kipwinger

Nope. I would have moved Franzen and Andersson for Umberger and a pick in a heartbeat. Would have given us close to the same production and made us WAY harder to play against. If it's not clear, I'm a huge Umberger fan. He's Abby with scoring ability and his special teams play is very strong. One of the better PP net front guys in the league. Next to Kesler, of course (still hoping).

O'Reilly is 200 lbs. and just as fast as Nyquist. If nothing else this makes him harder to play against. But it also means he'll fare better defensively against top players. Additionally, he's also super competitive and has a better track record of success at the NHL level. Of the two, I'd put far more stock in O'Reilly being "the next Zetterberg" than I would Nyquist. But the point was not to say we should trade Nyquist for O'Reilly. That's not going to happen and I know it. The point was to say that it's a shame KH likely wouldn't even consider it, even if it made all the sense in the world. Good Ol' JR! Favorite post of the month...easily.

Not straight up. But it would be a good starting point. Especially, especially if you kicked in a real good prospect (Backman?). They'd be getting a quality winger with a low cap hit. Like I said, they'd be able to resign Stastny if they did. Plus O'Reilly doesn't want to be there, so there's no reason to hang on to him. Maybe they don't do it, but they'd think long and hard. Why hang on to him and lose him or nothing...or lose him for a lower return when teams realize that he'll walk in a year or two anyway. The point however, isn't how to make it work. The point is that it will never, ever, be considered by KH whether it would work or not. We were in the same conference then. Who knows that happens now? I don't see a lot of teams turning down good players for something that happened 20 years ago. Especially considering the management for CO has changed since then.

Hartnell and Umberger are basically the same player. And both are incredibly valuable secondary players. Good trade by the BJs considering Umberger wanted out. They got good value for a guy who I'm sure they'd rather have kept. p.s. I still hate Hartnell...with a passion.

In some ways it's hard to blame him. He falls prey to the exact same thinking half this forum does. The thinking seems to be, if a guys plays poorly nobody wants him, and if a guy plays well then why trade him? I don't agree with it, but I get where it's coming from. Take Nyquist for instance. Here's a guy who's already on most people's "never ever ever ever trade list". And probably Holland's too. Maybe, just maybe, you've got the next Phil Kessel on your hands with Gus. But probably not. Probably he'll get you 50-60 pts. a season and be small each and every last second. But because of an (unsustainable) high shooting percentage, he's got unreal value right now. So doesn't it make sense to move him for a player who will give you 50-60 pts. and not be 185-190 lbs. for the rest of his career? Or use him as a center piece for someone better. For example: Don't you think Colorado would think long and hard about Nyquist (plus prospect) for O'Reilly considering they'd be getting a good player AND they'd be able to resign Stastny with the savings? Probably. But it won't happen because KH can't move beyond "Nyquist had a good season and Nyquist is home grown".

I mean, I don't disagree with your logic. I just have a hard time imagining KH moving ANY roster player. The combination of Ericsson being "home grown" and Holland being so loyal that he'd rather watch his team tank than move a guy who has value, makes me believe he'll never...EVER...trade a homegrown top pairing d-man.

Could you? Because I haven't seen Ken Holland trade a roster player for something meaningful in what seems like 25,000 years. And it's been even longer since he traded anything to move up in the draft (which I actually don't blame him for considering how well we draft in later rounds).

Mediocre is just better than bad. Kindl is bad, and Quincey's better but not great. If those guys weren't totally average their teams would likely want to keep them, they certainly don't want to leave their respective teams. Neither Stralman or Gilbert have done anything to show me they're better than an Ian White. Morris is a decent stay at home guy, but we don't need that. I'd take Moulson I guess. Certainly over Stastny, Thornton, or Spezza. We don't need another center. We've got like 45 centers or converted centers. None of those guys have ever spent significant time on the wing like Kesler or O'Reilly have (both had their best offensive seasons on the wing). Signing another center who can't play the wing forces us to either move someone like Weiss to the wing (who hasn't played their either), or else pushes Weiss and Sheahan down the depth chart and still leaves us with a gaping hole on the top six wings. Moulson could fill that, and he'd be better than nothing, but he doesn't make us harder to play against given that he's kinda slow and not overly tough.

I honestly think that in Holland's mind Datsyuk and Zetterberg are still 29 or 30 years old. I think that when he envisions his roster he thinks to himself "I've got two of the best two way players on earth to build around. I've just got to add around the edges". Sadly, they aren't that. Not anymore. Without significant help they won't get it done anymore. And should we wake up one day to find that Nyquist and Tatar are the next Filppula and Hudler (rather than the next Eurotwins) we're in real trouble. It's not everyday that players as good as Kesler become available during the primes of their careers. To avoid pursuing a guy like that because he'd cost too many prospects or mid-tier roster players is nuts. Haha, story of the last 5 years. At what point does Holland finally realize that the price for talented players isn't going to come down?

As much as the Wings philosophy on trades and free agents baffles me, I can't really say anything about their drafting and development. If not for that, this team would be Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall and a bunch of mediocre, washed up, hacks. So kudos to that part of Holland's game plan.

I don't even know what to think. We've got all the money in the world. We've got so many young assets that we don't have spots for them all. We've got a trade market flush with high end players because ten other teams are looking to shake up their rosters too. If this isn't the perfect time to make substantial moves then I don't know when is. I'm all for the idea of drafting and developing as a means to success, but surely Holland doesn't believe that you should exclusively do that and only augment your team with role players. But it's starting to look that way. I'm just confused. I have no idea where his head's at or what he's thinking. I'm not sure how adding mediocre pieces to a mediocre team makes us better. I think he's hedging his bets that we'll be better with the growth of the young guys. But their growth is entirely offset by the decline in our vets. Does anybody really think that Dats, Z, Franzen will be healthy this year? And if they aren't, does anybody really believe that the kids will offset that? Even with the additions of Stralman or Boyle or Jokinen?

Well if Ansar Khan is to be believed, the Wings aren't likely to get a top defenseman or a top forward. Instead, only a "secondary scorer" and a "lower cost" defenseman. So that's good. Because everybody knows the elite teams around the league are that way because of all the cut rate players they stock up on. I've still got my fingers crossed, but it's getting harder and harder to keep my head buried in the sand.

I don't really think this needs to become a Jurco vs. Pulkinnen debate. They're both good players. Neither of them would be where they are if they weren't good players. I'm more reluctant to lose Jurco because I know how long this team has been looking for a big, strong, fast, goal scorer. Now that we have what looks to be one (actually two with Mantha) I'd prefer to see what we've got and hang on to him while he develops. But I understand why people would hate to lose Pulkinnen. You don't see a shot like that everyday. If we already had a handful of big bodied forwards (who could score, sorry Abby), I'd definitely prefer to keep Pulkinnen. But we don't, so Jurco is the greater organizational need right now.

I understand that, and I agree. I'm saying that just because a guy's been a legit top sixer on another team, and he's available, doesn't mean we should pursue him. Thornton is awesome, but he's most effective playing a half-ice, power game. A game we don't play. So why give up the assets to get a guy who isn't a fit for our system and whose production will likely suffer for it? As far as my comments about an identity crisis...I agree with you, we don't have the skill to play European style puck possession hockey anymore. But even if we went out a got it, I'm not sure it will work. Even the best "skill teams" in the league (Chicago, NYR) are considerably more gritty than we are. I think it would be foolish to try and change our organization into Boston's. But I think it would be equally foolish to try and be a throwback 2008 pure skill team too. Because no matter who we sign or draft we don't have a Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Fedorov, Yzerman, (or Toew, Kane, Hossa, Sharp) type guy coming. So we'd better not hang our hat on a style of play that requires that level of skill because at long last we don't two or three of the best players on earth anymore. Better to shift to a style of play and roster that reflects that reality and can win with a little more grit and a little less skill. And to do so we need guys like Kesler, O'Reilly, Umberger and not Perron, Richards, or Thornton. That's what I'm saying.

Wouldn't the failure to have the roster necessary to carry out your gameplan constitute an identity crisis? Necessitating a change in roster or a change in gameplan in order to rectify it? Certainly a team full of guys who can't play the style the coach, GM, and scouts are promoting would fall into that category for me. I agree we don't have high end talent right now, but if we go out and get it, and it doesn't compliment what we've already got/is suited for a style of game we don't play, then I don't think it'll help much. Loading up on talent without having an identity isn't always the best thing in the world. Which is probably the reason why Columbus is a better team WITHOUT Carter, Nash, Gaborik, and Horton than they've ever been with them. They've got an identity now. Every name that gets bandied about is met with an "oooooh aaaaah" from myself and every other Wings fan. But it might be worth thinking about whether these guys will actually fit with what we've got now, and fit with what we want to be in a few years. Because sadly, aside from some fancy individual stats, adding a guy like Joe Thornton isn't going to help us. We don't have the team, system, coach, or philosophy to maximize his incredible talent.

We finally get a big scoring winger, I'm not moving that kid until I know what I've got in him. I'd rather lose Nyquist or Tatar than Jurco. He'll end up better than both in a few years when he's their age. Nyquist, on the other hand, has the highest value he'll ever have. Riding an unsustainable shooting percentage into "the next big thing" territory. He'd be the guy I'd move, but not for Yandle (who is awesome but too expensive). Anyway long story short, moving Jurco is a bad idea. Big, fast, skilled, physical, scoring forwards don't come along often. Small, skilled, euros with puck skills are a dime a dozen.

That's not the first time that Bob McKenzie has made me look like an ******* lol.

Both Spezza and Richards have done this. As have Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Thornton, Getzlaf, H. Sedin, D. Sedin, St. Louis, Marleau, Backstom, Kane, Kopitar, Hossa, Staal, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and soon Toews, Stamkos, Tavares, and Giroux, Sharp as well. Plus I'm probably forgetting some. If this is truly your threshold for "throwing money at them" then you'd have to agree that both Spezza and Richards were worth their contracts just like the rest of these guys are. That's some pretty illustrious company don't you think?

I guess my whole point is that I don't believe when thinking of our team we should get into a false dichotomy of skill vs. power. There are other ways to become harder to play against than to try emulating Boston and/or Chicago. We don't have the core to be either of those teams. But we can be harder to play against if we've got size, we work hard, we skate fast, and our engines never stop running. And it so happens that there are guys out there who are available and who play that type of game. To me those guys would do a lot more to give this team an identity (and get it back to contention) than all the big named stars (Thornton, Vanek, Moulson, Richards, etc.) can because they compliment what we've already got on the roster rather than being redundant or opposite of our current lineup. Plus, guys like Kesler, Umberger, O'Reilly are the exact type of guys that Babs loves. They skate hard every shift, are HIGHLY competitive, play solid two way games, and are versatile. That's how I'd make my personnel decisions this season. 1) Can the guy skate, 2) Does he work hard, 3) Is he a pain the in ass to play against. Any two of the guys I mentioned above plus Niskanen would go a LONG way right now. Of course that's just my opinion and I doubt it ever happens, but I'd love to see it. Z-Dats-Kesler Franzen-Weiss-O'Reilly Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco Miller-Glendening-Abby Babcock would drool over that lineup.

My guess would be Andy Murray from Western Michigan. He's got the pedigree and has had some success coaching at all levels.

That's exactly what I meant by difficult to play against actually lol. Not penalties, or fighting, or whatever. I mean guys who are hard to play against because they go balls to the walls, aren't timid, and can't be intimidated. An example of that I'm talking about was in this years Montreal v. Boston series. Look at a guy like Dale Weise. He skated his ass off, worked hard, finished checks, and was generally hard for Boston to deal with. All this despite his not being a fighter or penalty taker. Another example is Dubinsky for Columbus. Or Helm for us. Remember Helm against Phoenix a couple years back? Jovanovski had no way of dealing with Helm's forecheck. It completely ruined his series. O'Reilly is hard to play against like that. So is Kesler. So is Umberger. These are the types of guys I'd be targeting. Not the Thorntons (Joe or Shawn), Perrons, Vaneks, Moulsons, etc. We've got the skill already. And we don't have the makeup to switch over to full on power (e.g. Boston, Anaheim, LA, San Jose). But we could be a better Montreal or Columbus (as I've already said).

And the thing is, we might be moving back toward that style (high skill) but I don't know if the league is the same anymore. I mean, I don't think we're much (if any) less skilled than the 2008 team up front. We lost Sammy, Filppula, and Hudler, but have gained Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Sheahan. It's pretty clear that our current defense is not nearly as skilled, and I think that's the point of KH wanting to address it this offseason. But even if he does, even if you could build the 2008 Wings all over again, would that team win now? I don't know the answer to that question. But it does seem like even the skill teams (NYR and Chicago) are a more even mix of skill and grit than our last Cup team. So it makes me wonder if the making over the back end (while totally necessary) will be enough if we don't get a little harder to play against, and a little bit physically tougher up front? What got me started thinking about this was Ryan O'Reilly. I was wondering to myself whether I'd rather have O'Reilly or Nyquist. Same ages (roughly), both defensively responsible, both offensively capable (Nyquist perhaps even more so). But I view O'Reilly as being so much more difficult to play against because he's a physically tougher guy. I'm not saying that I think we should trade Nyquist for O'Reilly. Realistically it will never happen so why bother wishing. But I am saying that I don't think we'll find success again until we gain a little bit more physical toughness (in the O'Reilly, not Shawn Thornton) sense. And that may, at some point, have to come as the expense of Nyquist-like skill.

Another question I've been asking myself when it comes to what we need/want this offseason is this: What kind of team are we, and what kind of team do we want to be? It's clear that there's a lot of talent available this offseason. A whole lot of teams aren't happy with the outcomes of their seasons and are looking to shake up their rosters. But just because a guy is talented, or has played the right role in the past, doesn't mean he's a fit. For a few years now I've felt we were a team without an identity. Not skilled enough to be a skill team, not gritty enough to be a gritty team, and not big enough to be a power team. Now we've got some young talent coming along which displays some skill, and was drafted as such. Do we keep going in that direction and try to overwhelm teams with pure skill? Do we augment it with power? Do we augment it with grittiness? Personally, I think we can't expect playoff success on pure skill. Teams keep us to the outside and block shots. And we don't have the core go completely over to power like a Boston or Anahiem (whose best players are huge). I think the smartest move is to go gritty. Replace just a little bit of high end skill for fast, tough, rough guys. Be like a better version of Montreal or Columbus. Which would preclude acquiring guys like Thornton or Perron. But that's just me.

Just listened to the entire interview with Ken Daniels posted in the news feed above. Sounds like they'd like a d-man, but he says nothing's likely to happen up front if Alfie comes back.

His manhood? Literally or figuratively?