kipwinger

Look at you go, you little intellectual. Don't let BoS fool you, folks. There's more to this lady than her potty humor and arbitrary references to pop culture would suggest!

Yes and no. He doesn't ever fight, but he's not a pest. You don't see him trying to get under people's skins the way a traditional pest (Maltby, Glendening) would. But that's because that isn't his role on his team. He's a first line power forward in GR and plays that game. He's most comparable to Abdelkader on our current team. He's a physically tough, strong, and in your face type of player. He hustles. He competes. He's aggressive. He's "heavy". And at the NHL level he'll probably be an agitator. But in GR he's a top line guy. So he doesn't act too "pesty", despite his style of play.

Sure, but I guess I'm asking "what does that mean to you"? Like, does that make them special, or more revered? Or does it simply make them older? Is there some sort of inherent rivalry between the teams based on their being "original six", or does that mean squat? It's like we talked about in some rivalry thread a month or two ago. Clearly Boston and Montreal is a solid rivalry between original six teams. So is Detroit-Chicago. But do those rivalries have anything at all to do with being O-6 teams? I mean, Detroit-New York doesn't have the same effect. Neither does Chicago-Toronto. Or maybe, and I'm giving this full credence, the Original Six designation means something (if only) because it's always meant something. Maybe, despite being predicated on very little, its a meaningful part of the hockey tradition because we've all collectively bought into it. Like the "Columbus discovered America" stuff. We've bought into it. It's an institution. It doesn't matter anymore if its not true.

I do think it calls into question something bigger though. Why do we care about the Original Six if they're not original? Does it really mean anything? Do all these Finns, Swedes, Russians, and Czechs give a damn about a history that's made up? Or is it some talking point they're told to hit on, just like they're required to wear officially sanctioned clothing during interviews?

My least favorite part of trade deadline/free agency you (nobody) asked? Idiots speculating on asking prices and inflating the s*** out of them. Case in point: George Malik (dummy) makes a fairly reasonable assertion that "the Red Wings would have to pay a inter-division premium" to get Cody Franson from Toronto. Ok, sure. How much George? Well, the regular asking price seems to be hovering around a second round pick and (maybe) a prospect. So George, of course, speculates that it will take a 1st, and a roster player OR a "prospect or two". Elsewhere, Khan speculates that Toronto could refuse to trade with Detroit, so that the latter will lose early in the playoffs, and in doing so make Toronto (a non playoff team) a better option for Babcock in the offseason. Because Brendan Shanahan would prioritize making someone else's team worse over making his team better. And because losing early in the playoffs is somehow worse than not making them. And because Babcock is clinically insane. And Helen St. James thinks it'll take Tatar to land Myers. And Ansar Khan thought Matt Niskanen would get close to 7 million per. And every single speculated trade involving the Red Wings starts with Mantha, and a 1st. Stupid.

Let's not get carried away here. I like Doan as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure we "need" a 38 year old for any reason. Let alone to " put fire in our bellies". We look plenty fired up to me.

Shane Doan can eat babies like popsicles for all I care. He's a good hockey player. I think I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I embraced Chris Chelios and Kirk Maltby, but hated on Doan for not being a Lady Byng Finalist.

Whatevs, I still love Shane Doan. Guy's a monster and has had a great career. And anybody who thinks he's not a good leader ought to think back to how he played against us in the playoffs. Dude is a beast. And beasts are usually hotheads... which is why Luke Glendening rules. Hotheads HATE Luke Glendening.

To me its not about the player, its about the pair. If marchenko can play as good as ouellet, but make smith more effective then that's a net gain. I think the third pair looks better now than it did with ouellet. If marchenko had come in and the third pair had looked bad, then he'd be in GR right now. But its looking good. So that changes things.

I disagree. I think it means something because of the effect its had on smith. He's looked really good since being moved to his natural side. If having marchenko up means smith plays better, then that may put ouellet in play at the deadline. If marchenko and smith can be a solid third pair it may impact Hollands deadline strategy. IMO Smith has looked much better with Marchenko than he did with Ouellet.

One day I might mean Birmingham when they say "Detroit". But it ain't this day.

Nevertheless, it's interesting because it may give some indication as to how the organization is feeling about the Smith-Marchenko pairing.

Aaaaand Ouellet is sent back down. Interesting.

Soooo...is Tatar going to be a superstar or what? Because its starting to seem like maybe he's going to be a superstar.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Canada, Connor McDavid is learning exactly what the saying "stuck between a rock and a hard place" feels like.

If we ask nicely, will you at least drop it like it's hot?

What? What'd I do?

Is that a question? I thought my love of husky, big boned, midwestern women was well known? What are the two most fun things to do in cold weather? Play hockey, and fat girls.

I don't agree that playing too long "tarnishes your career". Pudge Rodriguez played too long. So did Jordan. Joe Montana probably should have retired a 49er, and Joe Lewis didn't do himself any favors late in his career. What do all these things have in common? Nobody cares. Plus, I think we can all agree that it wouldn't have killed Dale Earnhardt to quit while he was ahead...

Backman? Doesn't ring a bell. I vaguely recall a Swedish chick by that name, but she moved home a while ago. No big loss, she was too skinny anyway.

He's not my king. Nuh uh. No way. I pledge allegiance to a flag, not a monarch. This is insulting.

Am I the only one who thinks that David Clarkson might not be as bad as he's seemed in Toronto? I mean, I don't think he's great, or worth his money. But I don't think he's this bad either. I think he's a good system player, and in the right system he's flourish again. Which underlies a bigger point. What kind of team does Toronto want to be? Do they want to be a big, bruising, half ice team like San Jose, Anaheim, or Boston? If so, keep Dion, JVR, Franson, Reilly, Clarkson, Panik, Winnik and trade or buy out Kessel, Kadri, Gardiner, Lupul, Santorelli. If you want to be a skill team, do the opposite. It's like the Maple Leafs are two halves of two VERY different teams. I agree with this, but I also think, "who cares"? I mean, I don't really give a s*** if other teams and other fans thought Tatar or Nyquist were 2nd tier prospects. The fact that other people don't rate our prospects very high doesn't mean those prospects aren't really good, or better than other people think. You'd think years and years and years of churning out NHL players would get people hip to the fact that our prospects are almost always better than theirs, but if they aren't, oh well. Sure it makes trading a little harder, but we rarely trade anyway, so no harm done.

It was my unspoken assumption that Franzen would be on IR for the remainder of the season, after which time Stafford would be a UFA and could either be let go, or resigned to the exclusion of someone else.

Yeah, they're awful. I definitely think Stafford would improve his (already pretty decent) numbers if he were here. BUT, I generally don't like to use the Buffalo = Crap argument because it opens up the doors for people to do the same for Myers.