Buppy

Well, I think this is exactly about some people trying to correlate fighting to winning. Of course, there isn't one, so the enforcer slappies have to duck behind vagueness like "grit". They insinuate that there's some special, intangible "toughness" that can't be measured or specified in any way, but is possesed by all Cup winners, and lacking everywhere else. Anything contradictory is dismissed as "not what I mean by toughness". In 08 our forward with the most hits in the playoffs was Datsyuk. In the regular season we were 25th in the league in hits. 13th in hits/game in the playoffs. 1st in playoff hits was New Jersey, then Anaheim, who both lost in the 1st round. In 02, we were 26th in the regular season and again 13th in the playoffs. So far this year we are 24th, ahead of Boston, Chicago, and San Jose. Last year we were 19th, ahead of both Boston and Vancouver. Columbus, Dallas, and Carolina were all in the top 5 in hits last year and missed the playoffs. Abby is a gritty, physical player. Gets in on the forecheck, finishes his checks. Defensively responsible, wins battles down low, drives the net, etc. He is a lot like Drake, except for the near mythical proportions Drake has taken on since the Cup win. Helm and Cleary are still Helm and Cleary. Miller and Eaves also play hard, battle down low and in the corners, play good defense, etc. Emmerton and Conner aren't very physical, but Hudler was also in our bottom 6 in 8. McCarty played mostly in place of Maltby, then in place of Cleary when he moved up to take Mule's place. Not much of a net gain in physicality, especially considering he only played about 6 minutes a night. In the 08 regular season we had Draper, Drake, Maltby, Kopecky, Sammuelsson, and Downey. This year we have Helm, Abby, Bert, Miller, Eaves, and Emmerton. In 08, those guys combined for 397 games and 538 hits. This year, our 6 have 246 hits in 188 games. Using last years numbers (but this year for Emmerton), it's also 397 games, and 632 hits. There is no correlation between toughness and winning. We were soft in 08, were soft now. We can still win. Of course, it would be great if we could be just as good while also being tougher. It would be great if we could be just as good, and everyone was also a better goal scorer. Or just as good and 15% faster. Sure, there are players that are as good as some of our players who can also fight or are more physical. No one is suggesting that we should avoid those players. I for one am not even saying those players are that hard to find. I would even like someone physical for the top 6 (I think our bottom 6 is fine). What I have a problem with is the veiled (or sometimes open) insinuation that replacing someone like Miller with a similar player who can fight is what will put us over the top. It's silly.

People are so funny. Toughness is relative, and the Wings have been one of the softest teams in the league for all of our recent Cups. The way some people talk about the Cup years now, you'd think we led the league in majors, as opposed to being last or close like we really were. I'm sure if we win the Cup this year, in a few years we'll see folks reminiscing about the toughness of Bert, E, and Abby. So we haven't won a Cup without an enforcer. How many times have we (or any other team) actually had a season without one? How about this. In 98, we beat Washington in the Finals. Washington was last in the league in majors, we were next to last. In 02, we beat Carolina. We were last, Carolina was next to last. In 08 we were last, Pittsburgh was 10th. (I don't have the stats for 97, but I'm pretty sure we were near the bottom.) There is no correlation at all between toughness or fighting and playoff success. Some tough teams win, some soft teams win.

And at the other end of the spectrum, he leads the league in game winners. Yes, he had a bad stretch last year, but overall it was still a decent year. What you don't seem to understand is that all but the very elite scorers are streaky. For that matter even most of those are streaky. Perry has 3 goals in his last 12 games, same as Franzen. He had another 3 in 12 stretch last year, then went on his massive 19 in 14 run. Ovechkin has a stretch this year of 2 in 15. Last year had a 2 in 19 drought. Parise had a run this year of 2 in 15. Sharp has 3 in his last 11, and had a run of 2 in 10 earlier this year (both in the same game). Neal has a 3 in 12 stretch this year, and 2 in 27 (regular season and playoffs) last year with Pittsburgh. Gaborik has 1 in his last 5, and had runs of 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 earlier this year. Stamkos, who leads the league, on pace to maybe get 60, had streaks of 1 in 5, 1 in 6, and 0 in 5 this year. Hossa has 2 in his last 8, and had 2 in 13 earlier this year. Datsyuk and Zetterberg may be "playmakers" first, but they are also elite players and are both capable of scoring as many or more goals than Mule. How're they doing? The consistency you want just doesn't exist. Franzen since March of '08, up until his rotten run to end last year, played a total of 163 regular season games and 51 playoff games, scored in 71 regular and 22 playoff games, for a total of 85 regular and 31 playoff goals, and his longest stretch without a goal in that span was 6 games. He is as consistent as you can find in a 30-40 goal scorer, and though his contract is long his cap hit is uner $4 million (low enough that it won't really hurt much even if he does start to suck in a few years). He's not a great skater (not terrible either), and not nearly as physical or tough as you want from a guy his size, but he's not as lazy as he's made out to be. He may not add as much as other guys when he's not scoring, but he's not useless either. No question I would take Perry or Ryan over him, they are great young players and may yet improve even more. That doesn't mean he's a good trade option. But I guess people are going to hate who they hate regardless.

Franzen leads the team in goals and is second in points. He's on pace for over 30 goals. How is that "not performing"?

Perry is the reigning Hart and Rocket Richard winner, and scores more points. That probably puts a premium on his trade value. I think I like Ryan more anyway, though maybe that's just due to Perry's douchebaggery. I'd be ok with either, depending on what we'd give up. I would take either over Franzen, I just think we'd be better off moving Flip instead (Hudler would be even better, but his value isn't in the same ballpark). Mule may be down a bit from a couple years ago, and Flip is at his highest, but Mule is still a better overall player.

And if even one of our best prospects turns out as good as Ryan we'd be pretty lucky. He's only 24 and has 3 years left on a pretty reasonable deal. He could be a long-term cornerstone or a future trade asset for us. It wouldn't do any long-term damage to give up some prospects. I don't think Mule is the way to go though. He does have the ability to dominate games, even if he's not consistent. Right now, I think Flip's market value is pretty close to (and for some teams maybe even higher than) Mule's, so I don't think we'd need to add much if anything extra by sending him instead. Our best hope is that the Ducks are still out of the playoff race come the deadline. If they think they have a chance they'd probably want another good roster forward. If they're out, maybe something like Flip, Tatar, and a 1st, with maybe a late round pick added would get it done. If they'd take just prospects (say, Nyquist and Andersson in lieu of Flip), even better. With our core players, the grinders, and free agency we might not have room for all our prospects anyway. A top 6 for the next few years of Pav, Hank, Mule, Flip, Ryan, and Cleary or Hudler looks pretty good. After that our next round of prospects should be about ready...

Maybe you need to read what you wrote. Sure, you said you were dreaming; and went on to say "Here is Holland chance to make ammends on that mistake, get rid of Franzen & Hudler and make his team much better and tougher to play against in the form of Getzlaf and Perry. That is a blockbuster trade that will workout for both teams. " and "I hope Holland doesn't make the same mistakes...". Sorry if I misinterpreted that as you believing such a deal was feasible. Yeah, it'd be worth giving up Franzen to get either, and it's at least a somewhat feasible start. But if you want to talk about getting BOTH of them, as you were, then you need to start involving Datsyuk.

So basically, you've already convinced yourself that the Ducks are actually offering this, so you're going to hate Holland for "rejecting" your fantasy. In realityland, Franzen, Hudler, and most of our best prospects (not the lower prospects you list) isn't likely to get you even one of Getz or Perry. They are two of the better young players in the game; you are not going to get them for a 2nd-tier forward nearing the end of his prime, a 3rd-tier forward who's useless when not scoring, and a bunch of prospects who may or may not be anything in the NHL. You want both? It probably starts with Datsyuk. Straight up Franzen for Getzlaf you'd have to be retarded to say no. You move other guys to get back the goal scoring. Of course, it's so unbalanced it would never happen anyway, so...

I'd really only be interested in Ryan and Beauchemin. Nothing against Getz (or even Perry really), but considering the cost to get them I don't think they'd provide enough return. Can't guess what they'd want for Beau, though if we could sell them on E or Kindl without having to add too much more I'd be all for it. E, Abby or Miller, and a 2nd? Pretty close to what they gave Toronto (considering what Lupul was doing at the time). Wouldn't exactly improve Anaheim this year, though as we get closer to the deadline the Ducks may start looking further into the future, and Beau is a pending UFA. Ryan I think would be out of our range. Probably only feasible if the Ducks get really interested in picks/prospects. Flip probably has to be the main piece, and someone else that can add some offense. Cleary? Then a good prospect and 1st. Seems like too much from our perspective. Change Cleary to a mid-rounder or mid-tier prospect (or somehow take Flip out) and it looks a lot better, but would only make sense for them if they go into full rebuild mode.

Ian Laperriere. Doctors have actually advised him to retire, and he almost certainly will after the season. The only reason he hasn't already is so the Flyers can circumvent the 35+ clause by keeping him on LTIR for two years.

Depends on what you consider "significant", and who the pending UFA is. I think any of the players in the OP would be significant, and I could see Carolina moving them for mainly picks, with a pending UFA added in. Maybe not any of ours, but the point stands.

Several possible reasons. As stated, a need to stay over the floor while also clearing cap space for the summer. Could be a player they want and are willing to pay for the exclusive negotiation time. Desire to dump salary and/or a player they are unahappy with, with little concern for the long-term return. Marketing ploy. Or it could just be that the pending UFA is only a piece in a package deal. As to the OP question, Ruutu is an easy choice for me. He'd add a physical element we could really use in our top 6, and he's having a pretty good year in terms of goal scoring. I don't think Jokinen adds anything we don't already have, and adding a defenseman to play on the 3rd pair (or bump Stuart down) wouldn't help as much.

Ford Field. First ever outdoor game played indoors. Now that would be something different.

Try watching Bert with some objectivity. Same with Nyquist and Smith.

They'll do captains again: http://senators.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=605615 I'd guess Alfie and Chara, assuming they get in.

You could say that about most teams. 10 (11 counting this year) years without any type of success, losing tons of money, declining attendance... I don't see anything to suggest the team will have any success in the near future, nor would I be particularly confident that they'd become consistently profitable even if they did. Nashville, Carolina, and Florida are other options. St. Louis too, but they at least have some history and a good looking young team.

That is true, but I don't think you'd need to move more than a few teams to make a noticable difference in league finances. Quebec City could support a team, and you could likely put 2 (maybe even 3) more teams in Ontario; one more should be easy. With Atlanta gone, just moving Phoenix would be huge for the league. Isles or Columbus for the second.

"At some point" I wouldn't mind those lines, assuming that the "point" is some time after Nyquist has done something to earn a top line spot. I don't love Hudler opposite Mule, especially with Hank. Too little size, speed, and physicality on the line (but you can say that about our top 6 in general). To address some of your points: Bert has been decent since joining Pav and Mule. I'm no fan of his, but he's strong and tough to knock off the puck. He does still have high-end offensive instincts, and makes a good complementary player. Barring a trade or an unexpected develpment surge from one of the kids, I don't think we can regularly replace him in the lineup when he's playing well. The lack of a real center hurts that 4th line more than Homer. He has been surprisingly effective on the 4th line this year I think. He won't score much, but he does good work along the boards and kills a lot of time keeping the puck in the opposing end of the ice. He has more offensive awareness than a typical 4th-liner, and he's not bothered by rough play. I think he causes problems for other 4th lines and a lot of 3rd D pairs. Swap Abby with Miller or Eaves and the line looks much better. I think Hank would benefit from bigger guys like Mule and Bert creating some space. Flip and Huds have been pretty good this year regardless of linemates, and Pav is Pav. I think those 6 are the best we can do without a trade. Decent to very good, mostly depending on how Mule is going at the time. Huds-Pav-Flip Mule-Hank-Bert Cleary on the 3rd line, plus subbing in for Hudler when we need defense. Homer on the 4th, plus PP time. The rest of the bottom 6 is a lot of interchangeable parts. Helm and Abby centering with Miller and Eaves the other wingers is probably the best lineup, but Conner's speed is also an asset (Mursak probably the same). Nyquist and Tatar offer a lot of skill. Emmy, Andersson, and even Bruno can play without looking too out of place. There's a lot of experiments I'd like to see. I think Homer, Abby, Miller, Eaves, and occasionally Bert can sit without hurting us too much. I'd like to see a line of Conner-Helm-Mursak. I'd like to see Gus and Tatar together, maybe with a vet like Bert or Homer, or a younger guy with some size like Abby, Andy, or even Bruno (though I'd guess that experiment is over). I hope at some point Eaves can work his way back in (and not just for injuries). Overall though, I think our best combos are: Cleary-Helm-Eaves Homer-Abby-Miller Not a ton of skill and not great hitters, but very good speed and defense, and all are very hard working. On defense, I'd be ok with any combination of E, Smith, Kindl, Commie. I think Smith will be very good, but I don't think he's a difference-maker right now.

Yeah, yeah. Only Wings fans can overrate their players. And Wings fans never underrate our players. Wings fans are idiots, except when we hate Ericsson...then we somehow know more than Kenny and Babs. I know your schtick. Habs fans may love Gorges, but they haven't had Lidstrom on their team for the last two decades making all their other defensemen look like crap in comparison. They don't have Stuart, Kronwall, or White. Their best defenseman has missed the better part of the last three seasons. Ericsson is in only his 3rd full season, and he is far better than most fans here give him credit for. He's not as physical as he should be for his size, and he doesn't have great poise with the puck which can result in turnovers when he's pressured. He won't block shots and he doesn't have a great grasp of when he should and shouldn't jump in on offense. But he's pretty sound positionally, strong along the boards, a pretty good skater, makes a good pass when he has time, and if he can figure out how to use his shot he could be a solid point producer. He has the kind of size you have to pay a premium for. Gorges doesn't have ideal size, or any particular talent on offense. He plays a simple, solid game. He's an excellent shot-blocker, but he's nothing special overall. He's not even Brad Stuart. He's more important to his team, so it justifies the salary more. Marketwise though, if E is over paid, so is Gorges.

I liked game 5:

One more hit, actually. In one more game, with far more ice time. Gorges is a far better shot blocker, but other than that they are pretty similar.

Or Dallas...

Most of the players on your list didn't actually make it to free agency anyway.

We currently have an open spot, so we won't have to send anyone down until Eaves gets back. Conner has looked good so far, but so did Emmy in his first few games. Right now, I'd have him above Emmy, but that could change in the weeks before Eaves is ready, or we could have more injuries. It's too early and the sample size is too small to make long term plans with Conner. I think he's earned a spot in the lineup for now. Assuming he keeps it up, I think Emmy, Miller and Homer will rotate with Mursak once he comes back.

I disagree. While we shouldn't expect Cleary, Hudler, Flip (though that may be changing), Bert, or Homer to each score every game (Mule too, for that matter), they are good enough that we should expect at least one of them to score in any given game. We can also expect more offense from our defensemen than most other teams. Helm, Abby, Miller, Eaves, etc. are the guys where you take what you get. Our secondary scoring is among the best in the league. We're now up to 5th in the leauge in scoring, even after the poor starts for Pav and Hank and almost a quarter of our season where we could barely buy a goal. It was a problem against San Jose (and San Jose's was against Vancouver), but "didn't" doesn't necessarily mean "couldn't". 12 games is still a pretty small sample size. We have the ability to add another top-6 forward, so we should certainly explore that option, but we don't really need it.