kipwinger

Fair enough. But you're being dismissive. It's just as wrong to suggest age doesn't matter at all as to suggest that it's the only thing that matters. Surely you'd agree that there is some downside to exclusively targeting past their prime vets, no?

Is "The View" the one with totally hot Lisa Ling, or is it the one with totally unhot Rosie O'Donnell?

Where are you getting the information that Holland pushed hard? According to reports the two best offers where from Anaheim and Pittsburgh, one centered on a young defensemen (Vantonen) and one center on a third line center (Sutter). Normally I don't call for links, but I'm going to need to you show some validation that "Holland pushed hard" for Kesler because I followed that story VERY closely and never once heard that Holland had even made an offer.

I don't think anyone is talking about "building from free agency". We draft and develop well and should continue to do so. But I don't think you can argue that trades and/or free agency can be a source of significant parts of championship teams. It's worth noting that Carter, Richards, Gaborik, Williams, B. Richards, Nash, St. Louis, Brassard, and Puliot all played significant parts in their respective teams' cup runs and none were drafted or developed by those teams. I agree that you can't buy success. But I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only choices are A) to draft and develop your own team with minimal additions from outside, or B) buy a team through free agency and pay no attention to drafting and developing. You can do both a little of both with great success. Recently KH has only shown a willingness to make peripheral moves through trade/FA (unless you consider signing a 41 year old on the downswing of his career a significant acquisition). And by his own admission his prospect pool doesn't have the first rate players to replace the ones he's currently losing to old age.

I'm not really shocked that everybody's ok with this. I'm positive that if this were some other 42 year old who scored 49 pts. last year people would be calling for Holland's head. Hell, people were more than happy to see Legwand walk and he scored 51 pts. last year. But it's "Alfie" and so our collective intelligence flies out the window. This all but ensures our forward lines are not noticeably different this year. It also means that no quality free agents come our way (not that we'd have paid for them anyway). Why would anybody who wants to win come to a team that BARELY made the playoffs this year, got roasted in the first round, and then did nothing at all to improve themselves? To play with Dats and Z? Not really sure that has the allure it did five years ago. Meanwhile, rumor has it that both St. Louis and Chicago are in on Kesler. WAY better teams than us are trying to get better and we've standing pat with our fingers crossed, hoping that it's really just bad luck holding us back. It's not.

Who cares about his cap hit? It's not like we'll use the savings to sign anyone better and he'll only be on a one year contract. Give him 10 million dollars for all it matters. What are we worried about saving money for at this point? As long as we've got enough to sign him and some 39 year old right shooting d-man then it really doesn't make a difference.

No worries. We're good. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

Well I certainly won't argue that.

Further off than you think considering Nyquist will probably never again score 23 goals in 21 games or whatever it was. It's kind of hard to use points per game in Gus' favor this year considering how wildly, freakishly, lucky that streak was. There's literally no really to think that Gus is more the 23 goals in 21 games player, and not the 0 goals in the 18 games before that player.

It means Niskanen will get similar money but longer term. He had the same year as Markov without the track record of success. Why would he make so much more?

Amen Brother!

Good God almighty! That killed him! As god as my witness, he is broken in half! (actual quotes from the Foley v. Undertake Hell in a Cell match)

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.