kipwinger

Right, Holland didn't want to replace all his mid-tier guys with unknown guys or depth players like Bowman did with Versteeg, Byfuglien, Niemi, and Ladd. I get why Holland let Hossa go. My problem is that since 2010, the narrative has become "Holland chose Franzen over Hossa". Which is bulls***. Holland chose to keep this core team from the 2009 Cup run intact, rather than blow it up just to keep Hossa. When you put it that way, it seems a little bit more reasonable. Which was my point all along.

That's exactly what happened anyway. So we had Franzen, Cleary, Bert, Williams, Eaves, Miller, and two rookies at league minimum Ultimately I agree though. 1 guy can't replace six. Which is probably why Holland wasn't too concerned about re-signing Hossa. That's a fairly accurate thing to say. Know what isn't? There wasn't enough money after signing Franzen to re-sign Hossa. Which is what the narrative has transformed into. That's bogus. Given that Holland had Dats, Z, Franzen, Cleary, and Holmstrom in the top six, and all those guys had already won a Cup together, I doubt he was too worried about bringing back Hossa. Likely, he'd rather have the depth (as you've pointed out). But that shouldn't be mistaken with "not being able" to re-sign him. Teams get rid of depth to keep stars all the time. Sometimes it works (Chicago post 2010), sometimes it doesn't (Boston now). But to say it's impossible because Franzen was re-signed is (at best) inaccurate.

I didn't think that was the case. I thought that they were moving him because he's essentially redundant with OEL and it would cost a fortune to keep him past next year?

It makes sense to trade Yandle for O'Reilly straight up, which I've seen speculated in many a rumor mill.

Also, people realize Hossa's cap hit was 7.45 million in 2009 right? By signing him to the exact same money he made in Chicago we would have gained around 2.3 million against the cap compared to the year before. Or, in other words, his cap hit is less now (for Chicago) than it was the year we had him. So even if nothing changed from 2009 accept his contract, he still would have been more affordable re-signed than he was the year we actually had him on the books. And that's with no other changes. Add to that the fact that we lost Hudler, Sammy, Kopecky, Conklin, and didn't need to sign all of Bertuzzi, Williams, Eaves, May, Miller, and Leino, and there was plenty of money.

I agree it wouldn't have made a difference if we'd kept him. We had 5.3 million dollars wrapped up in guys we signed (or claimed) after Hossa left (Bertuzzi, Williams, Miller, May, Eaves, Leino). And that's 5.3 without making a single trade. Move a player with a moderate salary out, and there's more money. I agree it was tight. But I don't agree that it was one or the other. It was one or the other ONLY if we didn't want to move out salary to retain Hossa...which clearly Holland didn't. Lots of teams clear salary to retain stars. Holland didn't. Likely because he didn't think Hossa was that important, and not because (as a result of Franzen's signing) there was absolutely no money available. Again, they brought on the equivalent of Hossa's current contract AFTER he was signed by Chicago. Also, last year also showed that Ken Holland clearly doesn't mind going into a season over the cap if he sees fit. He had no problem waiving guys like Tootoo, Samuelsson, and Eaves a year ago to get cap compliant. So he clearly A) knows it can be done, and B) will do it. I don't buy, for one second, that he REALLY wanted to retain Hossa, but just couldn't make the cap work. Especially considering they offered him a contract valued 1.1 million dollars less than what he makes now. You really don't think Holland couldn't have found 1.1 million if he'd really wanted to?

Firstly, you can Google Holland's personnel moves. I see no need to list every trade, or signing, or player he let walk for another, just because you feel like being difficult. Secondly, the fact that you've always seen something one way doesn't mean other options weren't available. It also might explain why, despite the fact that I've listed multiple alternative scenarios, you refuse to think anything else was possible. You don't believe it was possible because you've never believed it possible, despite the fact that there's at least a handful of other possible scenarios. The fact that you think its black and white is the cause of your consternation, not the effect. Because accepting that there were alternatives to what happened, and it happened anyway, either makes Holland dumb or else means he just didn't want Hossa that bad. Neither of which are as simplistic "it was either or". It wasn't. I've now told you several ways in which it could be both. Some of which didn't involve trades. If you still insist it wasn't possible, its because you're being obtuse. Not because you've got a firm grasp of the situation.

Not unless its a shootout loss. Not unless its a shootout loss.

There were lots of scenarios in which he didn't have to move a player under contcct. I've mentioned some above. Also, you're speculating about his unwillingness to "work the phones"...speculating badly.

What's that got to do with Franzen? If there's a strong incentive to keep someone, you make it happen. Now, aside the fact that Hossa may not have wanted to stay here at all (which isn't a stretch considering our coach is a dick), I do believe there were some (minor) mistakes that were made surrounding the choice to let Hossa walk. Here are a few mistakes Holland (and management) made that might have influenced what happened (and how we view it). 1) Its the managment's job to determine whether guys are just a flash in the pan or here to stay. They clearly misjudged Franzen's long term potential. Though it should be noted that for three of the next four years he was within 5 pts. of his 2009 career high. So even if they agreed on a short "prove it" contract, he would have been in the same ballpark as he was in 2009. Indications were that he'd keep it up, but still, it's their job to get it right. 2) Having a better handle on Hudler's status would have helped retain Hossa. Hudler held out and bolted for Europe when he didn't get offered enough money as an RFA, but that happened after Hossa had already signed elsewhere. Assuming they knew he wanted a TON of money, they could have traded his rights before free agency and used that money toward Hossa. Knowing Hudler was a potential flight risk might have helped prioritize extending Hossa as well. 3) Having a better handle on whether Samuelsson was going to try out FA could have made a difference as well. He ultimately did want to test the market, and so a big chunk of his salary could have been used to extend Hossa prior to FA (if, indeed, he wanted to come back). And that's about all for big mistakes. Otherwise, it was just a matter of prioritization. And, as I said before, considering the Wings had just won the Cup without Hossa, he probably wasn't as big a priority for Holland as we'd all like to think.

Again, read above for all the possible things that could have been done in order to keep Hossa. And then ask yourself, "was it really Franzen's contract that was the difference, or have I been wrong this whole time?".

I'd be excited if we had Matt Martin, he's a good role player. But I'd be irritated if Martin did something blatantly dirty and then Ken or Mickey acted like he was a paragon of virtue even though they knew better. Because that would be dumbing down the product, which I don't like.

Yes (see below). My point is, why bother? You just won a Cup with your EXACT same team...minus Hossa. So offer him a contract that leaves you in a good cap situation, and if he takes it great. If not, you've still got a team that just won the Stanley Cup. The fact that he didn't re-sign Hossa was probably not limited by Franzen's contract. There's always options. We had plenty of moveable assets going into free agency 2010. If Holland really though keeping Hossa was integral to team success, he could have traded Filppula, Hudler, Kronwall, Stuart, Cleary, Abby, Helm, Howard, Ericsson, Lilja. Or NOT SIGNED Bertuzzi, Miller, Eaves, May, or Williams. Remember that the difference between what Holland offered Hossa and what he took from Chicago was only about 1.5 million dollars. One or two of these players would have easily covered that. The likely reason he didn't re-sign Hossa is because Hossa wanted 5+ million for the next 12 years. Which Holland didn't want to do. How did it suddenly become and either/or scenario between Franzen and Hossa?

You're misunderstanding what I have against Edwards. I don't care if he likes fighting. But it annoys me when Jack Edwards manipulates his fans' love of fighting, in order to justify Boston douchebaggery (like the Chara punch after a Chara penalty). I don't care if Boston dives. But I DO care if Jack Edwards pretends that Boston players are all the remains between hockey and European soccer, just because he knows that message will resonate. I don't like that Jack Edwards has simultaneously never played hockey, and knows EXACTLY what is ruining/vital to the game, which happens to coincide with whatever his fans already think is ruining/vital to the game. He tells a bunch of idiots exactly what they want to hear. Which makes him dishonest, and more importantly, annoying. That's why he sucks. Because he's formulaic and fake.

So blame Holland, fine. I don't care. And I don't care that you think Hossa's better. He is. But I'm a little tired of hearing people ***** about Franzen as if he was supposed to voluntarily turn down the money. Or as if his contract hasn't been helpful. Or like his production didn't warrant 3.9 million a year. As for the second part, about either having one or the other, that's absurd. Here's a recent example: Boston didn't have a lot of cap space and wanted to keep Riley Smith and Torey Krug. They didn't have a lot of money. They convinced Krug and Smith to sign one year contracts below market value. Let Iginla walk (even though they didn't want to), and traded Boychuk. Where there's a will there's a way. You can argue all day that Holland made the wrong decisions, but he clearly thought that keeping Hudler, Filppula, AND Franzen was worth more to the team than losing two of those guys and keeping Hossa. And it's a little hard to blame him since he had just got done winning a Cup the year before with Hudler, Filppula, and Franzen...but not Hossa.

Doesn't the fact that he's largely stopped being so horrible only lend credence to what I'm saying about having standards? Edwards is a jackass. But if Boston fans didn't like idiotic jackasses, then Edwards would change or get fired.

Yikes! Think he'll be playing college hockey somewhere soon lol?

You said he should be signed to a long term, Zetterberg like, contract. If nothing else, that suggests a higher cap hit (since Zetterberg's cap hit is higher). They did EXACTLY what you said should be done. EXACTLY. Now you're against it huh? Give me a break. Your whole schtick is so phoney its surreal.

You didn't have to. You made a direct comparison between the two. The fact that you're reneging on it now doesn't change that. You compared them, probably for arguments' sake. That's fine.

Also, are you suggesting that he didn't do management a favor because he hasn't been good afterward? That's absurd. The twists of logic that people go through to demonize Franzen are getting outrageous. He's not a superstar, so what? He signed the contract that management (and everybody else) thought he was worth at the time, AND it was a contract that was favorable to management. And his contract had almost no impact on the Hossa negotiations. If anybody should take heat for the Hossa thing, it's Holland. Not Franzen. What was he supposed to do, turn down the money?

The deal was sweetheart because it kept the cap hit low, which is for the team's benefit only. He could have done 8 years at 5 million per, and it would have really put the crunch on management. Front loaded deals are specifically designed to circumvent the cap, which helps management, but does very little for the player. I know that it's passe to say anything good about Franzen these days, but here are a few simple truths. 1). He signed a deal specifically structured to help the team out (as is the point of the front loaded contract). 2) After the years he had in 2008 and 2009, he likely would have made more money on the open market. 3). EVERYBODY was for the signing when it happened (April, 2009). Nobody was upset, as it looked like we were getting a playoff monster and 30 goal scorer for 3.9 million (cap). 4) His signing had a negligible impact on re-signing Hossa. Likely, part of the reason why management wanted Franzen on a lower cap hit was so they could sign Hossa. 5) Franzen has not lived up to the potential he had shown for the two years prior to signing that deal. How that has morphed into "management signed a bum instead of Hossa" is beyond me.

Hey, if you think Mickey and Jack Edwards are similar that's fine. I disagree.

That's exactly the point. You like something, and then after it's gone bad you don't. You don't like something, until it works. You say so many contradictory things that you'll always be simultaneously right and wrong. I assume that's the point for you. But spare us all the "I told you so" crap. You liked Franzen, and you liked the signing. Three months later you changed your tune. Which is nothing new with you. You did the same thing with the Quincey trade until we dug up what you said about that at the time.

I think they will. No need to trade for a goalie unless Mrazek struggles. But it seems pretty clear that Holland and co. are set on letting him carry the load until then.

I'm not going to personally attack anyone. Or even allude to it. What I will say is, there are plenty of dips***s holding the "Boston point of view", and it's because of people like them that Jack Edwards calls games the way he does. If fans held themselves, and their home announcing teams to a higher standard, then Jack Edwards would be in Southie, drinking himself silly after a long day in the garbage truck, bitchin' about the smarty pants' with their fancy math stats, and the decline of the enforcer, and the overall pussification of America.