kipwinger

I mean, I don't want to sound overly pessimistic because those are all good centers. But I was already excited at the thought of Dats, Weiss, Sheahan, Helm. But it doesn't make a bit of difference if their wingers have hammer hands (Abby) or weight 175 lbs. (Tatar, Nyquist) or are Franzen. We've already got good centers. I want wingers with size. I will admit that Joe would probably make Franzen a superstar overnight. And he'd be good for Mantha's development too. Really good. Mantha would score a zillion goals with Joe passing to him.

So, if we trade for Thornton does that mean Weiss goes to the wing? And if so, does that mean one of Franzen or Nyquist becomes the top line winger? And how does re-signing Alfie influence this? Is there actually a plan or are we just grasping at straws here?

Of course he'd be looking at centers. Our wingers are undersized and/or terrible and he's looking at centers. We've only got about 25 of them on the roster right now. Jesus.

O'Reilly + Kesler + Niskanen = Cup. It's fun to dream.

Actually logic is my second language. Klingon is my first language. The rest of the post is much appreciated though.

I'm sure that's why he had it on his car. But the fact that he showed up to meet another team and didn't remove it seems to suggest his sympathies hadn't changed. Probably 90% of the people on here would do the same. If I had my pick of every team in the NHL I'd probably meet with the Blackhawks and Maple Leafs wearing my Maltby sweater lol. That kid was never going any place else. Thank god Dekeyser is a Detroiter, lord knows how bad our defense would be without him haha.

This is so awesome. I like that he didn't even take it off, so sure was he about his final destination.

Because he punches guys. The argument goes something like this: We should get Shawn Thornton because he's a fighter and we need that on our team. We need it on our team because we don't have it on our team currently. We don't currently have it on our team because we don't currently have Shawn Thornton. Hopefully that helps.

As I did with someone else earlier, I numbered the parts of your message that I'm going to respond to because you contained a lot of information, some of which I agree with. 1. What's he going to teach the kids that Kronwall can't? Is he that much wiser or more accomplished than Kronner? 2. Signing old players and asking them to play big roles (top four d-man in Boyle's case) only increases the likelihood that injuries will continue to be a problem. I see no reason to think that injuries to our key players (who are all old) are going to decline going forward. 3. Singing Boyle to play alongside Kronwall, Dekeyser, Smith, and Ericsson ensures that only one of the three players you mentioned (nevermind Backman or Jensen) will see significant playing time until at least the end of Boyle's two year contract (which he's seeking). Therefore, for at least the next two years the other two guys are riding the pine as the 7th d-man or playing in GR. I'd prefer they get NHL experience if they're going to factor so heavily into our future plans. 4. If all we're getting is leadership we don't really need, and a bump in our powerplay (hopefully), why not sign Stephane Robidas for half that and use the savings to pursue a forward who isn't small and/or old and/or injured constantly? Overall, I don't think you're hugely off base with your logic or anything. I think we just disagree on the relative value of Boyle given where he's at in his career as well as where we're at in our rebuild. Edit: Just so you know, the comment about Stephane Robidas is tongue in cheek. I don't really want him. I'm just saying he'd give you everything Boyle does, and more cheaply.

Agreed. We don't know. Although I'm certainly not banking on anything else. Signing old washed up vets is Holland's MO. Trading for impact players like Kesler and Edler isn't. If he signs Boyle and then goes on to do grab a couple first rate players in their prime, I won't have anything to complain about. However, history has shown Holland signs guys like Boyle in lieu of making impact moves, not in addition to making impact moves. If he signs Boyle, I sure hope this will be the exception.

Exactly, which is why I'm advocating we either A) acquire multiple impact players, or B) have faith that our kids will be impact players and then give them roster spots and ice time to prove it. There's no combination of Boyle + Kids that makes us good enough to compete for a Cup before he retires at the end of whatever contract he signs this year. And by signing him and nobody better, you've already conceded that you're not winning anything next year. So even in the best case scenario you've only got a one year window of opportunity for him to be a "piece of the puzzle". At which point he'll be 39 years old and will have declined further than he already has. All for about 5 million a year.

Need for what? To compete for a cup, or to barely make the playoffs for two of years before being crushed in the playoffs and then retiring? Seriously, is the goal to get back to Cup contention. Because if so, Boyle's not going to help us. He couldn't help the Sharks and they're MILES better than we are. But if the goal is to make the playoffs, yet not have a realistic chance of winning, then sure, Boyle will help. All Boyle does is help the Wings stay as mediocre as they are, or marginally improve their averageness. I'm sick of watching the Wings tread water. It's my preference that we do what it takes to be a Cup contender, or let the kids play.

How is he going to help the kids any more than the vets we already have? We're not Edmonton, we've got tons of highly successful veterans on our team. And also, anything you gain in that regard is offset by the fact that he's old, slow, small, and even in his best years was only ok at actually playing defense.

God bless you!

Neither was Jurco...or Sheahan. Yet they both made us more difficult to play against than all the mediocre old hacks in the world.

Agreed. So rather that do something just to do it, why not give the spot to the most deserving kids and let them gain valuable experience which WILL help us in the future. Lord knows what 82 games under Babcock's tutelage would do for Ryan Sproul's development.

If I'm understanding the arguments correctly, we should sign Dan Boyle because he'll give us a right handed puck mover (but not one good enough to help us advance in the playoffs), and he'll provide leadership (but not any more than you already had in Kronwall, Ericsson, and Quincey). I'm sold. Your eyeball test says Smith is awesome in the same way that your eyeball test says Miguel Cabrera is awesome. Gotcha. I'm not going to argue with you about what your eyeball test tells you. You win.

You wrote a lot, and some of it I agree with. So I just kept what I wanted to address, and numbered them to make my responses easier to follow. 1. I'd like to know whether our organizational philosophy is going to be "tread water until the kids are ready to win" or "try to win now while keeping as many kids as possible for the future". Either way we've got more kids than we can fit, now or in the future. There's no way that Sproul, Ouellet, Marchenko, Backman, Jensen, Smith, Dekeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, can all be on the same team at the same time. Figure out who factors into our future plans and who doesn't. Then trade whoever is left over in packages for future picks (if we're going the tread water route), or impact players (if we're going the win now route). Then, depending on which philosophy you pick, get your kids (or your newly acquired impact players) into the lineup. 2. These guys have plenty of people to "show them the ropes". Kronwall and Ericsson specifically. They've also got Dats, Z, and (probably Alfie) too. How much more leadership does this team need? All the guys I just mentioned have had more successful careers than any possible stop gap acquisition we'd make. 3. I don't think anyone here would suggest that KH should make any moves "just to make them". I think the reason SOME people were upset about the Legwand trade is because we massively overpayed for a guy that the coach used on the fourth line. It's a false dichotomy to think that the only choice is either "be happy with ANY player acquisition" or "be happy with NO player acquisition". What everyone obviously wants is RESPONSIBLE and/or impactful player acquisition. The jury is still out on whether Weiss will be that for us going forward. 4. Nobody is spoiled. We're all fans and we all want to win. Those who want change feel that not enough has been done to ensure that this team is competitive in recent years. And the results seem to support that (early playoffs exits). Others are equally disturbed by the results, but probably feel differently about the solutions. Saying people are spoiled because they're sick of early playoff exits is dismissive, and largely inaccurate. But even if it weren't, if wanting to win a Cup rather than get stomped by the Bruins makes us spoiled; it's a moniker I'll gladly carry for a while.

I get what you're saying buddy, and we spoke about this last night. I definitely don't want to fall into doomsday land, but at the same time I legitimately feel like many of us are dangerously close to crossing the line between wanting to acquire players that help us win, and wanting to acquire players just so we don't feel like management has lost it. I'm all about the former, but believe doing nothing at all is better than than the latter. If stop gaps are all that's likely to happen, I'd prefer to see these young guys begin their careers right now. At least that will help us in the long run. Signing mediocre hacks like Stralman or Gilbert accomplishes nothing (aside from being able to say "look we signed a puckmover!"). It would be Ian White 2.0. "No need to acquire real talent like Wisniewski or Erhoff, we got Ian White and Mike Commodore and at bargain prices too!" Do you think the Jets would take Tatar and a 3rd round pick for Wheeler? Because you've used your 1st on Perlini and we don't have a second on account of that totally sweet trade for Legwand. If that's the case maybe we can trade Smith and our 4th or 5th for Byfuglien as well lol.

If your entire strategy for winning a Cup someday is "the kids will fix it", doesn't it behoove you to actually...ya know...get the kids in the lineup? Since it's pretty clear there's no will to go trade or get a free agent who would actually improve this team, why bother signing anyone at all? Personally, I'd much rather see Sproul and Marchenko/Ouellet as a third pair, and Jurco, Mantha, or Pulkkinen than see us go out and acquire somebody like Stralman, Gilbert, Boyle, Alfredsson, Cleary, etc. etc. etc. At this point, the most optimistic outcome is that all available spots go to the kids who most deserve them. But even that is starting to look like a pipedream. What the f***?

Powers you say?

It's nice of you to care lol. I was already having a bad morning and the thoughts of bringing back Cleary, Alfie, and Gustavsson (who I'm actually fine with) temporarily overwhelmed the better angels of my nature. I'm still (cautiously) hoping for something substantial. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.

If we burn Dan Cleary in effigy outside Joe Louis Arena do you think everyone involved will get the point?

Good points, I should have just said this and you'd have totally been cool with it (or at least been mum on the issue).

Why would the Wings management feel obligated to commit multiple years to him if there weren't something more substantial from Philly? If there wasn't the structure of a deal present they'd have no reason to commit to him for longer. There must have been some reason to believe that he was leaving something on the table to become a Red Wing or else there would have been no need to make any commitments. Secondly, when reporters use words like "Babcock pushed" and "Babcock urged", it implies some reluctance on the part of Holland. Why would Babcock need to urge Holland, or push Holland to do something that he was already trying to do? Especially when you add in that it was done "at the 11th hour", which suggests that Babs was pushing and urging Holland to do something he wasn't already doing at the last possible second. Surely you don't need me, or these reporters to go to huge lengths to explain the use of context clues in their articles. Again, you're welcome to disagree. But to say my position is "baseless" is false. I've given you links, and now I've explained the logic. I'm also not sure why I have to go to such lengths to make this point to you. I definitely didn't see you requiring equal amounts of proof when people were blaming the Clearly signing on Holland. If nothing else, I think you'd agree that the blame is 50/50. So why not jump to Holland's aid while he's getting blamed for the Cleary debacle? It's almost like you're relentlessly combative when you disagree with someone and kinda ok with unsubstantiated comments when you feel the same way. Edit: You'll have a much easier time downplaying Babs' role in this the second you can show me an article saying "Holland pushed..." or "Holland urged..." Babcock to let Cleary back on the team.