Buppy

That's circular logic. As someone else already pointed out, you're just defining "better" as the team who wins. Hypothetical situation: Overtime in game 7. Obviously it's been a close series and both teams have capitalized on some opportunities, and failed to capitalize on others. Team A scores but the goal is mistakenly waived off. Team B takes advantage and scores to win the series. Which team would be better? No amount of luck or reffing can completely take the players out of the equation, but there are factors in every series besides the players that do have an effect on the outcome. Most playoff matchups, especially after the 1st round, pit two teams fairly close in ability. A little more luck to one side can be enough to tip the balance from "slightly worse" to "slightly better", and thus change the outcome of a series. Also, it is impossible to say how a series might change if any particular event were different. A bad call that leads to a PP goal and a victory in game one may very well change the winner of a series, or it might have made no difference at all. Unless you explicitly define the parameters for what "better" means, you can't actually claim that the better team always wins. It seems you just want to define it a whichever team wins 4 games. I'll say that the team that capitilizes on a greater number of opportunities will almost always win a 7 game series. That may or may not be the "better" team, but who really cares. Trophies go to winners, not betters.

It's not as bad as the poster made it seem. Flip is -5 on the road. Hank is -7, and Huds is -9. And I'm pretty sure they were all minus on the road before the line was put together, so maybe even better. And I think the problem is more a lack of scoring than a lack of defense. Defending the other team's top line likely has a lot to do with the fewer offensive chances, but I don't think Abby would help the line at all. Too big a downgrade from Hudler on offense. Cleary would maybe work though.

The grind liners (both Kocur and McCarty) almost have to be there, and Ozzie as well. Murph and Mickey seem obvious (maybe Paul Woods too). Howe, Fisch, Cheli, and probably a few from the alumni association. And I would sure hope the Captain can do it, wouldn't seem right without him. Shanny as well... Mickey-Stevie-Shanny Ogrodnick-Igor-Dino Maltby-Draper-Mac Burr-Brown-Kocur Howe-Murph Fisch-Cheli Larson-Norwood Ozzie Mio That would be awesome...

All of them were pending UFAs who were traded to "sellers" at last season's deadline.

While we don't "need" another bottom-6 forward, it wouldn't hurt, considering the slow recovery of Eaves. We could use a good faceoff man, and someone that's a bit more proven than Mursak or Emmy (or any of the GR kids). If we get a top 6 forward though (bumping Bert or Huds down), then it would probably be a waste. The roster limit goes away at the trade deadline. No one will need to be waived. Samsonov, Upshall, Lepisto, Bergfors, Rissmiller, Dvorak... Probably more if I cared enough to keep looking.

What do I win?

Not sure what "prices" you mean. White for a 2nd. Brewer for a 3rd and a weak prospect. McCabe for a 3rd and weak prospect. Wideman for a 3rd and a weak prospect. Allen for Samsonov. Klesla for Lepisto and Upshall. Mark Stuart and Wheeler for Peverley and a crap defenseman... We'd be unlikely to get more than the 2nd and 4th rounders we gave up for him.

I've seen it before, pretty sure it was the same kid (name sounds familiar). If I remember correctly someone tried something similar at the all-star competition last year. Hopefully, Pav will try it there. I bet he could pull it off.

To clarify, when I say "Good trade asset" I mean they are assets that other teams would actually be interested in, and so would bring a good return back. I don't mean they are players we should be trying to get rid of. It would be great if we could trade Homer or Bert or Emmerton, but no one is going to give anything of value for those guys. Tatar isn't doing as well as Nyquist and hasn't played in the NHL this year, so I don't think he'd have as much value. Nor would prospects that are still a couple years away from the NHL. Nyquist may be our next star, or he may be nothing. Right now, it would be a huge success if he turns into the next Filppula. I'm not saying we should give him away, only that we could potentially get something that helps us more now and doesn't necessarily hurt us in the future. Fleischmann was traded in a package for the guy who was leading the league in scoring at the time. That was 8 years ago, and he is only recently started to become a noteworthy player. Lang had more immediate impact. Even if we had kept Fleischmann, there's no guarantee we would still have him. We went through a pretty serious cap crunch. We may not have been able to afford him. Nyquist is a similar asset. He's not adding anything right now, and probably wont add much for at least a few years. We can afford to move him if we're getting something good in return.

If we were adding a player like Parise or Ryan, they would be our future (Parise would be a risk, but we have the capability of re-signing him). It would be well worth giving up a couple of our top forward prospects for someone like that. We'd likely have to give up Flip or Mule, which may look bad right now, but probably benefits us in the long run. I don't think anyone is suggesting we trade all our top prospects and all our picks for a rental. Giving up one or two for a player that can help us both now and in the future is not trading away the future.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if we don't at least explore the option of adding something, but not terribly upset if we can't work anything out. Our good trade assets are pretty much Flip, Nyquist, and picks. Maybe another top forward prospect if we're adding a young star forward. Or Stuart, Kindl, or Smith if we're adding a young star defenseman. Enough to make a good offer, but maybe not enough to match what other buyers are willing to spend.

It's one benefit of working a late shift and watching all the games on DVR. I haven't watched a commercial in ages.

I wasn't saying he was ignoring any established fact, I was making an observation. It's my opinion that people in these debates tend to argue from emotion rather than reason. When someone starts one of these threads calling the team soft and saying we need to make this or that roster move, I believe the majority of contrary responses are more a rebuttal against the "insult" than an actual disagreement with any proposed change, or even the basic premise that being tougher might help us. I believe for the same basic reason that few people will be willing to call the 08 team soft. Finally, I believe much of the demand for a tougher team comes more from frustration when we lose and the insecurity of some people who don't like being associated with "weakness" than it does an actual belief in the need for toughness. Forgive me for waxing psycho-analytical. The debate itself is pointless. No one is ever going to change their stance, regardless of what evidence is presented. If the Wings win the Cup with the current roster, you may change your opnion regarding how soft the current team is, but you won't admit that soft teams can win. So where's the threshhold between soft and tough (or at least 'not soft')? It seems like it's somewhere just below the 08 team. And it still seems an ill-defined concept. The definition seems to be a moving target and now includes veteran presense and faceoff ability. To me it looks like it just means anything in which you can point out something different between the Cup team and this one. Seems a lot more about what a team wins than how a team plays. I may not have evidence that this team can win a Cup; it's a future event, there can't be actual evidence either way, especially without an actual definition of "soft" that can be quantified. What I do have is the following stats from the last 13 Cup winners: Team MP PIM Hits Blk Avg Detroit 25 21 2 23 17.8 Dallas 21 21 12 8 15.5 New Jersey 9 8 8 19 11 Colorado 14 22 8 17 15.3 Detroit 30 24 26 23 25.8 New Jersey 19 29 23 13 21 Tampa Bay 24 28 28 17 24.3 Carolina 28 26 25 1 20 Anaheim 1 1 10 30 10.5 Detroit 30 29 25 30 28.5 Pittsburgh 23 17 6 4 12.5 Chicago 21 25 25 17 22 Boston 3 8 21 15 11.8 Averages 19.1 20 16.9 16.7 18.1 Top20% 2 1 2 2 0 Bottom20% 4 6 5 3 2 (Both Wings) Top Half 4 3 6 5 4 Bottom Half 9 10 7 8 9 That's the rank where each team finished the regular season in major penalties, PIMs, hits, and blocked shots, and the average ranks for each. At the bottom is the number of Cups won by teams in the top or bottom 20% of the league, and top and bottom half. Of course there are "toughness" factors that aren't precisely measured by stats, but considering the high rankings for the Ducks and Bruins and the late 90's teams, it seems to coincide to what is generally regarded as tough. (While this data suggests an inverse corollary, it's likely to be skewed by lesser skilled teams being more physical to compensate.) This does show that teams that aren't very physical can and have won Cups before. Incidentally, the Wings are currently last in majors, 29th in PIM, 24th in hits, and 22nd in blocks. Actually slightly "tougher", by this metric, than the 08 team, and about the same as the 02 team. We hit more and block shots better than than the 08 team. So I don't really see how, aside from fighting, we're any softer than the 08 team. But that just puts us back at the ill-defined stage. Since the numbers don't support you, you'll just say it's something you can't measure. Honestly, the way you talk about being tough sounds more like what most people mean when they talk about character or "heart". If you want to questions this team's heart, I think that's fair. I don't agree, but I think it's a reasonable concern. But if you want to talk actual physicality, the measurable numbers are against you.

I notice you didn't actually admit we were soft in 08, nor that we can win now. You got the histrionics covered though. "Large amount ridiculously attached to the current team"? Name them. I'll bet most just don't see any need to change, but wouldn't object. Most have particular players they like, and others they would like to move. Some might think it would cost too much to trade for someone, and so don't think it would be worth it. Some may not like the same players as you. I'll bet you can't find many at all that would actually be unwilling to change our current roster. "Dead team"? Commodore the "only one who will go to the aid of a teammate"? Appeal to authority. Several appeals to emotion. Hasty generalization. You got the fallacies covered pretty well too. Miller and Eaves haven't stepped it up, so they aren't "warriors"? They may not be the grind line of '02, but they're as effective as Draper/Maltby were in 08. Remember, didn't doesn't mean couldn't. Some of us have confidence that Miller and Eaves are capable of filling the same role. You give a pretty colorful (but exaggerated) description of what we lack, but no evidence that it's actually needed. Just "we've lost two years in a row and we don't want to lose again do we". So when we lost 3 years in a row (twice in the 2nd round to the same team) with our supposedly tough teams, what did we do? We swapped the likes of Lapointe and Verbeek for Hull and Robitaille. Were we too tough? That wouldn't make sense since we also won back to back cups with a similar roster. You think maybe teams can lose in the playoffs for reasons other than toughness? Like when an almost identical 03 team got swept in the 1st round. Helm had 28 hits in 18 games in 08. Last year he had 28 hits in 11. He scored more last year too. When Jimmy got hit by Hansen, Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Hudler all got involved in the ensuing scrum. When Ozzie got bumped by Sykora in 08, it was Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen. No one really fought either time, though Pittsburgh escalated things a little further than Vancouver did. I'd like to see some stats on how often Howard gets run or bumped, compared to goalies on our past teams and around the league. I haven't noticed anything unusual. The comments from Howard are not actual evidence that he takes more contact than he should or otherwise would. It may be fun to reminisce about the glory days of the Grind Line or Shanny or the Brawl, but "remebering fondly" is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between toughness and winning Cups. I was going to go on, but this is pointless. I'm tired and my rambling is probably already incoherent.

I think you're missing the point. The study is just on the effects of "a fight" in the game. A fight invloves both teams. There's no distinction made between who wins the fight or who starts the fight. According to the data, 39% of the time, either both teams increase, stay flat, or decrease. The net effect gives no (or marginal) advantage to either team. The other 61%, one team increases relative to the other, but it doesn't truly specify which team. This means that while being involved in a fight can sometimes help, it can also hurt you at other times. The 3rd table suggests that if a team with high momentum is involved in a fight, their momentum tends to decrease, while a team with low momentum tends to increase. So you need to limit your fighting to only those instances where your team has low momentum, and your oppenent is high in order to gain the maximum benefit. However, that "maximum" according to this study is worth about .2 goals, or 1/30th of a win. Now let's put that in some perspective. I'll assume we are only interested in instances where this hypothetical fight actually changes the outcome of a game from a loss to a win. I doubt anyone really cares about shifting momentum in a game we would win regardless. So at the basic level, you'd need 30 such situations (games where you are well behind in momentum and will lose the game) to equal one win. (That also means you lose the other 29.) But that isn't really accurate, because it doesn't take into account the situation in the game already. If you're already down by three goals by the time you realize you need to shift momentum, you'll likely need a lot more than 30 fights to get enough impact to overcome the defecit. To what order of magnitude is a guess, but let's just say double. So maybe a fight can turn a loss into a win 1 in 60. But even that isn't really accurate. What the study fails to address is the fact that momentum changes over the course of a game regardless of fights. It is very often cyclical, in that teams will have a burst of high momentum, then drop while the other team has its burst. To actually calculate the effect of the fight, you need to compare these results to the expected rate of change if the fight had not occurred. Let's say that cuts the efficacy of the fight in half. Now you're turning a loss into a win 1 in 120. Coincidentally, 120 is the number of regular-season losses the Wings have had total since we won the Cup in 08. So assuming that in every one of those losses there was some point where we had low momentum and the other team was high, and we were very careful in picking our spots for our fights, we could have one more win over the last 3 1/2 seasons. Wow. Or to make it all more simple, we'll just stick with the conclusion from the study:

Yeah, almost like he's considered some sort of Highly Important Participant. As if he was awarded some HIP trophy, or something to that effect... No one makes valid arguments in these threads. Histrionics and fallacies are what the internet is made of. No one really believes that having a fighter who can still play a regular shift would hurt the team. For that matter, I doubt anyone honestly believes that a Downey-esque goon would really hurt. But when these threads come up suggesting we "need" someone like that, "not really, but whatever" doesn't seem like a very strong argument. It sounds much more sensational to point out how bad a team full of goons would be, even if no one was suggesting it. And it goes both ways. No one is actually saying a tough team can't win, or that adding someone like Moen would be bad. Nor is anyone suggesting that we should have a team completely devoid of any physical element. But admitting that fighters/grinder (better than what we already have) aren't that important and/or that we are already a contender without one isn't a particularly convincing argument for going out and getting one. So you have to blow it way out of proportion into some vital need. Personally, I've already said that the Wings getting more physical could help. I think the top 6 would benefit more, but I wouldn't have any problem adding someone in the bottom 6 either. Kids like Emmy, Mursak, and Gus will get their shot; here or elsewhere. We don't need them now. Miller, Eaves, and Conner I don't particularly care about. The other 10 I think we need (unless we add another top 6 forward). So one spot (or two if they can also play the PK) to add some "toughness". It could help. Wouldn't hurt at least. I don't think a 4th-liner is going to make any big difference, and I don't think it's needed, but whatever. Now let's see if any from the pro-fighter camp have the balls to be rational and admit that a soft team like us could win a Cup anyway, or even that the '08 team was pretty soft. And yes, had Boston lost it likely would have been because they didn't have enough skill. Are you suggesting that it would have been because they were too soft?

I think it adequately shows what those of us who don't care about fighting have been saying all along: In short, fighting doesn't amount to much. Furthermore, since a fight, by definition, involves both teams, the momentum factors also affect both teams. Which would logically suggest that if 30 fights equals one win, that same 30 fights also equals one loss. I suppose, if your team only fights when they're playing poorly, it might be more of a benefit. So I guess the best strategy is to employ a couple of those spot-picking ******* that all the fight fans seem to hate so much.

No one's saying they have no effect. But there's a wide gap between useless and essential. McCarty was playing due to injuries to Kopecky, Maltby, Franzen, and Homer. When we were healthy, McCarty was in the pressbox watching our 4th line of Hudler-Helm-Maltby. Yeah, that line was tough. You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners. You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles... Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything. You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team. The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams. Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway. Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd. And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is. If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

I agree that players from the current era are better than those from previous eras. Following that same logic, and since I have a time machine, I'd pick all players from the future. I assume it would be: C - Gordevio "The Rocket" Bosetzkysitorr (Amalgam of genetic material from all the best players of all time. Plus, he's actually a rocket.) LW - Hockey-Bot 9007XL (Self-explanatory) RW - Walrus-Man (Not Ponda Baba. An actual cross between a walrus and a human. Self-explanatory.) D - Twiki (Yeah, the robot from Buck Rogers. Turns out he's awesome. Go figure.) D - Lidstrom (In 10 more years, he develops into a really good player) G - A Black Hole (Scoring took a dramatic down-turn [to zero] in the 31st century when the UHL decided to allow celestial objects to play.)

I was referring more to the fact the Flip has played 5 full seasons prior to this year, and so far his best numbers are 19g, 40p. He's having a great year, and will almost certainly eclipse those numbers. But those first 5 years still happened. Right now he has to be considered a low to mid-tier top 6 forward who's having an outstanding year. Ryan, in 3 full seasons has not has fewer than 31g, 57p. He's a borderline elite player having a bit of a down year. Nyquist may be one of our top prospects, but he is not one of the top prospects in the league. He's not a sure bet top-6er in the NHL. Likewise, a late 1st rounder is far from a guarantee. More importantly, we don't really need Nyquist or that pick, regardless of how good they potentially are. With Pav, Hank, Mule, and Ryan we'd have the makings of an excellent top 6, even if we lose Hudler, Homer, and Bert. We'd still be in good shape cap-wise (assuming no big drop), so we could fill out with a free agent or two, or bump Cleary up. It's doubtful Nyquist would be challenging for a top 6 spot anyway. There should be no shortage of bottom 6 options either, even if we also added Miller/Emmerton (on further review, probably not necessary). It might turn out to be a win for the Ducks, but why would they move him if they think the best they can do is break even? He's signed for a few more years. They aren't hurting for cap space. He had the holdout, but it doesn't seem he's an issue in the locker room. He's not having a terrible year, nor does he have a history of underperforming. Like most, he can be streaky and may not always give 100%, but he's not a notable slacker or unusually prone to droughts. He's not getting old. He's a ways down the list of team leaders, and hasn't been around that long, so they aren't likely blaming him for the team's struggles... The only reason to trade him is if they think it improves their team in the near future. If Flip continues his breakout and Gus continues to develop, it would. The pick would be insurance in case one or both falters. An asset for another trade, or to add to their prospect depth. Maybe a 2nd rounder would be good enough, or a prospect lower than Gus, who knows. But I don't think my proposal would hurt us, so might as well make the best offer we can afford. We'd have to outbid several other teams, and convince a team that's struggling to score to give up one of their best young scorers.

The Ducks traded him to TB. It was TB who waived him. Also, if not Miller, then Eaves or Emmerton or a 4th rounder or whatever. It's the smallest part of the package, not something that would be a deal killer.

Flip is having a great year, no doubt, but he hasn't as of yet broken 20 goals or 40 points. Ryan is 24 and already has 3 30+ goal seasons (the first of which he even spent part of the year in the minors). He's on pace for a 4th. He's younger, bigger, and more physical. He's not bad defensively. Miller is serviceable, but replaceable. Nyquist is developing very well, and could become something special. Or he might never get any farther. We don't really need him, especially if we were getting Ryan. The 1st rounder would likely be in the 20s, which statistically translates to only about a 50% chance of being an NHL player at all, much less an impact player. It's something we could afford to give up. Yeah, it's a lot to give up, but assuming Ryan can gel with the team (which is a risk with any trade) it would be a nice immediate improvement, and not likely to hurt us long term. If Nyquist and the 1st turned out to be stars it would be a "win" for the Ducks, but it wouldn't necessarily be a "loss" for us. Almost all scorers are streaky, and Ryan is about as physical as Nash and not much smaller. His cap hit is also considerably lower.

First: You've never explained anything to me, nor do you need to. I know what a GWG is. Don't try to be condescending. Second: Game winners are just as relevant as the stat on goals-when-trailing. Maybe you'd prefer if I said that 5 times he's scored the games first goal. 4 more times he's given us a 2-0 lead. Twice he's scored in the 3rd period with the game tied. He has an OT winner as well. That's just this year. Half his goals coming when the game is tied. You act like none of his goals ever matter. Third: Way to ignore the rest of the post... the part that was actually directed at you; the part that shows your opinion of Franzen is baseless. Of course, you just want to hate Franzen, so you only care about the negatives. Anything positive you have to ignore or marginalize.

We can offer as good or better than many teams. We may not want to, and it may not be in our best interest long-term, but we can. Our first rounder won't carry the same weight as a team that figures to be in the top 10, but other than that our picks are worth about as much as any other team. We have several good prospects that a lot of teams would be interested in. We have guys like Flip, Mule, Abby, Helm, and Kronwall that many teams would be interested in. We do have Datsyuk and Zetterberg. We don't have a young goal scorer or a budding superstar. But the teams that do probably aren't interested in trading them. Unless the Ducks are going to trade with themselves, I haven't heard of any other young guys like Ryan that are on the market. We can't go around offering or best prospects for marginal players or aging stars, and we probably can't afford to move any defensemen unless we're getting someone equivalent back. Several of our best prospects are still a few years away from the NHL. We many not have a lot of really good trade assets from our perspective, but we have enough to put together one good package. Maybe not the best the Ducks could get, but better than a lot of teams would offer. Most people here only seem to want to offer the players/prospects they don't like, so it seems like we can't offer anything good. If he is traded, a lot will depend on when, and the Ducks place in the standings at the time. The closer we get to the deadline, and/or the further out of the playoffs the Ducks fall, the more they will start valuing picks and prospects. Something like Flip-Miller-Nyquist-1st might be enough to get it done.

Cheap shot in my opinion. Doesn't look like Salo is even looking to throw a big hit, much less a dirty one. This is why discipline has to come from the league. You can't just assume someone is going to throw a dirty hit, and use that assumption to justify a dirty preemptive strike. Vigilante justice never works, and only causes more injuries and injuries to innocent people. Marchand absolutely should be suspended. If I remember correctly, he has a history of going for the knees too. 2-5 games I'd say, depending on his repeat status.