kipwinger

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.

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.