kipwinger

I agree with you, but from what I understand a lot of Frk's problems stem from being bad positionally and not being a good enough skater to make up for it. Jurco has good skating at least so the learning curve was shorter. As I understand it, Frk (by virtue of playing with MacKinnon and Drouin) had a lot of success without ever learning how to be positionally sound. But now that his line can't steamroll people he's finding he's got neither the positioning nor the wheels to make up for it. I think Blash will get him going. But he's basically learning the "correct" way to play hockey at a MUCH higher level than most guys do.

Edit: I don't know why I typed all that. Since 2010, the first down year we had after the Cup runs, we lost Rafalski, Stuart, and Lidstrom. We acquired Ian White, Kyle Quincey, Carlo Colaiacovo, Mike Commodore, Mikhail Samuelsson, Jordin Tootoo, Daniel Alfredsson, and David Legwand. If you're content with that, fine. I'm not. I've seen the other moves made around the league, I've seen FA contracts, and trade packages too. We had the money and the assets. We didn't get the players. If this is the best we can do then A) Ken Holland's an idiot, B) Players don't want to come here, or C) both. You don't think so? Fine. But Holland himself used to say in Detroit "we expect to compete for the Cup every year". 40 year old Daniel Alfredsson and a bunch of bottom end players aren't going to get you there.

It's an example of the types of packages Holland either doesn't offer, or does and gets rejected. I know he didn't offer on Spezza, and you know what I meant. You make it seem like Hollands trying his best, and not getting any results, but then ALSO say that people aren't actively avoiding the Wings. So since we're not getting players, I don't see how both can be true.

Doesn't matter. I see wrestlers and I go into a tailspin. I'm currently watching this...

Thanks a lot dude. I've just spent the last 30 minutes reading about my favorite WWE matches on Wikipedia, such is my devotion to the greatest league in all of professional sports lol.

I did not know that. Thanks for the info. I legitimately thought everyone used periods instead of commas. By all means, keep doing your thing. I'm glad I asked though.

Is your period button broken? Because this is not the first time I've seen you use commas instead of period when trying to write numbers in decimal notation.

I take it you've not heard that saying before? You should google it rather than have me try to explain idioms on a hockey forum.

To me "the streak" is a lot like kissing your sister.

Couldn't they just move one or two of their second tier guys...like they did when they dumped Ladd, Versteeg, Big Buf? If they dropped a combination of Bickell, Versteeg, Shaw, Oduya, and Hjalmarsson they'd shed a lot of money and they'd still be a really good team. I hate to say it, but the Hawks will be just fine.

Well, believe me, I'm not fan of the Hawks, or the Pens, but I think you're a little off base here. Any team that has Crosby, Malkin, Neal, Kunitz, Jokkinen, Dupuis, Sutter, Niskanen, Letang, Morrow (for a year), Iginla (for a year), Orpik, Martin, Scuderi, et. al. SHOULD be competing for Cups. There was no problem with their depth. They just have a mediocre coach and they underperformed. As long as guys are willing to take less to play for contenders with top flight talent (as the recent signings of Ehrhoff and Richards suggest) then BOTH teams will continue to field competitive teams despite the money allocated to their star players.

Not really, I'd prefer the team be good than me be right.

I was talking about Legwand, since he's the center we gave up assets to get.

We absolutely, positively, needed a top six center a year ago too. We got one, for a cost that wasn't worth it, and the move did nothing to help the team. We need to be wary about how far we're willing to go to fill a need. I think Mike Green could help. But I'd be wary about giving too much for him. Because there's a thin line between need and want. The Wings have managed quite well without a right shooting PP quarterback in the past, and if the cost is too high they need to be willing to do so again. Missing out on FA has begun to turn the quest for a right defenseman into something messianic, and that worries me more than spending another down year letting the kids develop. Hell we've got people clambering for Jurco and/or Tatar to get traded for an expiring contract because we need it so bad. As if we don't need forwards with size, tenacity, and goal scoring potential, given that our current ones are getting old and injury prone.

It's almost like they're negotiating. Like, one side asks for something incredibly high. And then the other side counters with something incredibly low. And then they eventually work their way toward something palpable for each side. Hmmm....

It sounds like the gist of your first paragraph is that "he tried, and they didn't come, so there's nothing that could have been done". In which case, we should blame fate, and nothing else since player acquisition is clearly this much of a crap shoot. It sounds like the gist of your second paragraph is "other teams lose in the first round too, so we should wait and see if we get better next year". Which entirely ignores the fact that Tampa breezed into the playoffs and made moves to get better, and Dallas breezed into the playoffs (in a harder conference) and made moves to get better, while Detroit stumbled into the playoffs (two years in a row) and did nothing to get better. I'd be fine with the "sometimes making moves isn't better than standing pat" argument if we already had a really good team, and internal growth might put us over the top without costing assets. But we're not a really good team. We're a team who (narrowly) outpaced teams like Washington and Toronto for a playoff spot the last two years. What level is internal growth going to bring us up to? Columbus level good? But you can't make em come to Detroit eh? Dallas just got Jason Spezza for Alex Chaisson, a prospect, and a pic. We can offer better packages than that. So, A) we don't offer, B) if we offered, they'd come, C) we do offer, they wouldn't come (in which case there IS some reason to believe guys are actively avoiding Detroit).

Everybody realizes that just because a team asks for something in a trade doesn't mean they'll get it right? And also, even if they don't get it, that doesn't mean the trade won't happen? Dallas just gave up a worse player than our young guys (Chaisson) for a better player than Green (Spezza) on an expiring contract. Why does anyone think that we'd give one of our young guns for a worse player than Spezza (Green) on a worse contract? Ken Holland has shown an unwillingness to be proactive in player acquisition. He has not shown symptoms of early onset Alzheimer's Disease. They can ask all they want, they'll likely not get one of those guys in return. And that will likely not stop them from trading Green anyway. If they want to trade him to another team, one who IS willing to give top young talent for injury prone 2nd pair defensemen on expiring contracts, then more power to them. But I suspect finding GMs that stupid will prove more difficult than they think.

Lol. I get it, you're trolling me. Good one.

Wait, I'm confused. Is you point that there was absolutely, 100%, nothing that Ken Holland could have done to improve this team other than sign Kyle Quincey? Because if not then it's a moot point. The fact that guys would rather sign to play with their buddies,or sign for less money, or sign with non-playoff teams, than sign with your team and get paid to win is a problem. It says that either A) you're not winning, B) you're not paying, or both.

And it just so happened that his buddy happened to play for a team good enough to make it to the Stanley Cup Finals. For some reason I have a hard time believing he'd have been so friendly if St. Louis played for the Oilers lol.

I like his potential too. I like Tatar's goals even better. Until Pulkkinen scores some NHL goals I'm not assuming anything on potential.

To answer both of you... 1. The Legwand trade should have shown everyone the danger of trading good talent for expiring contracts. And free agency just showed us that lots of NHL players would rather not sign here. So it would be stupid to trade a more valuable asset (Tatar) for a more questionable player (Green). There's a real good chance you lose a real good roster player for nothing. 2. Until Teemu Pulkkinen scores a single NHL point, there's absolutely no reason to assume that he's got more value to the team, or a higher ceiling, than the guy who just scored 19 goals and 39 pts. in his rookie year. There's also no reason to assume that Pulkkinen can replace his production. Assuming so would be dangerous, regardless of what your gut feelings are, or your eyeball tests, or anything else. If you're going to trade Tatar, get good value for him, or keep him. He was one of the few bright spots that our team had a year ago and he's only going to improve off his rookie year. Trade him as part of a package for a top four defenseman under contract, or a top six forward under contract, or don't trade him.

You'd move Tatar for a rental player who'll give you less than 50 pts.? Would you have moved him for Legwand last year? At least that rental gives your over 50 pts. How is moving a guy who scored 19 goals and 39 pts. as a rookie for a rental with injury problems a fair value? That's fine, but given that Tatar has "more value" don't you think you should ask for something worth that value? As I said before, if Iginla went for a 1st and two guys who never played regularly in the NHL, what do you think a guy who just had a better rookie season that Datsyuk would bring in return? If your best answer is Mike Green you have incredibly low standards. You don't have to keep Tatar, but don't give the ******* guy away for a 2nd pairing d-man with injury problems.

Hell, sweeten the pot and give them Glendening or Andersson for the trouble and you might bring the price down a little more. Fact is, they'd be helping us out by trading us Green. But we'll be helping them too. He's expensive, his cost/benefit ratio is probably not better than their other top four defensemen, and they need forwards that they don't have money for. If they can get a decent prospect or two and a pick OR a low end (cheap) roster player and a decent prospect, they'll be making out. If they expect to get an up and coming roster player (Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco) or a top end prospect (Mantha, Sproul, Ouellet) they're ******* nuts. I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded either. But if he was traded for Mike Green on an expiring contract then Ken Holland should be drawn, quartered, burned, buried, exhumed, drawn, quartered, and burned again for being a ******* toolbox.

A decent prospect or two and a 2nd or 3rd round pick will likely get this done if two prospects and a first got Iginla as a rental. Pulkkinen (or Backman) and either A) a 2nd round pick, or B) a 3rd plus Callahan or Ferraro, would get this deal done.