kipwinger

Lauranitis is such a ******. How dare you.

He did get a shot. He played 31 games for Detroit. He wasn't that impressive. Ultimately we were a better team with Jurco and Ferraro in the lineup. I'd agree with you if he'd come in and played really solidly in those 30 games. But he really wasn't great. Not bad. But not great. And "not bad" isn't enough to pencil the kid into a regular spot in the lineup.

There's absolutely no question that Pulkkinen will be with Detroit to start the season next year. He's out of waiver options. But I agree with Nawein. Let him earn his spot the way Tatar did. He didn't exactly set the world on fire given a respectable amount of opportunity last season. I don't think he's earned anything yet. Especially not time in the top six.

I like your style.

In these cases, demand determines the price FAR more than the price of comparable goods (players) does. Prices go WAY up because of bidding wars, they go up a little because of inflation. And once the price gets too high (6 millionish?) the demand starts to fall dramatically. Particularly for guys like Green, Franson, or Martin. Because all of them, while pretty solid in most aspects, still have significant shortcomings as players. If I had to handicap it I'd say Martin will get 4.5-5 million for 3-4 years. Franson will get 5.75 for 6-7 years. And Green will get 6-6.3 million on a 2-3 year deal.

I am 100% suggesting that none of Green, Franson, or Martin will get 7 million dollars AAV. And I'll be happy to bet anybody who thinks they will. I'll take it a step further and state that all three will leave the teams they're on now, and none will get 7 million. This whole notion that one bad contract inflates the market is overblown. It happens, but not like people think. The cap still constrains the upper limit on these contracts. For example: Orpik got overpayed. But his overpayment didn't noticeably affect the price for Niskanen, who was the better player. The fact that Orpik was making 5.5 million didn't suddenly mean that teams would be willing to give Niskanen 7 million. That's what people thought would happen, but it didn't. Because that's still WAY too much money to give anybody who isn't a franchise player.

I'll bet you $100, to a charity of your choosing, if ANY of Franson, Green, or Martin get 7 million dollars AAV. I'll bet you $500 dollars, to a charity of your choosing if ALL of them do (as you're suggesting). Deal?

I agree. I'm not against changes, but I suspect that Dekeyser will get put back on the point of the second PP unit. He manned the point before Zids got there, and it was already a top ranked PP before the Zidlicky trade. Just like in years past, Smith will get an opportunity on the PP in the preseason. He'll need to beat out Dekeyser and/or Kindl for that spot. If he does, great. I obviously want the PP to be tops in the league again this year. If that's with Smith, good. But in the past he has not been able to keep a spot over those other two guys, let alone a quality PP quarterback like Zids (or Green, or Franson, should KH make a splash in FA).

I agree. I sure hope that Blash doesn't base his decision off what Babcock did. But I think it would equally foolish to change something that works, just for the sake of being different. I do have a negative bias toward Smith. I think he's terrible. Fortunately, all of his stats and usage tend to support that position. He wasn't demoted down to the third pair because Babs didn't like him. And it's not like he had to beat out superstars for a spot in the top four. If he can't be better than Quincey, Ericsson, or Dekeyser then he really isn't all that great. If Blash comes in and changes the system (or utilizes him differently) and he flourishes, great. Good for him and good for the team. I'll be happy to eat crow on it. I've been wrong about plenty of Red Wings in the past (Abby, Helm, Ericsson, Quincey, Glendening, and Cleary just to name a few). They all worked their way in to more reliable roles. If Smith does the same, I'll be fine with it. But to date he hasn't...and until he does, he probably shouldn't get more opportunity, ice time, and responsibility than he has right now.

Why bother? Two of those guys suck, and the other three don't fit our organizational philosophy. When McLellan and Bylsma were hired elsewhere, the (already low) probability that we'd hire anyone else fell to zero.

It's not a strawman argument at all. I'm not suggesting you think he's dumb. I'm saying he's dumb. He turns the puck over , frequently blows his coverage, and was benched the first two games of the playoffs for playing the puck from the bench. His judgement is questionable, to say the least. I'm not really sure why you're being contrary here. All I've said is that he needs to earn powerplay time, not be handed powerplay time. Seems like a truism. Are you suggesting he should be used on the powerplay just because it seems like he'd be good there based on his skill set? Because that's a horrible way to run a team. Nobody would argue that Jurco should replace Abby in the top six because he's faster and a better stickhandler. Nobody would suggest Gustavsson should start over Howard because he's bigger, more athletic, and is safer with the puck. They actually have to play better, consistently, when they're called upon. To date, Brendan hasn't done that. Which is why Babs didn't trust him, why his icetime was reduced, and why his stats suffered. Not because he was being misutilized. If Smith gets an opportunity and runs with it, good. If not, too bad. He's not entitled to powerplay time just because he has more raw talent than somebody else.

Well, as much as I have criticized Mike Babcock over the years, I don't think he actively wanted the team to lose. And if there were an obvious way to improve the team, I'm sure he'd have done it. So the fact that Riley's brother was consistently left off the powerplay tells me that he's probably not as good at it as you'd think. Likely due to the fact that he's dumb and makes awful decisions, which might very well outweigh his skating ability. Again, if he gets a chance and runs with it. Good. But I'd be really reluctant to change something that's working really well just because it would be good for one guy. He needs to earn it like everybody else.

Would it be better for the team? As I've already stated, our powerplay was really good without him. Unless he makes it better, it doesn't matter what it would do for him individually.

Why? Our powerplay was really good without him. I'd like to see if Blashill can get more out of some of our under performers. So in that sense I get what you're saying. But there's no sense in changing something that's working really well, just to get one guy going. That's counterproductive. If our powerplay regresses, or if someone struggles, then I'm all for giving Smith a shot. But if something is working well, why would you mess with it just to improve the stat line of a third pair defenseman? If Smith earns powerplay opportunities, and succeeds, good for him and good for the team. But it's going to be hard considering that was one of the best parts of our team last season.

Generally speaking, Blashill lets his defensemen be a little more active offensively. Which may bode well for the future's of Kindl or Smith. But not likely both.

But what you said to discredit Osgood is also true of those other guys. If you stuck Sawchuck, Fuhr, Plante, or Smith on crappy teams, instead of dynasty teams, they wouldn't have been great either. They were all system goalies. But nobody holds it against them. Osgood put up comparable, or better, career numbers than the guys I just mentioned. He did it on a really good team. They did it on even better teams. But only Osgood gets criticized for it.

I can't wait to see how Toronto fans, media, etc. react to trap hockey. It's going to be soooooo sweet,. Cherry will love it. Everyone else will come falling back to earth the minute they realize their team isn't going to score goals.

I'm really not trying to turn this into an Osgood debate, but it looks like it's already heading that way. Using the fact that Osgood "took advantage of all-star teams" against him completely ignores the fact that guys like Fuhr, Sawchuk, Plante, and Smith ALL played for dynasty teams as well. I don't see anybody arguing that Grant Fuhr's banner should be pulled down because he played with Messier and Gretzky.

Yeah, because Mike Babcock loves those three guys. Might as well thrown Kindl in there too. That'll really sweeten the pot. Any potential trade for Phaneuf went right out the window the second Babs went to Toronto.

Why would Holland do that? It was Babcock that wanted him back. If anything, Shanny's working on his next contract.

Ken Holland will offer the same thing he always does. He'll offer the chance to make reasonable money and play for a perennial winner who treats you well. He will not, however, offer the most money. So guys who want the make the most, and don't care about anything else, won't come here. Guys who want to win, be treated well, AND make reasonable money will sign here. Franson, Green, or anybody else will need to decide if they're in it for the money, or if they'd like to be part of an organization that's competently run and consistently successful. If the former, then we're probably better off promoting from within anyway. At least it will keep us out of cap hell.

That's because the Griffs are making it easy on him. They gain the zone and toss the puck at him from the perimeter. Of course it's easy for him to deal with. They've got not net front presence and nobody is making plays in the offensive zone. They look like a team full of Mikael Samuelssons.

Griffs need to get some sustained pressure and some bodies in front of Markstrom. You're not going to beat that giant without a screen.

Just heard Kent Huskins' name mentioned playing for Utica. Anybody remember that crazy cat?

Now now, no need for that. I just disagree with you about Jurco, vociferously. But that doesn't mean we can't be friends. I'll assume that this post is exactly that, a dust up amongst old pals. And I'll take note of the fact that when I disagree with you in the future, you'd probably prefer that I do so in a gentler way.