kipwinger

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that if Babcock leaves then about 2,000,000 people, from George Malik all the way down to members of this forum, are going to have to eat a lot of crow. People have invested so much into this "Babcock doesn't want to leave" business that it's become a part of their symbolic selves. If he left, they'd be forced to reconsider everything. Many would convert to Islam. Some would begin exercising more. Others would build large totems. Such would the loss of Babs undermine our psychic well being.

Whoa, I'm not being clear. I DON'T(edit) think we should tank on purpose. And I don't think we would if we let Sproul play rather than sign Boyle. I just think we should live or die with the young kids in the lineup. If we make the playoffs great. If not, they have a year's worth of experience for the next year. If signed, Boyle would only be a short term acquisition. I don't think we content in the short term, with or without Boyle. Since we're not going to contend either way, I'd rather have a kid get experience because that WILL help us in the long run. And if, in the short term, we don't finish as high as we might with Boyle...so be it, I'll take the high draft pick. I'm not saying be bad on purpose, I'm saying if you've already conceded you aren't winning next year, why not let a part of your future get better rather than bring in someone who you know A) won't help you win a Cup, and B) won't be on your team for more than a couple years. The only way I'd be in favor of signing Boyle is if we were a really good team and that was the one thing we needed to put us over the top. It isn't. So I don't see what it would accomplish.

I get your point, but losing Jarnkrok would probably be a little more tolerable to most people if it had been for Iginla and not Legwand.

I agree, this is feasible. But it's not a contender. And if we're not going to contend either way, I'd rather the kid get the experience, the team get a higher draft pick, and Dan Boyle go someplace else. What would signing him accomplish? Kronwall, Smith, Ericsson, Dekeyser, Boyle, and kids is still not a very good defense. So why waste the money and keep a deserving kid from getting experience? Who knows, a kid might surprise you. God knows nobody thought Sheahan or Jurco were ready until they were given a chance. You know who definitely isn't going to surprise you though? Dan Boyle. He's just going to be a less good version of his old self (which wasn't all that great to begin with).

I agree with you in the sense that it's tough to do. But I don't believe that the only possible option to upgrade our defense over the last five years was A) washed up old guys, or B) mediocre young guys. Lots of good young defensemen have moved around the last 5 years, Holland hasn't wanted to pony up. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.

The very same Martin that consistently underperformed in the playoffs over his entire coaching career? Yeah, that would totally be an improvement over Blysma lol. But you're right, it probably will be Martin.

Obviously, there's a little bit of tongue in cheek skepticism going on when I say these guys are losers. BUT teams much better than ours (e.g. San Jose, Pittsburgh, Boston) have all failed recently, despite having Boyle and Iginla. If we signed them both, AND Alfie, we'd still lose in the playoffs (provided we even made it). I don't see the point of signing these guys if they can't help us short AND long term, because in the short term we're not competing for a Cup, and in the long term they'll be retired. Give me Niskanen and Kesler, or give me the kids. Boyle and/ Iginla and/or Alfie don't do anything except maybe prolong the inevitable playoff loss, and worsen our draft position. Edit: We need young help. And I don't mean the kids. We need players who are in their primes or just hitting their primes (26-30). Because whether we like it or not, Dats and Z can't carry us to a Cup anymore. And no matter how bad we want it to be so, those two are never going to be 29-30 years old again.

I don't find them absurd. I was wondering if some professional had said Niskanen would be in the same price range as those guys you just mentioned, or if you just made it up, because I don't negotiate NHL contracts for a living (and neither do you). I think we'd both agree that Niskanen isn't (currently) as good as those guys, so I'm not sure why you think he'd get paid like them unless you heard it from a reliable source? Probably the fact that it hasn't worked since 2002?

You're over simplifying. Shero isn't the league's best GM, don't get me wrong. But for the last two years, Pittsburgh had defensive prospects as deep as we do now. He traded a few of them, for guys like Morrow and Iginla in an attempt to win the Cup. It didn't work, so everybody makes it seems like he gutted their team, but in reality he didn't. Ask yourself this, if Holland were trying to make a Cup run, and traded Quellet and Backman (in packages of course) for Iginla and Morrow, but managed to keep Sproul, Marchenko, and Jensen...how pissed would everyone be? Sure it's not the best move, but it's not the worst either. The rub, of course, depends on if you win the Cup or not. The reality is, Shero kept Maata, Pouliot, Despres, and D'Agostino, so it's not like they're terribly hard up for defense prospects...even with the trades.

I think he was talking about Niskanen when he mentioned that numbers. But I'm still not sure where they're coming from.

Blysma keeps his job...at least for today.

Where'd you come up with number? Did you just make it up or did someone with credibility say so? Because if so, could link me to where you saw it?

And it showed when it mattered too.

You think there's MORE risk signing a young guy just entering his prime and playing very well rather than an aging one dimensional veteran who's clearly declining?

Well I wasn't suggesting that they were going to break down and sob. I was, however, suggesting that their inexperience and relative lack of "professionalism" might mean they'd be more easily distracted by protracted management instability. But you "doubt it". So that's that.

But surely you'd agree that with a team full of young guys it would be better to have stability and assurance. I mean, on a veteran team who really cares? They're professionals. But I'd imagine it would be tough for all the youngsters... ...except Brendan Smith. He'd salivate thinking of a team with no Babs, he'd never have to be bothered to play defense again. (Sorry, had to).

Wasn't Alfie supposed to help on the PP with his "booming" shot? Good in theory, bad in practice. Also, if you're not planning on winning for a couple of years anyway, and the money you spend on Boyle is likely to be wasted (or at best only have subsidiary effects), when why not use that money to "overpay" for a young guy like Niskanen and have him for the five or six years during his prime as opposed to the two or three years leading up to retirement (as is our norm).

You got me. I thought all Red Wings entered the NHL having already won the Stanley Cup. But then you dropped this knowledge on me and WHAMMO, reality check. Boyle, Iginla, Alfie, and everyone like them are losers. Yes they've had successful careers and blah, blah, blah, but I'd rather we give the spots to young guys and let them develop a winning culture by...ya know...winning (and perhaps losing) together like they did in GR, rather than give their roster spots to a bunch of old hacks who haven't ever won anything. Realistically we're years from another Cup anyway. Lets use those years developing a new core of winners instead of washed up has-beens.

If we signed Emery we'd get a backup goalie and the enforcer everyone seems to want. Win - win.

Said it about Iginla, and now I've apparently got to say it about Boyle... The guy's a loser. I don't want any more washed up losers on our team. Right now every guy we've got on the roster is a winner...Stanley Cup winners....Calder Cup winners. We need more winners. Not old farts that can't get it done.

I'll say this much, if a Canadian team is going to win the Stanley Cup, can't we all agree that Montreal is the least of all evils? Meh, maybe Winnipeg.

It's like the twilight zone no?

Torey Krug was undrafted. Literally NOBODY projected him to be an elite defenseman. Now granted, he's had a real nice year, but given that he has no track record of success I think 7 million is WAY to much to give the guy. You're looking at the best case scenario, and I do love an optimist, but there's a whole lot that could go wrong giving an undersized, system defenseman, a HUGE contract after only one good season.

New York City sent la pisse et Glen Sather (et son équipe) sont hacks sans talent. En toute sincérité, baiser mon cul de New York ... et vive le bleu, blanc et rouge!

What's the trouble Frank, you seem perplexed today? Also, what happened to you last night? As much as you'd hyped the Bruins before Game 7, I thought for sure we'd hear your thoughts throughout the evening.