Buppy

Yeah, I said Ehrhoff's deal was fine. Not really sure what this has to do with my post... And signing bonuses are irrelevent. For all intents and purposes they are the same as salary for the year in which they're earned.

That's a very minor technicality because someone didn't pay attention to the math. To lump it in with the long-term deals is stupid.

A bit less than $16M to sign those 4 plus 3 defensemen. I think they'd probably move guys like Avery or Wolski first, Dubs or Callahan last.

That just creates other loopholes. You can still front load contracts, and just stagger multiple contracts so high years coincide with other low years. The Ehrhoff and Richards deals are fine, nothing like the rejected Kovy deal. The Kovy deal was bad because it took the principle to a ridiculous extreme. What was it? 44 years old originally? 6 years at league minimum (possibly below by that time)? Plus I think another 1 or 2 years at a low rate. NJ just went way too far with it. Nothing is perfect. You'll either have loopholes, or you'll be too restrictive. At most, the rule as it stands needs a little tweaking. Maybe lower the amount that salary can go up or down. Maybe change the AAV cutoff from 40 to 37 or 38. Maybe make any deal that extends beyond 35 count as a 35+ contract. Nothing that should take more than a day or two to negotiate.

Considering he's only 20 I'd say he's more a prospect than a project. Had we drafted him, he might not have played an NHL game thus far.

According to HF, Phoenix is pretty strong in defensive prospects. They have 6 defenseman signed now, and if they lost Yandle could easily plug in Ekman-Larsson or go after one of the remaining FAs. They're weak in forward prospects, especially center (which we have a lot of). Very much like the situation in Minnesota. That most likely means they wouldn't be interested in Smith or Kindl. They might be interested in Stuart, and I wouldn't hate that move, but more likely they'd want scorers. Flip would be a good start; Hanzal is their best (only?) center right now. Turris if they resign him is pretty good. But Flip would have a good chance of being their top-line center. Then I think we'd have to add one top prospect, plus another decent prospect, plus a couple picks; maybe 2 1sts or a 1st and 2nd. Abby could be attractive to them, but leaves us thin at center (haven't looked at what FAs are still around, but may be a hole we could fill). Emmerton and Andersson are probably not good enough to draw much interest, but maybe as a throw-in. Tatar probably fits best for them, but some of our other top forwards would work. No, I doubt they'd have any interest in Hudler...they have decent wingers as it is. So...Flip, Tatar, Andersson, 2-1sts? Flip, Abby, Emmerton, 2-1sts?

Babchuk, White, and Kaberle would all fit. Hedberg or Conklin are about the only goalies left, unless we want to gamble on Ozzie or splurge for Vokoun. We don't have the assets for any meaningful trade, and the available forwards suck. So I wouldn't expect much. I still wouldn't mind gambling on Zherdev in place of Emmerton. I have a hard time picturing Emmerton in our future, so I don't think we'd really be losing anything. Gagne would be even better. Less of a gamble, and maybe bigger payoff, though more expensive.

Considering the players we have potentially coming up, I'd expect them to fill a third scoring line role, much like Pav and Hank did. We have Homer, Hudler, and Bert expring next year. The only forward that seems really ready to make the jump by then is Tatar. Then we have Mursak, who will probably be rotating with Eaves and Miller this year, maybe looking for a regular spot. Then Emmerton and Andersson, both I think on the bubble as to whether they'll be NHL players. Maybe Nyquist and Callahan. For top 6 forwards we'd have Pav, Hank, Mule, Flip, and Cleary. Bottom 6 we have Helm, Abby (assuming we'd re-sign both), Eaves, Miller, Mursak. Emmerton as a sub. That should still leave a spot for a top 6 FA addition, a 3rd/4th line role for Tatar, and room for one of the other possibilities to crack the lineup or another FA addition. Worst (or best) case scenario we could have too many guys ready and look for a trade before the 12-13 season. Not sure when everyone runs out of waiver exemption, but there's always the chance of a 'ready' player spending an extra year on the farm. It's not like we have a ton of prospects who are going to be demanding roster spots in the next 3 years, and even if we did they couldn't all play on the 4th line anyway.

An offer with a $1,034,249 annual cap hit or less: No compensation More than $1,034,249 — $1,567,043: Third-round pick More than $1,567,043 — $3,134,088: Second-round pick More than $3,134,088 — $4,701,131: First and third-round pick More than $4,701,131 — $6,268,175: First, second and third-round pick More than $6,268,175 — $7,835,219: Two first-round picks, a second and third More than $7,835,219 and higher: Four first-round picks

Being upset that we didn't get Burns (or anyone else), and even more upset that SJ did is one thing. Blaming it on Kenny as if he had complete control of the situation, especially when you have no idea what Kenny did or didn't do, is another. You seem to be under the assumption that we can do whatever we want. Honestly, you just sound bored. Like you want something to happen just for sake of something happening. Being aggressive doesn't make a team better; being right does. Philly's always been pretty aggressive...where's it gotten them? You can't make moves just to be doing something, and you can't make bad moves just because it seems like a good idea now. Even if Kenny made all the moves you want, it doesn't guarantee a Cup. And if we don't win the Cup, criticizing the moves as failures like people did with Hossa. Even in the best case scenario, we win the Cup, it doesn't end there. Kenny would just have to do it all over again next year. It's like for some people he has to be perfect in order to be considered adequate. If you look at the deals that were actually made, we would have had to sell the farm to match them. We don't have a young goal scorer on the roster, or a prospect as highly rated as Coyle. We don't have a 21 year-old 50-point scorer, or one of the highest rated prospects (top rated by HF). The #8 overall was worth more than all our picks this year put together. The only way for us to match those deals would be to add more prospects and picks. Some teams wouldn't even want that. Trades aren't like buying something at a store where you offer up the right sum value and the other team automatically accepts. The actual currency matters; some teams would rather have a couple shiny quarters than handful of nickels. Even if they would, we still have to consider whether it's the right move for us long-term. We're heading into a transition period. Nick, Pav, Hank, Mule, Bert, Homer, Stuart, Kronwall...all either aging or on expiring contracts. Trades could fill a couple holes, but not all of them. Free agency can help too. But you can't build a team that way. We give up all our prospects to fill a couple holes with stars and star salaries, we're left with no way to fill the other holes. In the cap era, you need good, cheap, prospects to round out your team. San Jose has Couture, so Setoguchi became expendable. They're tighter to the cap, so they have fewer options, so for them it makes sense to risk the future to better their odds for a Cup now. We, on the other hand, could potentially sign three of the top defenseman available. For us, giving up prospects for him makes much less sense. With Carter or Richards we'd have another long-term contract to worry about, maybe a risk we don't want even it if we could have gotten one of them. We were good enough to compete for the Cup last year, as we have been every single year Holland has been GM. We really only have one hole at the moment, and a lot of cap room to fill that and try to get better...without giving up what few future assets we have. Trades are fun to talk about and there's some I'd make if I could. But you can't get pissed about something you know nothing about. Speculate all you like, but you don't actually know if any given trade would be accepted. No matter how good it seems to you, unless you've spoken with the GM on the other side you can't say it's possible with the certainty you need in order to justify criticizng Kenny. At least have the respect to save your criticism until you see an offer he turned down or he makes a move you don't like.

Group A: Lidstrom (53) Fedorov (74) Datsyuk (171) Zetterberg (210) Group B: Yzerman (only since at 4th overall, you expect a franchise player) Konstantinov (221, likely top of the list if not for the accident) Gallant (107) Franzen (97) Helm (132) Homer (257) Honorable mention: Klima (86, would be up a group if he'd stayed longer) Osgood (54) Flip (95) Kozlov (45) Probert (46) McCarty (46) Chiasson (50)

It's short for Sheahanstrominenov

Replace Jarnkrok with Nyquist. Jarnkrok will be too busy centering Tatar and Pulkkinen.

I think he was referring to Brouwer. But either way, the core thing was a joke, stemming from a few Chicago fans calling basically everyone they kept, including Campbell, part of the 'core'.

After reading up on it here: Fletcher says he got a lot of calls. I'd guess one of them was from Holland, but we just didn't have the assets Minnesota was looking for. They wanted a young shooter, so none of our roster players would have fit. We don't have any prospects currently rated as highly as Coyle, plus Flethcer seems to really like both Coyle and Gooch. Maybe something like Tatar, Sheahan, Pulkkinen, + our 1st could have gotten it done, but I wouldn't weaken our forward prospects that much for Burns. He's not Shea Weber. Currently we have $16,207,955

One, the article doesn't say Babs is pissed at Kenny. You're all just assuming Kenny didn't make an offer, as if the hockey world revolves around us and every team looking to deal has to come to us for permission. For all we know Kenny did make an offer and was turned down, or Minny really liked SJs offer and Kenny never had a chance. I'm also disappointed that we didn't get Burns. I'm surprised the price was that low, and believe we could have offered something comparable. But I'm not going to get pissed at someone who's done so much for this team even if it comes out that he wasn't interested in Burns. There are reasons why Burns wouldn't be as attractive to us as he was to SJ. The Sharks also needed a top 4 defenseman. They don't have the cap space we do so their FA prospects aren't as good. Burns gives them a stud at a cheap price. They have the rest of their top 4 signed beyond this year; we already have 3 top 4 defenseman in their last year. Setoguchi was their 7th best forward; if we had to give up Flip or Franzen it'd be our 3rd/4th best, and our top 6 was already weaker than SJ's. If I hear that Minny asked us for Hudler and Emmerton and we turned it down, I'd be pissed. But if it would have been Flip and Nyquist, even though I'd still do it, I could at least understand. Burns is better than any FA this year, but he's not a Norris candidate.

Players at this level have <50% of ever making it in the NHL. For teams like the Wings it can be better to have two guys who probably won't be much, but maybe we strike gold, then one with a little better chance.

Minny, especially after drafting Brodin, wasn't looking for a defenseman. Again, I don't know much about Coyle, but I'd say a comparable offer would be something like Flip, Nyquist, and our 1st.

Gooch isn't much, if any, better than Flip. More of a goal scorer, so probably a better fit. Don't know much about Coyle, but he better be good or that's a weak trade for Minnesota.

You really think that's the best deal Minny could get for Burns? And why would they want to trade him in the first place? Have there even been any rumors that he wants to leave?

I was referring to dangles' roster with Burns on it. I figured about 2.5 for Burns and Kindl, and about 1 each for Stuie, Helm, and Abby. Hudler was already gone, replaced by Jagr. Nick retires + the free cap space he had pays for the raises. Homer replaced by Tatar gives you $1M, Jagr and Bert retire pushes that to $5M and you need a top 6 forward, a 5/6 defenseman, and a depth forward. Doable, even if the cap stagnates, though it'd be tight. That's why I said if we knew the cap would go up it would be alright. But my main point in that post was more about the unlikely trade for Burns than Richards. Though considering all the uncertainty anyway: The cap/new CBA, development of guys like Smith, Tatar, Mursak, and Emmerton, Nick's plans, Stuart, Kronwall, Helm, and Abby all FAs... Do you really want to invest a big chunk of cap in one player while also adding another pending UFA who's going to be looking for a sizable raise? Richards is a great player, but I'm not sure he really fits our situation or our needs.

The 'weakness' is that the roster relies on an unrealistic trade for Burns. Then there's about $8M is raises due the following year, essentially forcing Nick into retirement, and even after that if you lose Jagr, Homer, and Bert you're left with a hole in the top 6. Maybe if we knew the cap would go up another $3-5M...

Bettman's just teasing us. He can say he's moving us East to gain our trust, then he'll reveal the rest of his plan: Move all the other West teams to the East, and all the East teams to the West, then relocate the Prime Meridian to Central Asia, thus placing all of the US west of Pittsburgh in the Eastern hemisphere, to give some logic to the whole thing.

If by some miracle we were to trade for Burns, we could give up our first this year. Odds are in 10 years he'll still be better than anyone we could draft anyway. But the only reason Minnesota could possibly have for trading Burns is fear they won't be able to sign him, and unless he's come out and told them he won't re-sign I doubt they'd be willing to mive him now unless they were getting someone around the same age and just as good or better, or maybe a top 10 pick plus extras. Most likely they'll keep trying to get him signed, maybe decide to move him at the deadline if they're not confident.

I don't know, Markov has had injury issues the last two years, and he's a bit older, but he's also been much better defensively and offensively. I really like Wis, but he does still have to prove he can maintain that offensive output. Also, one big signing isn't going to skew the market much.