Matt

With that contract? PASS.

Widescreen: 1440x900 | 1280x800 Standard: 1280x1024 | 1024x768 | 800x600 Enjoy!

Some members here have been here *far* longer than their "joined" date suggests. During the aforementioned 2002 Cup run there were some catastrophic server issues... Basically, with the fully of activity (and limited space on the server) the rapid addition of posts was actually filling up the leftover space on the server. (The site was hosted on a shared server then.) Needless to say, after that happened a few times the forum's database was corrupted and on one occasion had to be re-installed entirely from scratch. There were still a few hiccups after that but nothing that required a fresh install. You can still notice the remnants of the problems it caused (the member total on the front page of the site does not match the one here on the main page of the forums, for example.)

What betterRED posted is actually more accurate. With hosting changes and server switches I've had to prune the forums periodically. The most recent one only kept posts from the last six months or so if I remember right. This forum *actually* passed the 1,000,000 mark quite some time ago. That's not even including all of the posts lost during some hosting horror stories that took place in 2002, especially during the Cup run.

Widescreen: 1440x900 | 1280x800 Standard: 1280x1024 | 1024x768 | 800x600 Enjoy!

A lot of you probably noticed yesterday evening that the message forums here were offline and there was a good reason for it: the site's hosting plan has been upgraded. Trey had floated the idea to me about upgrading the site to a more robust plan that will help prevent site slowdowns and availability issues during peak traffic times (like the upcoming trade deadline -- an annual site-crippler). After moving another site earlier this week to see how well it went, Trey had the time available yesterday to move LGW over. It was quicker than I had expected, which resulted in the lack of any notice to you regarding the fact that the forums (not the site as a whole) would be unavailable while this transition was taking place. (Forums were locked down because posts made on the site from the start of the transition to it's completion would be lost.) I hope the site seems a bit faster for you and (*knock on wood*) everything will be smooth sailing (no hangups!) when the NHL trade deadline and Stanley Cup playoffs arrive. Go Wings!

That's pretty obvious to anyone that has followed the team for any stretch of time... What age Datsyuk and Zetterberg came over to the US has no bearing on how old Brunnstrom is when he comes over. None. There are *many* players that make the jump at that age and not all of them have the success that Datsyuk and Zetterberg did... So what exactly was the point of mentioning it other than to compare them to Brunnstrom? Thanks for the enlightenment, but I think we're all cleary aware of that. So how, exactly, does that pertain to the likelihood of Holland trading Hudler prior to the deadline because he "has Brunnstrom"? Really? Could've fooled me. It has nothing to do with picking a fight and everything to do with the fact you've strayed so far of course from your original question (again: would Holland trade Hudler this season because of Brunnstrom?) with your last few posts. That's not my problem, just yours, and I was attempting to point that out. But I digress...

Oh, boy... Let's break this down... You didn't specifically, but you insinuated as such because you attempted to compare Datsyuk and Zetterberg to Brunnstrom. Datsyuk and Zetterberg are, of course, 1st-line NHLers. If you can remember a few posts back, you asked if Holland would be more willing to trade Hudler for a big-time scoring forward since we woudl have "Brunnstrom coming next year." I told you no, and outlined why, then you replied with something totally unrelated by mentioning Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Well... duh. Again, YOU asked if Holland would be more prone to trading Hudler prior to the deadline (which you now add the caveat of "this year or next" after the fact) -- I said no, because Brunnstrom is not proven on this side of the pond yet, to which you replied the Brunnstrom was the same age as Datsyuk/Zetterberg when he'd be coming over the pond. Not sure how that is pertinent to this topic of discussion, but whatever. As I mentioned in my original reply, any personnel moves that would be a result of Brunnstrom's performance here would not even take place until next season at the earliest because Holland can't act on what is still an unproven commodity in North America.

How does that have anything do with trading Hudler prior to the deadline because "Brunnstrom's coming next year"? That was the whole point of your previous post. So because the Wings have had incredible luck in both Datsyuk and Zetterberg that means that, because Brunnstrom went undrafted and will be 23 in a couple weeks he's a sure-fire 1st line NHLer? Come on, now.

No. Not this season, at least. For all of the hype Brunnstrom hasn't played a lick on this side of the pond. If he signs here and makes the team out of camp we'll have a better idea then. But to make that kind of deal on an unknown quantity (not to mention he can't even sign with Detroit officially until late March -- a month after the trade deadline) would be a bad idea.

Not sure how the Ducks, with the addition of Selanne, are "worse" than last year. It doesn't make sense. IMO, this team will be better than last year's Cup-winning squad if they manage to stay healthy. Another year of experience under the belts of Getzlaf and Perry, you replace Penner with Bertuzzi and you've got another rocket launcher on the blueline in Schneider. Not to mention rested, healthy (read: no bum ankle) versions of Neidermayer and the aforementioned Selanne. Weight isn't a huge downgrade from MacDonald. He's not the caliber of player that MacDonald is today, but it's not like they replaced him with Bob Errey.

As long as the pro-rated salary he signs for is under the cap limit (and if it's just for the remainder of this season) -- no one. The only reason Neidermayer's return forced Burke's hand is because his contract still had a few seasons on it, and adding that back in would've forced the payroll over the cap for 2008-09, etc. due to the multi-year contracts already on the roster due to Bertuzzi and Schneider.

Vancouver scares the hell out of me with just Luongo there.

This is something that worked out well for the Ducks to this point, but I think the blasting of Burke is misguided. As outlined already in this thread, the team was missing it's top forward and top defenseman for half of the regular season -- a massive blow for any team to withstand. Did Burke "influence" either of them to keep themselves on the shelf? I severely doubt it. In a league that is now defined by parity (well, except in Detroit, apparently), that is an ENORMOUS RISK to assume. The Ducks, if not for Neidermayer's return, could just as well be on the outside looking in at the playoff picture. Burke maybe one to take some risks, but no GM is that stupid. If you're going to attack anyone, attack Neidermayer and Selanne. They took half of the season off.

Traditionally there is a rather large contingent of Red Wings fans that are members here that make it an annual get-together to go to the games in Anaheim and Los Angeles. Check out the "Group Events" forum here -- you'll find a large and dedicated group that meets up prior to the games (and on this trip, actually met with the players after practice this week on a couple of occasions.)

Next time Pronger wants to fight Cleary, Dan should remember this right off the start:

Did Pronger seriously just bust out his Lee Press-Ons on Cleary's face? And Cleary "turtled" because either 1) Pronger's cat-scratch fever knicked the cut over his eye and/or 2) One of Pronger's flailing punches hit the top of Dan' helmet and gouged the edge of it into his brow (likely). Cleary only stopped when he saw the blood flowing pretty quickly from above his eye. Good scrap, outside of Pronger's cat-fight tactic off the start.

Some people are still not getting the point, apparently.

Again: The Red Wings will NOT trade Kronwall for a rental player. Yes, the Wings could use another Top 6 forward -- that's obvious. But it will not come at the cost of Kronwall.

For Sundin I wouldn't consider trading Kronwall at all. For Hossa I'd contemplate it more for one simple reason: Hossa would be a "hockey trade" and not simply a rental, as I don't see any sane scenario that the Wings wouldn't retain Hossa without a contract extension as a condition of the trade. It is MUCH harder to develop (or hell, having the *chance* to develop) a player of Kronwall's ilk. As long as he's healthy and confident we've seen what he's capable of over the course of the last 20+ games. He's a keeper, and someone that will be a bargain to the nth degree relative to his cap number. As a comparison, who would you want on your roster right now: the Kings' Brad Stuart, who gobbles up $3.5-million of your cap, or Kronwall, who consumes $3-million from now until 2012. Contracts like that are why Holland is considered one of the best GMs in the game. But you want to throw that kind of contract, that kind of deal on a top-four (future top two, if everything works out such as health and progress), away for a rental player? Not a chance. (This is not to say I don't want Sundin on this team -- he'd be a fantastic addition -- but I don't want him at the cost of Kronwall.)

Kronwall WILL NOT be traded for a rental player. It. Will. Not. Happen.

Actually, it looks like the "1" is photoshopped on there. The picture was formerly of Aaron Downey during the preseason if I remember correctly.

Good to hear.

Wondering how much this impacts the Cleary extension negotiations...

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've added a small section to the Salary Cap & Contracts Charts page on LetsGoWings.com: Free Agent & Full-Season Equivalent Cap Space Figures Remember, these figures are not to be considered 100% accurate but should be very close to what the Red Wings' actual salary cap figure is. Those figures are available in the Active Cap Summary section on the right, under "The Bottom Line". That said, examples: Free Agent Space: Consider this the "Peter Forsberg" or "Teemu Selanne" figure, since those two are the most prominent free agents. As of today, January 6th, the Red Wings could theoretically sign Forsberg (or Selanne) for no more than $5,474,189. (Not that they would, anyway, since the club would keep $1-million or so in space as a precaution.) Full-Season Equivalent Space: This is the one that should help the most. This figure will help you contemplate what full-season contracts the Red Wings can afford to add to their roster and still stay under the salary cap. For example, Marian Hossa. Hossa signed a 3-year, $18-million contract with the Thrashers two years ago. His salary cap figure is therefore $6-million. As you'll see on the chart page at the link above, the NHL season is considered to last 187 days, of which January 6th is Day 95. Therefore, the Thrashers have already paid $3,048,170 of his $6,000,000 cap number. The Wings would just be responsible for the remainder. When you figure in the active contracts that are currently being paid out by the club, the Red Wings can afford to take on the full-season contract equivalent of $11,126,874 -- more than enough to include Hossa's full-season contract equivalent. That said... There are still A LOT of variables that will affect this figure, both up *and* down. Player call-ups, like Hartigan, will seep space from this total. However, the $11-million figure increases *rapidly* the closer the team gets to the trade deadline without making any dramatic roster moves/trades. Also consider that regardless of who's available the Red Wings will keep some salary space available for player call-ups due to injuries, etc. So while the club's estimated cap space (as of January 6th's roster) is $5,474,189, the team won't use all of it. (Final note: If anyone sees an error with how the salary cap numbers/space is figured please feel free to let me know -- I want to keep it as accurate as possible.)