kipwinger

Basically this. Richards and Kessel aren't in the same boat. One is washed up and unproductive while being massively overpaid. The other is a little overpaid but is one of the best goal scorers in the game.

I agree with the parts about Chelios. I disagree with everything else. Everybody acts like line brawls happened every other night in the old days. They didn't. Guys didn't fight after each and every cheap shot back then. Want proof? Gordie Howe was LEGENDARY for elbowing. He had very few career fights (relative to his contemporaries). If he had to fight after every dirty elbow, he'd have a lot more. The unsung, and sadly unheralded, characteristic of Old Time Hockey was that players often manned up and played through cheap bulls***. They let a lot more go. It was EXPECTED you'd get elbowed, or hit in the face with a stick. It was part of the game. It didn't require a line brawl, or even a fight, every time it happened. As far as McQuaid goes. He's a tough guy. Big enough to eat hay. He was also uninjured on the play. He doesn't need anybody to stand up for him. I'm sure he'll fight Roussell the next time they play.

Babcock is the one who wants the righty. He's the one that consistently emphasizes how important it is. I have no question that Babcock will use him correctly, acquiring Franson (or a guy like him) was Babcock's idea. Holland didn't just come up with this on his own.

How is Myers better than Bogosian?

1. Ken Holland is not going to acquire Cody Franson to play him on the third pair. 2. That's exactly what I said. Smith's game has improved because he's with a righty. I didn't say, or suggest that his game improved because Marchenko is "that" good. The left/righty matchup made the third pair better by improving Smith's game. It did not noticeably change Marchenko's game. 3. We were talking about Smith's past (e.g. his first 21 games). Why would I pick a quote from this week?

Smith is worse than Quincey AND Dekeyser in every single statistical category. He's simply not better than they are. I suppose you can try to make the argument that he's currently better than Ericsson, however probably not given Ericsson's role on that pair. There are currently four better defensemen for our team's system. No knock on Smith, he's looked better with Marchenko and that pair has made some things happen lately. But this tired old "Smith's really super good, but the stars are just aligned to keep him on the third pair" crap is lame. He's been given every opportunity to grab on to a top four spot. He didn't win it. Oh well.

Wings were scouting Toronto last night. Just sayin'.

I don't think so. Not comparable. Myers was under contract. Franson's a UFA at the end of the year. Plus Kane's stock fell dramatically (attitude AND injury), which is why he had to be paired with Bogosian.

Totally saw this coming and should have called it. Damn. Would have liked to land Stafford though.

There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll try to be systematic... 1. Dekeyser is never, ever, going to be on the third pair. I know you think that it's not "technically" the third pair if you get a decent amount of minutes, but Mike Babcock (and all the other coaches in the league) don't agree. There's no benefit to acquiring a top four defenseman (Franson) and demoting one (Dekeyser) for a bottom pair guy (Smith). Mike Babcock does not believe Brendan Smith is a top four defenseman. If he was, he would be. It's not t like he's being blocked by Kronwall and Brad Stuart. He's being blocked by Kyle Quincey and younger, less experience, and undrafted stay at home defender in Dekeyser. If he was truly the better player, he'd play. 2. Marchenko has looked good because Marchenko IS good. He's playing the same side, and the same way he always does. The lefty/righty pair has disproportionately benefitted Smith's game, not Marchenko's. Put another way, Marchenko ALWAYS plays with a lefty, so playing with another one isn't a big deal. But until recently Smith NEVER played with a righty, which is why being switched has improved his game so much. 3. Xavier Ouellet has played 21 games. In that time he's shown that he's got excellent decision making, very good passing, very good work ethic, and a very good point shot. No, he's not currently better than Brenden Smith, but to suggest he won't ever be, after 21 games, is premature. If Brendan Smith was judged based off of his first 21 games he'd be flipping burgers in Ontario somewhere. Remember, this is a guy who got called out by the team captain for creating as many scoring chances for the other team as he did for his own...so don't get cocky quite yet lol.

Difference noted. But I still submit that its only reliable because we are good at it. It wouldn't be the most reliable way for Toronto to improve, because they can't develop players for s***.

I agree with your sentiments, and overall statement completely. However, I would say that (although most people don't know it yet) Andreas Athanasiou is our best prospect not named Petr Mrazek. He's flown under the radar because of his injury, but this kid is a monster. He's better than Mantha, he's better than Ouellet, he's better than Sproul, and though he's not currently better than Pulkkinen he will be a better NHLer.

I know you won't like this, but hear me out. I'd trade Smith for Franson (obviously with the assurance that he's interested in re-signing). Here's why. Assuming Franson is brought in to play in the top four (which has been clearly stated), if you trade Ouellet, then Marchenko becomes your 7th defenseman. And Quincey and Smith become your third pair. But as we've seen over the last few games, having Marchenko on that pair improves it dramatically. Ideally, you don't want this kid on the bench because he's going to make whomever he's paired with better by allowing them to play their correct side. But Babs is certainly not going to make Smith or Quincey the 7th D (nor should he). So we're left with that pair, which has been (and likely still is) a total dumpster fire. I'd rather see this, any other scenario end with a veteran on the bench (not going to happen), or Marchenko on the bench (shouldn't happen). Kronwall-E Franson-Dekeyser Quincey-Marchenko Ouellet Sure it's probably a little bit of an over payment for a guy on an expiring contract, BUT any "future" or "potential" you lose trading Smith you gain by resigning Franson so it's a wash.

I don't agree with this at all. I think that no team can be successful if they can't draft and develop, but I'd hardly say that's sufficient for building a championship caliber team. Look at the two teams in the finals last year. Martin St. Louis, Rick Nash, Derrick Brassard, Brad Richards, Anton Stralman, Benoit Pouliot, Justin Williams, Jeff Carter, Marian Gaborik, Robyn Regehr, Mike Richards, and Jarret Stoll were all drafted and developed elsewhere and contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to their teams' success. In other years, the opposite is probably true of the two teams in the finals. I honestly don't believe there's one right way to build a contender. I think Holland's way works for Holland, because he and his team are REALLY good at developing players (so it's usually good to keep them). But I don't think hanging on to your own prospects and picks would help Edmonton, Calgary, Columbus, Ottawa, etc. much. Because those teams are awful at developing their own talent.

I'm sure he can. And to be honest, despite his projections, I don't think he'll be completely limited to the fourth line in the NHL. His passing is underrated, and he's got pretty good hands in close. He's got some offensive upside because of this. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think he'll be a top six guy or anything, but I also don't think he couldn't produce on the third line eventually. I mean, I never thought Abby had any offense in him and look at him now. I think the important thing for Callahan is that he's got a good frame (he's bigger than he's listed on the Griffins website IMO), he's physically and mentally tough, he works really hard, AND he's not a dummy. He understand the game, and how to get better. I certainly think he could steal Andersson's spot. He's just got to get the opportunity, and do the things Babs likes. Andersson has a job because Babs' trusts him to be responsible defensively. If Callahan gets his chance and can do that, PLUS be physical and produce a little bit, he'll make the team next year.

Chris Chelios was notorious for hitting people in the face with his stick. Come off it everybody. You want to talk about "old time hockey"? Here you go. Stick work. As old timey as it gets.

Ok, laying aside the obvious fact that Keith Olbermann is a pretentious dickhead, what do you all think about this? Was the concept of the "Original Six" just a marketing ploy? Is it disingenuous? Or does it even matter?

Low down dirty punk. How dare he use his stick to attack a vulnerable opponent in a vulnerable place? That's the kind of gutless crap only the dirtiest of players, and trashiest of teams, can condone... errr...or maybe the chickens are starting to come home to roost?

I've never thought of San Jose as a particularly s***ty, or classy, organization. I think of them the way I think about how water tastes. Which is to say I don't. Why are they a s***ty organization?

I've got no skin in the game. I'd drive a golf cart to work as long as Detroiters built it.

I don't consider it a miracle at all. We were, without a doubt, the heavier team. Hasn't Don Cherry scientifically proven, time and again, that European hockey is soft and ineffective?

When I was a kid, I had a t-shirt depicting Calvin and Hobbes peeing on a Ford Truck logo. It proves, at the very least, how the Calvin, Hobbes, and Ford hierarchy shakes out.

If retiring with your team is the sports equivalent of getting flowers, then Dandenault retiring with the Wings would be like those corsage things that girls wear to their high school proms. It's sorta nice...I guess.

It's the sports equivalent of buying your gal flowers. It's a symbolic gesture. Not your thing? Understood. Not really mine either. But lots of people like symbolic gestures.