kipwinger

After the last few seasons I'm not really sure what these guys are doing in the gym. Clearly not stretching their groins.

I'm about to blow your mind. If injuries weren't a concern over the last 5 years, Dats, Z, Helm, Weiss, and Franzen would have played more. But guys like Bertuzzi, Samuelsson, Cleary, Kindl, White, Colaiacovo, Eaves, Emmerton, and Gustavsson would have played MORE too. Conversely, guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Andersson, Sheahan, Jurco, and Mrazek would have played less. It's entirely possible that we could have been a WORSE team without injuries than with them. You don't get to pick and choose the effect that injuries have. Gotta take the bad with the good. And when you have a s***ty roster, losing bad players to injury is a net positive.

Jarnkrok was only in North America for half a season before the trade. It stands to reason we wouldn't be talking about him, most of us had never seen him play one shift of hockey prior to this last season. There isn't any chatter about Backman either, but not because he's no good. Nobody's seen him play and he doesn't have a track record in North America to compare things too. So, it could mean we didn't have much to say about a guy we'd never seen. Or it could be that there's always going to be more to say about losing a good prospect for nothing, than keeping one in your system for a few years. For instance, I'd have a lot more to say about Andreas Athanasiou if Holland traded him for a guy that walked at the end of a disappointing season.

All of the things you just said were true of last year, and last year alone. They've had the exact same playoff struggles for five years. You're making it seem like the Wings have been injured for half a decade. They haven't...and even if they have that's all the more reason to do something different because obviously the team can't stay healthy (in this hypothetical scenario). Seriously, the argument you're making seems to go like this... Me: We haven't been good in the playoffs for 5 years. You: That's because we've been injured consistently for 5 years. Me: We should do something different then, because this team can't stay healthy. You: Nope, we should say the course because the injury bug can't possibly be that bad again. Me: Of course it can, it's been happening for 5 YEARS! At this point it's not a fluke anymore.

You keep talking about injuries but we've been healthy in the playoffs every year except this one. Why are you so sure it's injuries when we've had the same result for since 2010 without any significant injuries?

Wait, if I understand your logic correctly you're suggesting we put a player in the minors even though he'd make our team better, just in case we have an injury. That way, in the event of said injury, you can call him up to make the team better? If that's the case, why not start half the team in GR and fill their spots with dudes who aren't as good. Then, when they all get hurt, you can call up the guys who should have been there in the first place. I don't think anybody is doubting we'll have a better regular season. Sure we will. But I thought we had higher standards than that in Detroit. I thought we were supposed to compete for Cups and be elite? I remember when the phrase "class of the league" used to follow mention of the Wings. Bemoan all the injuries you want. With or without them, we've still done nothing to improve the weaknesses that have gotten us crushed in the playoffs for the last 5 years.

Probably. Alf will just sign a bonus heavy contract that will carry over to next season.

I don't see why everyone's so eager to compare Jurco to Tatar and Nyquist and not to Sheahan. Oh wait, yeah I do. Because it's convenient for their argument. Sheahan wasn't ready either. Looked lost in his call ups. Didn't really fit. Then he comes up and earns a spot because he wants it. Just like you're supposed to do. To me it comes down to this: I think we'd be a better team with some guys who can score in and around the crease. We currently don't really have any (maybe Franzen). I think we'd be harder to play against. And I think that even if Jurco scored 15 fewer points than Alfie, we'd still be a better team if it gave us more than one offensive look. As it stands we're a team full of guys who can only score from the perimeter...again. And teams have figured out how to beat us in the playoffs. I know it makes everybody feel better to blame injuries, but the fact is that our perimeter game hasn't worked in about 5 years. Alfie doesn't help that. Jurco would.

That's the LGW way though. Everybody is a stud until he's not in the organization anymore. We're like Red Sox fans. "Johnny Damon is the kind of guy you build a franchise around"....*Damon goes to Yankees*..."f*** that bum. I never liked him". Jarnkrok was/is a good prospect. Any revisionist attempt to paint him as some washout is demonstrably false. I don't care if people liked the trade or didn't, doesn't matter now. But the extra step of trying to justify it post hoc by claiming that Jarnkrok wasn't any good is bulls***. "I like to think of him like a Zetterberg." - Scout Ari Vouri "He has great hockey sense, very tenacious, a lot of (Henrik) Zetterberg-type qualities. He’s strong on the puck, never gives up on the puck.” - Jim Nill "He’s probably the best prospect in our organization overall." - Jiri Fischer “We all feel he’s a top-six forward in the long run." - Hakan Andersson “The stuff he can do, he is as good as anybody in terms of hand-eye coordination and skill in tight places. It’s just a matter of time until he starts putting up big numbers." - Jiri Fischer

Booooooring. Tomas Tatar could do that drunk.

Yeah, I'm not sure about this Fischer comment. His job is to oversee the development of all the organization's prospects. Not sell them to anyone. They've already been drafted. Who would he be selling them to? Fans?

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the nostalgia of Yzerman. But you've also got to remember that when the Gretzky trade went down Steve Yzerman wasn't "The Captain" Stevie Y. He was a fifth year one dimensional player who many thought couldn't get the team over the hump. The things you remember him for so fondly wouldn't even happen for another few years. All that leadership and two way selflessness? Wasn't even a thought at the time of that trade.

Saying you wouldn't trade Yzerman for Gretzky is a lot like saying you wouldn't trade Ray Bourque for Bobby Orr (yes, I know, you wouldn't need to. But you get my point). Sure he's a good player, but you're getting the best player in the history of the game (at his position) while he's still in his prime. Of course you make that trade.

I've always felt Gretzky was underrated defensively, but that's neither here nor there. Not that Gretzky had terrible linemates in NY in 97 or 98, but he'd have had better linemates here. Plus he'd have had a WAY better defense to get the puck up to him. And our powerplay was super good too. This is all purely speculation, but I think on those Detroit teams he puts up considerably more points than he did with NYR. Edit: I had previously said that our PP was better than NYR. I can't find stats for 1997, but in 1998 the Rangers had a better PP than us, so I stand corrected. I still stand behind my point though. We had more finishers all around and that would have increased his totals significantly given his passing.

I stand by my original statement. Gretzky retired in 1999 at the age of 38 with 62 points. In 2002 Yzerman was 37 and put up 48 pts. So the question is, do I believe a 41 year old Gretzky (the age he would have been in 2002) could put up more than 48 points on that team? Yes, yes I do. Despite his retirement, I'd still rather have had Gretzky in 2002 than Yzerman.

Don't get me wrong, I love Yzerman as much as the next guy. But I don't even think twice about that trade. You take the same teams as we had in 97, 98, and 2002 and swap Yzerman for Gretzky and we're WAY better.

This gets better. The Kings lost their first rounders in 89, 91, and 93. Detroit's first rounders in 89, 91, 93? Mike Sillinger, Martin Lapointe, Anders Eriksson. Notable Detroit draft picks in 89, 91, and 93 who came AFTER the first round? Lidstrom, Fedorov, Konstantinov, and Osgood. We could have made the trade and still drafted the core of our dynasty teams. Holy Hell.

I hope not considering we're in the EXACT same situation with Stephen Weiss.

I think he's trying to say that if you sent him down you'd clear 900k and only have to swallow about 400K. Conversely, if you sent down Quincey (for instance) you'd clear 900K and eat about 3.3 million. Hence, low risk and high reward for MDZ. Don't get me wrong, I'm not heartbroken we didn't sign MDZ. I don't really care. But I do think your debate will be more productive if you two are at least speaking the same language.

I wish I could "like" this 2,000 times. Definitely my favorite post in a good long time. Touche my man. Touche.

I'm not going to agree to disagree, because that's weak. But I am too tired to disagree, so I'm calling it a night. Good talk though buddy.

It wouldn't be like buying anything because they're your prospects, you didn't pay for them. Also, selling makes sense when you've got so many other (tvs?) that these ones will never get used. Also, quality guys get traded for unproven prospects and picks (in packages) all the time. Bobby Ryan did. So did Thomas Vanek. Just to name two in the last year. Package them with a top six forward and you could have Marian Gaborik or Jason Spezza or James Van Riemsdyk. Again, I'm not saying just throw guys away. But I'm sick of everybody acting like the future of the Red Wings is hanging precariously in the balance, and should we move Backman, or Pulkkinen, or Tatar, or Nyquist, or Quellet, we'll all of a sudden become the Florida Panthers. We won't. Just so long as we don't move ALL of them. Saying that drafting and developing is the key to success does not mean that you can never, EVER, move a homegrown talent lest the organization crash and burn. Just move them intelligently (e.g. not for David Legwand).

Their future IS secure. They've got so many NHL ready prospects they can't get them all into the lineup. What does waiting accomplish? Their untouchables are still untouchable and the other guys are so far down the ladder they can't get a shot at the NHL to increase their value. Guys like Pulkkinen and Backman are as valuable as they're ever going to be as AHL players. And they're not going to crack the NHL to increase their value as they're each behind at least two other (better) players. Why couldn't they be traded?

Go look at my posts. I've said 200 times that I don't mind him being traded. I was against trading him for Myers or Green. Trade him in a package for Yandle and I'll smile all the way to opening day.

Lots of team have won in the cap era by doing both of those things intelligently. You're saying you don't want to be black and white but then you're going ahead and being black and white. Philly vs. Edmonton. Philly or the Oilers are not the only models. They're just the two (negative) extremes. Competent management shouldn't be like either Philly or Edmonton.