long-term, back-diving deal, but he's not under-valued. Same with Franzen. Kronwall a little, but his deal does dive a bit. Helm is probably the most undervalued deal on the team. While all of them probably could have gotten more as UFAs, that's mostly because the bidding drives prices up and guys get overpaid. Getzlaf likely could have gotten more as well. Point is, you can't directly compare contracts signed in different years. The circumstances when the contracts were signed are what matters.

Technically, if you look at the first 8 years Crosby is around $10.5M.

As a % of the cap when the deals were signed, Getzlaf's hit is actually a little lower than Datsyuk's. Also lower than Hank's if you just look at the first 8 years. Kronwall is a bargain, but not by much if you take away the two back-diving years at the end. We're not undervalueing anyone.

The only thing that surprises me is how many people thought the lockout would translate to lower cap hits. I thought he could get around $10M as a UFA so this seems about right.

Adding a younger player who would become part of the future would be fine. I think Wheeler would be pretty costly though. As bad as the SE is, Winnipeg isn't likely to be out of it so he probably wouldn't be available at all. He's also a RFA who could be looking for a decent raise. Stafford could be an alternative. Niederreiter could be an interesting pickup. He's been a disappointment so far, and something has to wrong if even the Isles don't invite you to training camp. Could be a cheap addition, though I wouldn't expect him to improve the Wings this year. Not sure I'd give up Nyquist or Tatar for him though. Both seem to be better players at this point. Maybe if we could throw in one of our spare parts for a pick. Paajarvi would be another kid that might be worth looking in to. In short, I'm not totally against trying to improve so long as it's someone who could help with a rebuild as well as help today. I doubt there will be many names on that list.

The optimism is refreshing, but I have to disagree. I don't think anything we can realistically add will make us all that much better. Anything can happen and the better we are the better the chances it will. But I think no matter who we add, we're still a puck-possession team that isn't particularly good at puck possession; still vulnerable to an agressive forecheck (and there are several teams in the west who do "agressive forecheck" very effectively); still have problems with our special teams... We'd still have to get hot and play at our best to have any chance of making it through four tough playoff rounds. As we are now (with Flip and Helm healthy) I think we have pretty much that same chance. I'd agree that we may get even worse in the next few years, and that's exactly why I'd be against making any minor improvements now. Better to be "further away but on the rise" than "further away and still another 3 years away from starting to climb again". Someone in the Filppula thread brought up "opportunity cost", and I think it applies here as well. Say we were to add Volchenkov and Ryder. Maybe that buys a second round loss instead of a first. Doesn't add anything to the future, nor is a second round loss anything to be happy about. Basically, in addition to whatever we give up to get them we trade down a handful of spots in the draft for a few extra games. That's like giving up an extra 2nd-round pick. I don't think we should tank the season and start selling off everyone for picks. And maybe there's only a semantic difference between "tanking" and "intentionally not making improvements". But I think we need to focus on building our next generation now, and just be content with whatever success we have in the meantime. I don't think that's "throwing away the season", and I don't see how you can really believe that just a couple, rather minor, moves would take us from "throw away" to "as competetive as any team in the league".

You'd think fans could tell the difference between an actual quote from Holland and fake quotes made by other fans to mock him. Holland said the "getting our players back will be our deadline acquisition" line once. In 2009-10 when we had no cap space to add anyone. All the rest is just fans whining about the lack of any exciting moves. Even this quote is being wildly misrepresented. What Holland actually said was, "Ultimately, the next two to three weeks will determine certainly my thinking for the Detroit Red Wings,". Basically it will depend on who's available and at what cost, or it could even turn out that we'll be sellers. He then pointed out that we have some key players injured, and getting them back will make a difference on its own. And he's right. Helm's been out all year, and we've been without either Franzen or Filppula for half of it. If Helm wasn't on the team and Kenny traded for him at the deadline, and it didn't cost us anything, you'd be ecstatic.