kipwinger

He's doesn't have any right, but he doesn't has some say. Any team looking to give up the kind of assets that a guy like Nylander will fetch is surely going to contact his agent and see if he has an interest in the team and if he's willing to sign a deal with them. If he says no, then why part with a package like that for a guy who doesn't want to be there?

Whelp, got that one dead wrong didn't I? Yeesh.

Big fan of the lines for tonight's game. The top two are producing and shouldn't be messed with. Ras-Glen-Bert seems like they'd have decent offense and would be miserable to play against. And Vanek-De La Rose-Frk should end up playing very little, but may provide a reasonable amount of offensive pressure in a limited role. At the very least it's starting to look like fans are getting what they wanted for years when we complained about not wanting/needing a "shutdown line". These are four lines with decent offensive potential. Edit: Also, Ericsson is a healthy scratch again. For those who never thought that would ever happen.

I think it makes a lot of sense for both teams. I don't know how Toronto would fit Panarin's cap hit or if Columbus could take on salary though.

I don't know man. Werenski is a really good player, but so is Nylander. Dude put up back to back 61 point seasons at 20 and 21 years old. I don't think Columbus would trade Werenski, as they'd just be filling on hole and creating another. But I could see trying to build a package around Panarin. They're going to lose him anyway and Nylander would immediately become the Blue Jackets' best winger.

Only if the Leafs' counter offer was reasonable. By many accounts they've been lowballing him because they're up against the cap and also don't have money to sign him to a fair price this year and then do the same for Marner and Gardiner next off season. There's also term to consider. God only knows what's going on there. As far as him living up to the money, I'm not so sure. If we take the age old maxim that you get a million bucks for every 10 points you put up (basically what Larkin got), that would make him worth about 6 million in his age 20 and 21 seasons. So the question is whether Nylander hit his ceiling at 21, or whether he'll improve on that in a significant way. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that riding shotgun for Mathews or Tavares would net Nylander another 15-20 points or more as he moves into his prime.

I'd argue that market disequilibrium works out for the teams just as often as it works out for the players. Roman Josi has outperformed his contract for years. Off the top of my head Pacioretty, Letang, Klingberg, too. Tons of guys are on contracts that were signed before the reached the ceilings that everybody knew they were going to reach. I don't see many teams rushing to make up that gap. You can argue that Nylander isn't worth 8 million (which is a starting ask and not what anybody thinks he'll actually get), but it seems odd to argue that a hockey player's value should be determined by the quality of the games they've played without giving much weight to the quality of the games they will play in the future. Also, the economics of an NHL contract are not the same as the economics for most jobs anyway. Most jobs don't have salary caps. Most jobs are open ended and don't end after a finite period of time followed by a free agency period. Hell, most workers aren't "retired" at 40 because they can no longer physically do their jobs. As a result of these (and other factors), almost no player is getting paid exactly what they're worth at any given moment. Instead, the hope is that they'll provide fair value over the life of the contract.

Wait, why does the AHL have a bunch of day games going on today?

Didn't say they were. I was asking. You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion in favor of management against the worker and I asked if that applied to labor disputes as well? I assumed that if you felt like they weren't "one and the same" that you'd explain why.

Do you have this same "Athletetes are a bunch of rich babies who need to be crushed" attitude when it comes to lockouts as well?

To be honest, I don't even really need Hughes. I'll take Dylan Cozens and the best defender available for the 1st rounder we'll get for Nyquist over any of the other options above. Edit: Or Kirby Dach. I might like him better than Cozens. But if we draft in the top 4 we're looking really good here.

Can't wait to see AA riding shotgun for Veleno. Yeesh.

I would too. Did you see Osgood's scarf during the pre-game? I'd be afraid he'd double cross me a la Chris Jericho.

Let's say we finish out the season dramatically outperforming expectations. Say we just miss a playoff spot, but Larkin clearly establishes himself as a top line center, AA and Mantha are legit 20+ goal scorers, Cholo shows 1st pair skill, and Rasmussen looks solid. And we know we've got Zadina, Veleno, Hronek, Saarijarvi, Berggren, McIsaac, and our first rounders from this year's draft coming. Do you make a strong push for Quenneville then?

Mantha's been on fire since that demotion. Gotta give it to Blashill on that one.

Wait, so you're in favor of teams using every ounce of leverage they have to maintain financial dominance over players?

I was reading an article by Max Bultman of The Athletic about how Detroit can accelerate it's rebuild. Most of it was boiler plate "get lucky at the draft" or "hope player X turns about better than anticipated" kind of stuff. But two of his premises were pretty fun to think about. A) Trade for undervalued players, or B) Hockey Trades. He mentioned Honka or Pujujarvi as examples of the first category, and Trouba and Faulk as examples of the second. So, I challenge LGW to think of examples of either or both that haven't already been mentioned. Outside the box type s***. And then propose a realistic trade package. I'll start... To Detroit: Josh Ho Sang To NYI: Evgeny Svechnikov

Blashill is a lame duck. Everybody knows. This is just a stealth tank job. Nothing more. Blash gets relieved at year's end. Sooner if we start getting embarrassed each night.

I was trying to set a snare for the LGW members who spent all that time talking trash about how either Quenneville, or the Hawks, weren't really all that good. Because one or the other needs to be true. You foiled it. Thanks man.

I'd go with Mantha, Frk, Nyq, Larkin, Green on unit one, and Ras, Vanek, Bert, AA, and Cholo on unit two when all are healthy.

I'd argue that Mantha should lead the team in shots on goal every game, or nearly every game, for him to be doing "his thing" properly. He's not a play maker. He's supposed to be a goal scorer. He has a decent shooting percentage, but he needs to increase his shot volume if he wants to produce more. I really don't care how many assists he has, that's not really his job.

At some point we've got to conclude that A) there's something wrong with Mantha, or B) he's just not as good as people thought he might be. There's a few things that could explain his lack of production though. First, he's no longer got Zetterberg feeding him prime scoring opportunities. Second, he's no longer playing down low and at the net front on the PP. You can't really blame the system, as it's the same for every player in it. You also can't really blame opportunity, he's getting plenty of prime minutes. If I'm Blashill I get him back in front of the net on the PP pronto. He needs to get some goals under his belt. Plus, this whole "Mantha is a sniper" pipe dream is clearly not panning out. If he wants to score at the NHL level he needs to be forced to change his game. It worked last year, this year he's playing like a princess.

I'd go... Nyq-Lark-Ras Vanek-Neilsen-AA Frk-De La Rose-Mantha Bert-Glen-Abby

I'd be especially interested in Quenneville because of the type of team he won with. For years people have been saying you need to have "elite" talent at #1 defensemen and #1 center. But the general consensus around here seems to be that Toews is a top line center, but not one of the top 5(ish) in the league during his peak years. Same goes for Keith. Hossa and Sharp were good supplemental pieces, but not go-to guys at that point. Kane was really his only "elite" talent according to most. Sounds a lot like Larkin, Mantha, AA, Zadina, Cholo, Veleno, et. al. Add an "elite" piece in this year's draft and our makeup isn't that far off from what Quenneville was winning with.

You'd be crazy not to call now and inquire about Quenneville. He's a world class coach and those don't come around too often. That said, if he agreed in principle to coaching the Wings, you still let Blashill finish out the season and get the lottery pick. I'd love to have him, especially as we start turning the corner on this rebuild.