kipwinger

I agree with all that. When I brought up Suter-Parise I wasn't lamenting the fact that we didn't get them, but rather that's the last time we were willing to make a serious push for first rate players. I'm actually glad we didn't get them because they would have put us in cap hell. But you're right, it's got to be from our end. I can't believe that in the last 5 years only two players were available that were both right for our team and also worth the money. Everyone else seems capable of making meaningful moves at free agency or the trade deadline and it doesn't seem to be hurting the chances of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc. Everybody acts like our only choices over the years have been "trade the future away" or "sign some has been who won't ask for too much". There's a middle ground, and probably more of one now than we've had in a long, long, time.

Yeah, quitting is almost never a good idea.

Well I'll say this. It would be a big gamble. I don't think we'd get the Dan Boyle of last year, nevermind the Dan Boyle of old. He put up 36 points last year on a team that's WAY more offensively capable than we are. In my opinion he's declining fast. Don't get it twisted, I'd love to be wrong. But I'm skeptical that adding another old guy on the decline is going to improve us that much. A signing like that is just treading water, and one of these days we're all going to wake up and realize that while we were treading water we wasted the last 6, 7, 8, years of two of the best two-way forwards of their generation. Other than "trying" on Suter and Parise, there hasn't been a meaningful attempt to make this team elite since 2009. That's not ******* acceptable.

I agree. They handled that terrible. No matter what they decided to do it was going to end up classless. If you wait this long and fire him, you're just leaving a guy's neck on the chopping block unnecessarily long. And If you wait this long and don't fire him, but don't publicly back him, you've basically told him you have no faith in him and the first minor screw up is going to get him canned. Who could coach in a situation like that?

I was talking with a Pens fan last night who was crushed because he was convinced Pierre was going to get the job.

That's exactly my point. Trading for a guy like Yandle makes us significantly better, no matter the price. Signing a guy like Boyle makes us a little better (maybe) but not enough. Given how far we are from being a competitive team, a little better isn't enough. Let the kids get the experience if you're not going to be competitive either way. And IF you want to be competitive, you've got to do something more substantial than Dan Boyle. When you've got an entire core of guys in their prime and playing well, getting a "little better" can be a big help. For example, the additions of Oduya and Handzus for Chicago. We don't have a core it their prime. We've got kids who aren't ready yet, and old guys who can't get it done anymore. We've got two options A) spend the assets it takes to get competitive again, whatever it takes (within reason), or B) wait three more years and hope a couple of your young guys turn out to be good enough to make up for the lose in quality you'll get as your stars decline. And even then it's probably a wash.

I agree with the parts about Quincey and Niskanen. But I just think that if the guy you acquire doesn't give you considerable improvement, you're better off letting Sproul and Quellet or Marchenko get the experience. Take the team we've got right now and add Boyle and we're really not much better. We'd still get ruined in the playoffs (if we made them). If that's the outcome either way, let the kids get the experience.

It's a good move. Nobody else available is as good as Rutherford. He's no superstar, but he's not Jay Jeaster, Darcy Regier, or Pierre ******* Mcguire either.

Boyle theoretically helps our PP. Taking on someone of his age doesn't work out just as often as it does. IMO you're better off signing or trading for a guy in his prime and giving the third pair to your two best kids. If they struggle, you can always trade for a third pair stay at home defender for relatively cheap. It's not like we don't have the assets.

Here here.

I'll bet he does. Given all the good years he's given San Jose it would be really s***ty of them to trade his rights to a team he's not willing to sign with. My guess is they had a discussion with him before they pulled the trigger and he gave the ok.

In your opinion, what's "too much" for each Niskanen and Vanek?

Who said anything about "elite". None of Stepan, Nash, Kreider, Girardi, Brassard, Puliot, Kreider, Staal, or Zucarello are "elite". But they're all very good. And they seem to have helped the Rangers. Likewise, Voynov, Brown, Carter, Toffoli, Martinez, King aren't elite either. However each and every one of the guys I mentioned is better at their respective positions than anyone we've got in the same age range. Surely there are UFA's or trades which are better for our top six or top four than Abby or Smith and who aren't going to cost a zillion dollars? Also I'm not sure why you think Vanek and Niskanen are going to get paid so much. Everyone knows they aren't "elite" and they won't get paid as such.

Yeah pissed me off too. But why wouldn't you keep rolling out the same core lineup which hasn't been able to cut it for five years now? Holland needs to do something to address the core, not just nibble away at the periphery. Our core lineup can't win by itself anymore. Dats and Z can't power this team to a cup alone They need help. Look at New York, does anybody think they'd be where they're at if St. Louis and Richards were their two best players? They're winning because they've got loads of high quality players in their primes...Nash, Stepan, Brassard, Puliot, Girardi, Staal AND veterans like St. Louis, Richards, Lundqvist AND some first rate young guys like Kreider, Hagelin, McDonagh. We don't have a single forward between the ages of 25 and 32 who's even as good as Benoit Puliot, and he's nothing special. And we've got exactly one defenseman (Ericsson) who's both in his prime and actually worth a damn. If Holland doesn't get do something soon, we won't be good for another 3-5 years when the kids fully mature, and by that time Dats, Z, Kronwall, Franzen and maybe Howard and Ericsson will be all washed up or on the decline.

Dear god I hope Alfie hangs them up. I just thought about how pissed I'd be if Holland didn't spend any of that money in the offseason and then was immediately MORE pissed when I realized they will spend it...on a 42 year old who's fading fast. Ugh.

Well you've already suggested that Gary Bettman arbitrarily manipulated a loophole in the rules so that Dan Carcillo could play in the finals. My question is, "to what end"? Because it would help NY? Because it would help LA? Because the fan just love the guy? As a personal favor to Carcillo?

Well it's an internet forum, if I'm wrong, so what? But I don't think I'll be wrong. Marchenko is the most NHL ready out of him, Sproul, and Ouellet. Ericsson is definitely NOT getting displaced by Smith. And we will more than likely sign a top four guy who's at least better than Smith. The only thing that might be off about my prediction is that Kindl might start the season on the third pair until Babs scratches him, at which time Marchenko takes over full time...so it's a technicality.

Smith's not in a "learn from the master" situation, and he's definitely not "already a top pair" defenseman. He's was in a "Ericsson got hurt and Dekeyser can't come up to the top pair or we'd only have one good pair" situation. Now he's in a "Now that Ericsson's Healthy I'm heading back to the Third Pair" situation. Unless you think Babcock is going to demote Ericsson (something he hasn't done even once in about 3 years now), or that somehow Smith played his way onto/Ericsson played his way off of the top pair. We'll acquire a d-man in the offseason and our pairs will look like this...count on it: Kron-Ericsson Player X - Dekeyser Smith-Marchenko Lashoff I'll agree with the Smith over Almqvist part though.

It wasn't Smith, Nyquist, and Mantha. That offer happened before the draft and before Nyquist's big season. It was Smith, Nyquist (prospect), and the 1st that became Mantha. Still an overpayment given how that turned out for us, but Holland hasn't completely lost his mind lol.

I hope not. If it is, it's a bad one. Aren't threats usually more effective if the person you're trying to threaten actually gives a damn?

Again, Corsi stats don't even come close to telling the whole story about a player. As already stated, Mike Green has a better Corsi than Ryan Suter and David Booth has a better Corsi than John Tavares. It's completely skewed by zone starts. Smith starts in the offensive zone way more than a guy like Dekesyer, so he naturally gets more shots at the net. The miracle is not that Smith has a better Corsi, but rather that Dekeyser had more points than Smith despite having to go 200 feet to get a point. I'd certainly agree that anybody is more likely to see their offensive zone stats increase with Smith as a partner, he's an offensive defenseman, that's what he's supposed to do. Surely he should generate more shots than than Ericsson. The problem is not that he generates shots, it's that every pair he's on...including the one with Kronwall... is noticeably worse defensively. Last I checked you still need to play defense in this league. Everybody's ready to pat Smith on the head for playing better when paired with Kronwall, but nobody even mentions how much better Quincey looked when NOT paired with Smith during the second half of the season. Losing Smith as a partner made Quincey better defensively. Gaining Smith as a partner made Kronwall better offensively and worse defensively. Sure you get more offense zone time (not points since Smith doesn't score much), but your defense suffers with him. Finally, you know who else did crappy with crappy partners and crappy minutes and did well with good partners and quality minutes? Ian White. But that doesn't mean he's worth a damn. And I never, ever, want him on my top pair.

Well I can agree with almost everything you've said here. And with that I'm going to turn the conversation back to Almquist because I've derailed the thread with Smith talk and want to be responsible. Adam Almquist is not Torey Krug. I think that those advocating for him see what Krug has done in Boston, and see Almquist's point totals in the AHL, and think "hey, that looks familiar". Leave aside the fact that Krug's a better skater. But even then there's a problem. Krug scores a lot for Boston because A) he gets extremely sheltered minutes, pp time, and all the offensive zone starts you'd ever want, and B) His defensive shortcomings are excusable on a team full of first rate defensive forwards and rear guards. He's a liability, but he's the only one. Our team is terrible defensively, and AA won't help because suck as they might, both Kindl and Lashoff are better than AA defensively. Like I said, lets switch gears back to the Almquist discussion. I'm not trying to disregard what you're saying, and some of your points are certainly valid. But it's probably annoying for anyone who wants to come here and talk about AA when they seem me ranking about Smith and his proponents again and again. But I genuinely do appreciate your level of civility. You could have called me names lol.

My "hatred for Smith" has less to do with his game and more to do with how his apologists seem incapable of even acknowledging simple facts which may suggest he's less the "future top pair" defenseman than he may seem. Has he improved? Sure. He had a better than average half year on the top pair with Kronwall. But lots of guys have had good half years (Kindl, Abdelkader) and nobody bangs the drum for their promotion into exceedingly important positions (top pair, top six). If Abby or Kindl even sniff the top pair or top six people get pissed, but those same people are ready to anoint Smith based on a stretch of play which has certainly been atypical of his career thus far. He's a offensive d-man who doesn't score much, a puck mover who turns the puck over at an exceptionally high rate, and a "tough guy" who doesn't hit. I don't expect him to be Lidstrom...or even a cut rate Lidstrom. But I do expect him to improve in those areas for a full season before I'm sold on his "improvement". And it's not like I'm unwilling. I didn't like Ericsson at first either, thought he was a bum. I was pissed about his previous contract. But then, he strung together a strong campaign (or two or three) and I had to eat crow and sing a different tune. When/If Smith does similar, I'll be glad to do the same thing.

I was just thinking that was a lot. Given that Edler is signed at 5 million for 5 more years, I think I'd rather just sign Niskanen for a similar contract and keep the assets (or use them for another trade). I mean, I like Edler and all, but he's not THAT good. Oh Christ, rumor has it Marleau is being shopped. He'll be this year's Hull...er...Robitaille...er...Modano...er...Alfredsson. Ugh.

Which is nearly half his point total for the entire year. Even a blind dog gets a bone now and again. Putting Carcillo in your lineup is line putting Tootoo in your lineup. And I highly doubt anyone would insinuate that Gary Bettman was exploiting the rules in an unfair way if he did it to get Tootoo back in our lineup. I think the general response would be "meh...great...now can we hurry up and scratch him so that Glendening and come and play some defense or something?"