Buppy

I'd love Brown, but it wouldn't make sense for the Kings to trade him for anything but an offensive upgrade. They're desperate for scoring, and Carter isn't good enough to justify moving one of the few scorers they already had, especially considering Johnson was a valuable piece of their offense. I don't think there's a deal that would make sense to both sides here.

Both Nyquist and Tatar are exempt next year. Andersson might be out though. Not sure if it goes by the date of his ELC, or his amatuer tryout contract.

Now we wait for Philly to chime in that the record is actually 24. That's how many they won, regular season + playoffs.

The LTIR exemption only comes into play if you go over the cap. You have to use existing cap space first, so being so far under we don't benefit. You can't bank LTIR relief. Right now, we could add almost $19M in full-season cap, and at the deadline it will be around $23.5M (assuming nothing major before then). Technically, if Eaves is done for the year, would could also add another $1.2M to that, but I can't see us even coming close to acquiring that much.

Moore at his best is no better than Eaves. He's under-performing, 31, and a pending UFA. Dumping him to move up 5 rounds in the draft is a steal.

Wait, didn't we just have a thread about why no one hates us? Did we kick a bunch of puppies in the past couple weeks?

I like the '54-55 jerseys for both teams. Wings in red, with the winged wheel. Leafs in blue with the old-style, more detailed leaf. No numbers on the sleeves or a ton of stripes. Too lazy to search for or make any decent pictures.

Honestly, who 'hates' Abby? Pretty much every player will have one or two guys that want to get rid of them, but I haven't noticed any particular dissatisfaction on the boards regarding him; no prevailing sentiment toward trading him or benching him... I think a thread like this is inviting negative comments about him by comparing him to Helm. I don't think that means anyone dislikes him. Yeah, everyone loves Helm, probably more than he really deserves. He's exciting and his speed has an impact almost every shift. Abby just isn't very exciting. He'll get an occasional point, or fight, or big hit... nothing to get too excited about. I think the sentiment regarding Abby is what it should be for a 4th-liner. He's there, he does his job, yay...but I'm not buying his jersey. Helm is exciting, Miller is having a career year (albeit, that's not a very high standard for him), so they earn some praise. Miller started the season expecting to rotate with Eaves and Homer. Playing on the 4th line while Abby played with Helm and Bert, then Helm and Hudler, then Helm and Cleary. Miller and Cleary while Helm was out. Miller moved ahead of Abby based on his play. He's been better than Abby so far. But I don't think anyone is saying that Abby has been bad. Indifference isn't hate.

His buyout really isn't too bad. I wonder what Montreal would give us to take him? Pacioretty, Moen, & Gomez for a conditional 7th? Sounds fair.

Have to disagree here. I think he should play, and while I suppose it's a nice gesture to the TB organization, I think it's a little insulting to Wings fans. It's an alumni game; not like he'd be dressing for the WC itself. The WC and all the festivities will be an epic event regardless. If he bows out it will dim the luster of the alumni game a little, but it isn't going to hurt the Wings or help the Bolts at all. No decent person in the TB organization or their fanbase would hold it against him if he plays. Whether he plays or not, he's still a former Red Wing. And I can't imagine he'd be so busy that he can't take a day off during the holidays to have some fun and give the multitude of adoring Wing fans a little treat. No good reason not to play, IMO.

I doubt the Isles will trade Nabby. Good goalie at a bargain price, but not sure they could really get anything great in return. Maybe Chicago or Philly (lol) would pay something, but everyone else pretty much already has a solid starter and isn't going to deal much for a backup. Harding seems like a good option. Pending UFA who will probably go looking for a starting job in the offseason, and Hackett is a pretty good looking prospect who could step into the backup role in Minnesota.

If the Ducks are looking to shake things up, this could be the chance.

Not so sure adding a sniper would fix our PP. It should be a lot better than it is already. I think it's a system thing. Playoffs are about capitalizing on your opportunities more than your opponent. I gave the PP a very slight edge over the PK, since you can also compensate for the bad PK by being more disciplined. Though I think we need to improve both a decent amount once the playoffs start.

Not that I'd be interested in Carter (because of the contract), but injury-prone? 4 out of 6 seasons with 80 or more games. 74 and 62 games the other two. He's had some bad luck this year, but he's not injury prone.

That 3-high umbrella formation they use so often is crap against the collapsing box defenses. I forget if it's Blashill or Peters that runs the PP, but whoever it is needs to watch some more NHL film from recent years to see what's working. White, as good as he's been, is just no Rafi when it comes to shooting (and notice that he and Nick never cross up for the one-timers). Homer, as good as he is in front of the net, isn't going to win a lot of 4-on-1 battles. We need a lot more motion laterally, behind the net, cycling in the corners, toward the net. Get the PK'ers moving around (aside from just collapsing in and expanding out). Once the lanes open up, we need to shoot, and get guys to the net to battle for rebounds.

We can compete with the team we have now. We wouldn't be where we are in the standings if we couldn't. It's easy to watch our team all the time and identify areas where we could improve, but you have to remember that every team has weaknesses. Also, adding a player that looks like a good fit doesn't guarantee that said player will actually fix any weakness. The fact that he's talking to other GMs shows that Kenny knows we can improve. There's just no reason to over-spend chasing any improvement, or make changes just for the sake of change. To me, it doesn't seem like there's going to be that much on the market this deadline. Kind of sucks if that turns out to be true since this is the first time in four seasons that we've had the cap space to do anything. Hopefully something will present itself, but if not I won't lose any sleep. Unless it's for a star like Ryan, Parise, or Suter I wouldn't be giving up any good roster players or top prospects. Draft picks. Spare parts like Commie, Conks, Miller, Eaves, Emmy, and maybe Mursak and Kindl. 2nd-tier prospects like Andersson, Tvrdon, Lashoff, etc. I'd see what I could buy with that, and if it's nothing, oh well.

3:18. The announcer even mentions the shoulder to facemask contact. Again though: not the point. Except the rule isn't against incidental contact. The rule (NHL at least) is against targetting the head. It's a subtle but important distinction. There are more examples of head contact not being penalized than there are good hits that are. Someone already mentioned the Kronwall hit from the other night. Head contact and Hemsky gets sent to the quiet room, but no call. Threads like this appear seemingly every time there's a poor call like this; always implying some dire threat to the physicality of the game. It's nonsense. It's a bad call and nothing more. It's no more a threat to hitting than a bad interference call is threat to playing defense. Just an acorn. The sky isn't falling. Sorry if you're offended by debate. You'll rarely find universal agreement on the internet. I don't agree with your assessment of where the game is headed. I'd expect players to change how they hit. Probably see fewer dangerous hits, and fewer injuries as a result. I call that a net gain. All the evidence suggests that big hits, even big open-ice hits, aren't going away. About all I'd change at this time, rule-wise, is requiring a review before a player is ejected. Maybe even for major penalties.

Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty. But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal. I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen. Refs, for all the criticism they take, do make the correct call far more often than not. Logic suggests that this rule will be no different. Being a new rule, and one that may yet still be tweaked further, you should expect something of a learning curve. Refs will gain a better understanding of what should and shouldn't be called. Players will adapt to the rule. (Take a look at some of Kronwall's recent hits...turns his back almost completely. I suspect he does it to avoid getting his shoulder into someone's chin.) The bad and borderline calls should go down (though they're already pretty low). Believe it or not, we are still learning new things about head injuries and how to diagnose them. "Shaking off the cobwebs" used to be the accepted method of dealing with all but the most severe injuries. Now we know that that isn't adequate. The acknowledged existence of risk does not negate the responsibility of minimizing those risks. Goalies used to play without masks, now play stops dead if a goalie loses his. Player safety always has to be a concern. The league IS going to look at icing, and equipment, boards/glass, etc. They are also looking at how to minimize head contact. You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked". The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting. But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them. If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemask. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the head. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact. Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made. There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits. No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick. A good arm tackle used to be considered "defense". Used to be fine (sometimes still is) to rub a guy out along the boards after he chips the puck past you. Used to be fine to try to take a guys head off if he didn't see you coming. Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks. Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head. People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless. Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up. Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days... Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was. Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.

Either would fit very well. I don't think Morrow would be much (if any) more expensive. He's older, and only has 8 goals so far. Also seems to be a lot of teams interested in Ruutu. 1st rounder plus a prospect seems about the right range for either. I would hope the prospect could be someone like Emmerton or Andersson, but considering that our first rounder figures to be a lower one we may need to offer more. Not sure either team would be interested in Hudler, and I wouldn't necessarily want to trade him anyway. Our bottom 6 hasn't been scoring this year, and Hudler has been pretty effective when he's been moved down. Cleary knows how to play with skill players, so I think he could benefit a lot from Hudler. Huds-Helm-Cleary could be pretty dangerous. Plus, between Huds, Cleary, Homer, Bert, Flip, and Ruutu/Morrow, we'd have a ton of options for juggling lines if guys aren't clicking. Plenty of parts to get 3 lines going. Add a 4th-line center (All due respect to Miller, Eaves, and Mursak, but I think we need another center.) and we'd be set. Stoll, Gaustad, or Steckel would be my choices; three of the better faceoff men in the league and pretty nice hitters besides.

We currently have an open spot, and the roster limit goes away at the trade deadline. No one needs to be waived.

As dreams go, that's a pretty good one. Regarding the topic, while a lot can change in a month, I'm not expecting much. Seems like too many teams are too close, and there won't be many big names moving. Maybe we send out a pick or two for a minor tweak, but I don't think there will be enough action for us to find a deal that fits. We don't have anyone we would want to move. Hank is really the only one not performing up to standards. Maybe Cleary a little, but he's been ok for the role he's been in. Helm and Abby aren't doing it on offense, but I'd be shocked if either were moved. Miller/Emmy/Eaves/Mursak might go if we add another 4th liner, but more to give them an opportunity to play that they won't have here. Our good prospects I think we want to keep, unless we're adding a good, young, top-6 forward. Our lesser prospects wouldn't bring much in return, but someone like Andersson could maybe be moved instead of a late pick. Bert and Homer aren't going anywhere (nor Pavs obvisouly). With Mule's contract, I don't think we could get an equitable return. If we moved Hudler, we'd need a top-6 scorer in return. I think the only teams interested in Hudler would be teams hurting for offense, and so they wouldn't want to part with another scorer. Flip is probably the only forward we could get enough of a return on to be worth it, but it seems no one (fans or management) wants to consider that. On defense, it's not worth moving Stuie unless we're getting someone similar in return. It would seem only the the Ducks or Kings (if they even want him back) would be options. Beauchemin seemed like a good potential deal before he was re-signed. Greene might be alright, but he's kind of slow. But I don't see Stuie moving. Kindl could certainly be moved, maybe package him with a pick for someone like Gleason, though I think the team would be fine keeping him. I think our team could use help on faceoffs, depth scoring, shot-blocking defensemen, physicality (especially in the top-6. I worry about the ability of Flip-Hank-Huds to produce in the playoffs) and backup goalie. A gritty, top-6 caliber forward like Ruutu, Morrow, Erik Cole (not crazy about his contract though), or (unrealistic probably) Dustin Brown would likely be in our price range, and let us move Hudler, Flip, or Bert down to help depth scoring. Backup goalie and a shot-blocking upgrade to Kindl/Commie wouldn't be expensive either. A good faceoff man (Jarrett Stoll?) seems like it would be doable. Flip-Pav-Ruutu Mule-Hank-Bert Cleary-Helm-Huds Homer-Stoll-Abby Nick-White Nik-Stuie E-Mark Stuart? Probably more movement than we're likely to see, but I like that lineuup.

If he's trading for Gleason, I'd assume Gleason would be on the third pair, or 2nd with Stuart moving down. And yeah, I think Morrow would fit our needs pretty well, and the contract is fine. Maybe a bit less offense than Mule, but he did score 33 last year.

Pretty insignificant move. Helps their depth at center, but I don't think it really makes than any more dangerous than they already were.