kipwinger

That would definitely be an overpayment, and there's no way that Vancouver is asking for that. As usual St. James is exposing herself as clueless.

I'd still rather trade Nyquist than Tatar. He's the better player sure, but because of that he'll get you the better return. Plus Tatar is aggressive. We don't have enough of that. He's harder to play against and gives us a different dynamic. Nyquist is really skilled, but he essentially plays the same style as everybody else. In another year or two when Tatar's up around 195 lbs. he's going to be a motherf*cker to play against.

I don't think anyone is saying Helm is untouchable for a superstar. But nobody would trade a star for Darren Helm, he's good but not good enough to land a star player. As such, you'd basically be trading Helm for a pretty good player (but not a great one) and I think some feel that he's got more value to our team than does the type of player Helm would get you in a trade. Not saying I agree or disagree, but I do think it's important to be accurate. Helm for Stamkos, yes. Helm for Chris Stewart, no.

I"m not sure having a single back injury is the same as having back issues. Zetterberg has back issues, Bertuzzi has back issues. Helm had a back injury.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Zetterberg is the better player...by quite a lot actually.

This is probably true.

It's hard to say, maybe he'd been told he was going to make the team then didn't. Maybe they wanted him and Stamkos together, and when Stamkos went down St. Louis was dropped. Maybe it really is just that he felt snubbed given that he's playing at an INSANELY high level the last couple years. You're right, it's pretty clearly about the Olympics...but I think there's probably more to the story than just "I didn't make it so I'm mad". He didn't make it in 2010 and didn't ask for a trade, so if it's just about being a baby over an Olympic snub...why not then?

Agreed on both points. The problem is, they're trading a young star. Even if the pick was top ten, it's still hard to entice a team to trade a star with a pick (which may or may not turn out). That's why picks are used to sweeten the pot, but not be the center piece. The difference between the 15th and 28th pick is almost impossible to gauge the value on. Helm, Almquist, and a first might get it done, I don't want to say absolutely not...but I have a hard time believing someone couldn't beat that for a guy of Kesler's quality.

So it was the same process as all the other teams pretty much? (except the Russians, lord knows how they pick their Team). They lost in 2010 to the US team in the prelims.

I think you'd probably have to give more to get Kesler. Look at what Columbus got for Nash. Probably have to upgrade the prospect part of it to Marchenko or Quellet at a minimum.

I think Kenny's being coy, he's trading that 1st in a package. He's go so many quality prospects he's about to start losing them and this year's draft class is relatively thin...of all the years to trade your pick now is the time.

Legit question here...when people say "Yzerman didn't pick the team by himself" do they mean that he had input from other people but had final say on the roster or was there something special about Team Canada's selection that took some selection power out of Yzerman's hands?

Martin St. Louis has been one of the most respected and well thought of players in the NHL for a very long time. I don't think he turned into a ****** bag overnight. Something happened, we don't know what it was. When it comes out, he might be the bad guy...which is fine. But currently there's no reason to think that a career class act all of a sudden decided to act like a baby.

I understand that those stadiums where named after individuals. Personally I don't like it because it deflects from the community. You're welcome to disagree. As far as the Kid Rock/ICP comment...I was being a smart ass. Lighten up.

Foreshadowing a once in a lifetime career? p.s. Hampus Melen sounds like the name of a totally wicked Scandinavian Metal band.

I generally agree with most things you say, but no thanks on this. I'm not a big fan of personality deification. I'd prefer something that reflects the city/people of Detroit. s***, I'd be happy with something like Hockeytown Arena, Motor City Center, etc. If we absolutely have to name it after an individual then we should name it after a true Detroit hero...like Kid Rock or the Insane Clown Posse

We don't have them, or you personally wouldn't want to move them?

It seems like people are trying to make their case for fighting vs. no fighting by using this incident in microcosm. Truth is, Neil (meathead that he is) shouldn't be suspended for a pretty harmless scrum at the end of the play. Likewise, Franzen didn't "use his stick as a weapon" or "poke a bear" and therefore doesn't really need to defend himself. If we're being honest it probably went something like this. Franzen was having an awesome game and making Ottawa look REALLY bad at home. Neil, being a fan favorite, veteran, and renowned pest didn't like being shown up at home. As such, he decided he was going to give Franzen a little extra attention in the third period. Franzen, not enjoying being buzzed, clipped, and generally roughed up took a couple of whacks at Neil (as almost ALL skill players do when being harassed, see: Kessel, Phil), and Neil did as he's always been known to do and escalated it into a scrum. At which point the refs took control and tossed them both, partially to make sure nothing more serious happened and largely because the game was out of reach and it wouldn't matter. No harm, no foul. Opponents of fighting (like me) can call Neil a meathead, and proponents can call Franzen soft, yellow, a coward. But the truth is, this incident is really a poor way of making a case for either.

I agree. And that's true with or without Kesler at this point.

No way dude, I'm right there with you. I'd love to see Kesler on Dats' wing.

I understand your point of view, but that's the reason why I wanted to know how productive Kesler was on the wing. Because if his most productive years were on the wing, even though he's a great center, then you put him there and leave everyone else where they're comfortable. I think of its kind of like how Zetterberg's most productive years were on the wing. So when it came time to move a center to wing, you're actually gaining by making Zetterberg the one who's moved. But I didn't know if Kesler was better, worse, or the same on the wing. I agree with you that Vanek is a better goal scoring winger, but if Kesler is close (and I think he might be) to Vanek offensively on the wing, then all of his other attributes may in fact push him over the top in terms of utility to this team.

Seems like a Catch-22 to me. The advantage you'd gain by having Kesler at his natural position would likely be offset by the disadvantage you'd have by playing Weiss at a position he's never played in his 10 year career. Pick your poison I guess.

Legitimate question, but weren't all of Kesler's most productive years on the wing? I swear I read (prior to him being mentioned in trade rumors) that Vancouver wanted to bring in a second line center to pay with Kesler on the wing. If this is true (I'm only about 75% sure), why couldn't we just put him on Weiss' wing with Alfie or whomever?

I'm genuinely not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm really trying to understand how Vanek could be a better fit despite all the ways in which Kesler is seemingly so. If, as you've clarified, you think Vanek is a better fit because he scores more goals, and you don't don't really think there's any useful advantage in specialty teams for Kesler, then you might have said so the first time I asked you to clarify. However, until your most recent post all you'd said is that both Vanek and Moulson were better fits, and your reasoning was that Kesler would be moved to the wing here and not take faceoffs. That's why I was confused.

Haha ok. You might want to go back a reread the whole exchange I had with Wings87. While he and I don't see eye to eye, I'd imagine in fairness even he'd agree that I was being a sarcastic about the post in question. You're way off base here. But you'd agree that the post this guy is calling me out on was entirely me being a smartass about your position yes?