kipwinger

Yeah, I see him trading down. Someone they like is going to slide down the chart given how bunched together everyone is after the top five or six picks. I called Kempe a few months ago, and I'm sticking with it. They'll trade back two or three spots, still get their man, and get a 2nd to replace the one lost in the Legwand clusterf***. Edit: Larkin wouldn't be a bad pick either, and he's a center (Tyler Wright seemed to indicate this would matter). But I'm sticking with Kempe.

What's #1 money? I'm curious what you think Niskanen will make? Since there's no way you could know the exact number, lets do an over/under. Over/Under 6 million cap hit? Over/under 6 years term? I'd say under to both. Which would definitely excluding him from #1 defenseman money. But that's just me.

Exactly. Someone will get traded today, and then Eklund will do his usual "Aha, told ya" schtick. He's the Miss Cleo of hockey rumor pushers. Nothing he says can be proven wrong with certainty.

Are you suggesting the more you pay Niskanen the more likely he is to get a hernia before the beginning of the season? Because that's just silly.

I'm as frustrated as anyone about Holland, but I'd hardly say he's stood pat. He's made a lot of moves. They've just been moves that had a higher than average probability of failure. I don't think you mean that Holland has done nothing. But rather that he's not been willing to spend the assets necessary for acquisitions whose success is not dependent on a large degree of chance (e.g. this will help IF so and so gets healthy, or IF so and so bounces back, or IF so and so is played in the right role).

You're trying to make it look like I said something I didn't. I never mentioned Ryan Suter. Or overpayment. Or any of the other things you've added to my post. I said I don't think Niskanen will leave his current team, for a worse team, for less money. If you want to talk about that, fine. If you want to make things up, I'm not sure what to do with you. It would be cool if you could take it down since you're LITERALLY putting words in my mouth. I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic with you. But I'm not going to defend some imaginary thing you've LITERALLY invented and placed in a quote box with my name on it.

KH: "Hey Matt, you should sign with us". MN: "Why would I do that? You're a worse team than the one I'm leaving and you've done nothing to improve." KH: "Oh by the way, we're going to need you to sign for less than you'd make elsewhere". MN: Lol.

I totally agree. But he's got to get the shot in order to prove it. I'd rather he get that shot in a year where there's essential ZERO chance of use being competitive. That way, if he struggles it doesn't hurt us that bad, and if he's a stud then it's a bright spot. When are they supposed to give him an opportunity, the conference finals? As I've said a thousand times, signing Boyle just keeps a mediocre team mediocre. Giving the opportunity to the most deserving kid may hurt in the short term, but the experience he gains playing with our vets and learning from "the greatest coach eva" is invaluable in the long term.

OR, he goes on LTIR or retires. There's not just one possible outcome here. And at least the two I've identified carry no long term fiscal exposure for the Lightening, which is probably why they weren't too worried about the contract. I agree that his contract carries some risks. They all do. But you're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that this contract is terrible and will bite them in the ass. I'm just providing two realistic alternatives to that narrative which don't end with this being a catastrophe for Tampa. You're welcome to disagree with their relative likelihood. But surely you won't deny that a "Brian Rafalski" scenario couldn't happen with Callahan if his body deteriorated before his contract expired.

Well, I'm still ambivalent about Pulkkinen. But I'd DEFINITELY rather have Sproul in the lineup than some mediocre hack on the blueline (Boyle, Robidas, Gilbert). At least the experience he'd get would help us in the future.

Who cares if his body breaks down? If his body wears down, they'll put him on LTIR (no cap hit) if he wants to fight through the injury and play another season or he'll retire if he can't (without a recapture penalty because it's post lock out). He could literally play for three more years, retire, and the Lightening would owe him nothing more than the three years salary and have a lower cap hit than the actual salary on top of it. I don't see the problem with it.

I hope so. I'd love to see it. I'm thinking that kid is going to be really good.

I'd like them both. Wiz's shot on the other side of our PP would be lethal.

If Abby could score 50 pts. I'd pay him 5.8 million too.

Wisniewski had more points this year than anybody on our team. He had more Powerplay points than 2/3 of our team had total points. I'd take him. Plus, it's not like being injury proneness disqualifies you from being a Red Wing. If that were the case we'd need to trade of about 99% of our roster.

Well to be really honest, we're not getting either Niskanen or Kesler so it really doesn't matter. I just wanted to make sure we didn't understate how much they'd help our team return to competitiveness. We'll probably get Alfie and Robidas instead. So I don't know why I care.

Lol. You're changing your tune. Previously you said we'd be worse off with Kesler and Niskanen than Smith and Helm. I'm not going to argue about Smith's potential, everybody knows how I feel about that. But at the very least it's clear that right now, at their respective levels of development, Smith is not better than Niskanen. At all. Likewise, I wouldn't argue that it would always be better to have BOTH Kesler and Helm. But that's not what you said. You insinuated that we'd be worse because Helm is one of our best defensive forwards. But we'd be replacing him with one of the best defensive forwards in the league. You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously. But if we swapped Smith and Helm for Niskanen and Kesler we'd be a better team overnight. And we'd stay a better team for the forseeable future barring some freakish developmental jumps from Smith and Helm that (so far in their careers) they've not shown they were capable of. For instance, let Smith score 20 NHL points in one season before we anoint him the next big puck mover. Niskanen did that and more as a 20 year old rookie.

It seems like you're saying we'd be worse by swapping a "potential top four" in Smith for a legitimate top four in Niskanen (who's demonstrably better offensively and defensively than Smith), and "one of our best defensive forwards" in Helm for a Selke winner. Of course we'd be better with Kesler and Niskanen. If there's even a doubt about that then I have no idea what to say to you.

Nikitin is a lot like Ladislav Smid or Ericsson. He's not going to make an impression on the scoreboard, but he that's not what he's there for. It's an overpayment, but not a huge one for a 6'4 230 lb. stay at home d-man who can shut down forward and munch minutes.

His points per game are nearly identical to Dustin Brown's, and he brings all the same intangibles, for the same contract. I don't think this is a bad deal at all. It's not a steal for sure, but I think only the Red Wings and Red Wings fans believe each and every contract negotiation should end in the teams' favor.

Dude, put him on a good team in diminished role and see if he doesn't excel. Absolutely nobody will work harder to finally win a Cup than Luc Robitaille...er...Alfie. My mistake. I keep thinking Alfie is Luc Robitaille. He's not.

Terminator 2 as well. WAY better than the original.

Well, to be fair Shea Weber didn't even project to be Shea Weber when he has drafted. Nor did Subban, Chara, or Keith. The only first rate d-men I'm aware of that were so highly thought of were Karlsson, Pietrangelo, and Doughty. Brad Stuart (god love him) was a third overall pick after all. And while I'm a big Stuart fan, I'd have been a little irritated had I spent a 3rd overall on him. In general I always have more faith in "can't miss" forwards than I do in defensemen. It just seems that the developmental arch for d-men is too hard to predict with confidence.

Thornton's got better playoff numbers than Datsyuk. 100 pts. in 132 games to Datsyuk's 108 pts. in 145 games. The "Thornton's a choker" in the playoffs narrative is overblown. Still don't want him, but not for that reason.

Also agreed. Although I'd caution anyone against thinking would be likely on our team. I'd be amazed if he put up 50 pts. with our anemic offense. But sure, on the right team, with the right roster, and the right system, vets can be a big help. For those of us (like me) who are skeptical of signing more aging vets, I think the argument is that we're not the right team. Teams full of high end talent in their primes can add around the edges with aging vets. A team full of guys who are aging and injury prone probably shouldn't (is my argument).