kipwinger

He had 29 pts. in 45 games in 2013 before taking a step back a year ago. His production this year is putting him right back on that same track. If I'm betting, I'd say last years' regression was the exception, and the 25-30 pts. in 40-45 games is the rule. Especially on a more offensively capable team like ours. But that's me. I agree though, always a risk. But very few defensemen luck their way into 50 pts, especially on a bad team. Given his age, past performances, and current production (for a bad team), my guess is he's more James Wisniewski than Matt Niskanen.

You're right. How dumb we are for not figuring out that Cristal Flute = Champagne Glass = The Alcohol is talking = I don't really mean what I'm saying. Apparently when it comes to conspicuous ways of relaying your thoughts, you're the master. And a separate apology for not being able to discern between this fake trade proposal, and all the other "real" times you've advocated trading Kindl and Quincey for guys much better than they are.

I want Holland to trade for only people I like, and only trade away guys I don't. Is that too much to ask?

We should get Dave Dombrowski to teach Kenny how to trade rape other teams. He's magic at trading guys. "Hey, we want Dontrell Willis, but if you'll throw in that Cabrera guy we'll give you an extra good prospect!" "Hey, we want Cody Franson, but if you'll throw in that Van Riemsdyk character we'll give you and extra good prospect!"

5 million for a guy that'll put up 50 pts. from the back end this year? Yep. I don't care about his supposed defensive lapses. I view it the same way I did the Wisniewski contract. 50 pts. defensemen don't grow on trees, and certainly don't come along too often at the prime of their careers.

I think it's a concern, but probably not as much as you'd think. Teams do it regularly. If the return package is good, it's good. Kesler to Anaheim. Vanek to Montreal. You've got to figure, Franson is an FA and can sign anywhere (including Detroit) so might as well get the best package regardless of destination. Besides, they're about to enter a full blown rebuild. They won't be competing with us anytime soon so why worry about Cody Franson hurting you down the line?

I didn't see this answer coming. Would you trade Dekeyser for him (with the understanding that he'd re-sign)?

But lets get down to brass tacks...would you trade Smith for him? Or would your head explode at the thought lol?

You didn't answer the question, you wouldn't trade a 2nd round pick for Cody Franson?

You seriously wouldn't trade a 2nd round pick for Franson? He's already got 29 pts. on the season. I get your concern, I'm reluctant (in some ways) to take cast offs from bad teams too. But I'd certainly give a second round pick for him.

A second isn't too much to pay. If teams are asking the world for a guy, then wait and sign him later, but if the price is reasonable you should get the jump on it. Aside from the fact that he'd be useful for our playoff run, there's no guarantee we'll be as good next year as we are this year. What if we wait and injuries are a problem again? Or Jimmy has a bad year? Or Babs leaves and we've got a rookie coach? If teams want you to overpay, then wait until the offseason. If they want a second for Cody Franson, give them the second plus Landon Ferraro and kill two birds with one stone lol.

If the Leafs only want a second rounder for Franson, what do they want for Franson and JVR? A second and roster player? Edit: Just imagine a top six of... Tatar-Dats-JVR Gus-Hank-Abby I drool.

I disagree. Ouellet has a good point shot. Its not as hard as Sproul, but very accurate.Much better than marchenko or Jensen. You need a good point shot to put up points from the back end in the NHL. I'm not opposed to moving him for the right package, but he will be a much more productive NHL defenseman than the others minus Sproul.

Well played.

And then fornicating with Danica Patrick on the back of a dune buggy.

Russian Sniper > German Sniper > American Sniper

Coaches tend to overlook a lot of deficiencies when you score a bunch of goals. If Alex Ovechkin, or any player putting up Ovechkin level points, was on our team, Mike Babcock would accept the offense and stay oddly quiet about all the rest. Just like he's done with Franzen for years. You don't ever hear Babs calling Mule out do you? Wanna know why? Because he needed the goals.

Well I'll be damned. And he has a (limited) NTC. That could hurt his value, and make him a little bit easier for a team like us to acquire. This really surprises me. They must have TONS of faith in Carlson and Niskanen to trade Green before a playoff run.

You're right, I completely misread those stats when I looked them up. Nevertheless, I maintain my argument, I'd just have to find a different example. Fedorov, off the top of my head.

You're right. If Washington weren't going to make the playoffs Green would cost less because he's on an expiring contract. I think the reason we're all saying he'd cost a lot is because they ARE going to make the playoffs and they'll need him. So, in order to pry him away, you'd have to give a MASSIVE overpayment.

I'm definitely not suggesting that those guys' production was an aberration or anything. Clearly they're excellent players. I'm just saying that anytime someone focuses on one stat over the other, they are (perhaps inadvertently) creating a bias in favor of one characteristic over another. In this case, dynamism over durability/consistency. It's a little bit like debating who's the better player, Pat Lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games Joe Sakic: 1016 pts. in 1375 The points are almost the same. And clearly Lafontaine was more likely to score a point during any given game (higher ppg). So the question is, despite the fact that he's less likely to score at any given time, is there some benefit to having Sakic on the ice for an additional 510 games? Is his presence in 510 games, even when not scoring, more than enough to make up for the difference in ppg totals? To me the answer is "yes". He's good enough that his presence in the extra games, all by itself, makes him more valuable. He makes your entire team better just by showing up, even when not scoring.

As I said in the Ovechkin thread about two different players, durability counts for a lot in this sport. Green is the more dynamic offensive player, and Yandle is less dynamic but much more durable. As good as Green's point per game totals are, I'd rather have a guy with slightly less offensive ability, but who's a threat every shift every night for 82 games a year. That's Yandle. To me he's the better player because he plays at a consistently high level night in and night out. But like others have said, I think Green's the better fit for this team (if signed in free agency). Because with Washington's turnaround this season, he's not getting traded for anything less than a substantial overpayment.

I get your point, and I get why you're mentioning it. But I tend to take another view. It's the same argument as the Crosby vs. Ovechkin debate. Those on Crosby's side always point out point per game, while Ovechkin supporters look at total points. I tend to think that PPG is overrated in these arguments because it penalizes one player for being durable. Sure, Ovechkin isn't as dynamic a point producer as Crosby, but there's something to be said for his being a scoring threat night in and night out for his whole career. PPG stats skew the conversation in favor of dynamism, while point totals (or season averages) skew in favor of durability and consistency. IMO the latter is more important over an 82 game season, and a long career. Come to think about it, this is the same argument which got Peter Forsberg into the Hall of Fame, and probably will get Eric Lindros in one day too.

If I was the front office of some other team in the Blues division, I'd hire Sean Avery as the Senior Adviser to my GM and watch the sparks fly.

Oh right, I forgot he was a Bruin. The big, bad, bruiny, bear, connection. Maybe we should bring Thomas Kaberle back from Europe. Wasn't he a bearish, brawny, Bruin at one time too?