kipwinger

Quality YOLO reference. Wish I could like this more than once.

Stinking irrelevant GMs. Holland is horrible. What kind of a loser signs Stephen Weiss, Daniel Alfredsson, Gustav Nyquist, Joakim Andersson, Brendan Smith, and Dan Cleary to below market value contracts, ALL IN THE SAME OFFSEASON?!!!!! This guy needs to hit the bricks.

Explain to me why it has to be one of those two options and not an Eaves trade, or a Tootoo trade, or some package of trades? We're 2.3 million over the cap. Trade Tootoo (1.9 million) and Lashoff (725,000) and we're cap compliant. Trade Eaves and put Helm on LTIR and we're cap compliant. Trade Eaves, put Helm on LTIR, and waive Sammy and Tootoo and we're cap AND roster compliant. There are a bunch of different scenarios to be played out, so why is it you're so sure that this will effect Nyquist or Tatar and nobody else?

Let's just say that Holland signed Cleary because a trade was already in the works. One of two things is going to happen. Either A) the players going out equal what we've brought in (Cleary's 1.75 plus the 600,000 we were already over the cap) and therefore Nyquist and Tatar are safe (since they don't make that much). Or, B) Nyquist and/or Tatar are part of the trade, which would mean the piece coming back is pretty good considering you don't throw away your best prospects for nothing. I'm fine with either scenario.

Good god, by the talk around here you'd think Babcock or Holland already came out and said Tatar will certainly be gone. Why is it that everyone thinks this will adversely affect Tatar and not Eaves, Tootoo, Miller, Bertuzzi, or Samuelsson? Oh I know, because as the last 10+ years of free agency and trade deadlines have shown us, the Detroit Red Wings constantly throw away quality prospects right? Kinda jumping the gun aren't we guys?

I don't see why it's assumed that Tatar (of all people) is going to lose his spot to Cleary. Tatar isn't going anywhere, he can't be sent down and the Wings aren't going to lose him for nothing via waivers. This is mostly going to affect Tootoo and Eaves, and as I've already stated, Cleary is better than both. This is a positive guys and gals.

I wish Sammy was gone as much as the next guy, but at this point I don't see it...sadly. I really like Eaves and Tootoo, but of the two I'd prefer to keep Eaves. Having said all that, I'm still VERY excited about that lineup.

I'm sorry, I guess I don't get the anger. We got a player of Cleary's caliber for less than we're paying Tootoo? Even if he plays all season on the fourth line we're better off with this happening. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd MUCH rather have Cleary in the lineup than Tootoo or Eaves...and now he's the same price. Good signing. Ideally, here's my lines. Z-Dats-Abby Alfie-Weiss-Franzen Tatar-Andersson-Nyquist Cleary-Helm-Miller Sammy/Bert Sadly, goodbye Eaves, Tootoo, and Emmerton (unless Helm is still hurt).

Hey, I feel you buddy. But unfortunately he, Eaves, and Emmerton are the odd men out barring injuries.

Z-Dats-Abby Alfie-Weiss-Franzen Tatar-Andersson-Nyquist Cleary-Helm-Miller Bertuzzi/Sammy To answer your question...no.

What an unbelievably bad contract for a guy who, while great in the past, seems to be declining pretty rapidly. That term is brutal.

Sooo...Tim Thomas is taking two seasons off then? I didn't think he could get any further from the hockey spotlight than he did last season, but then again, Tim Thomas never stops surprising me.

Honestly, you might be right. Having a quality third line scoring option is so important, and overlooked, in today's game. It used to be that one line teams couldn't win anything, but now it seems like two line teams have trouble. Look at Talbot et. al. in 2009. Those guys were the difference makers, not Crosby and Malkin's lines.

I almost picked Franzen, but to me his success depends on two things. First, if the top line is the main scoring threat then Franzen will face 2nd pairing d-men and thrive. Secondly, if there is someone else on his line who is capable of scoring regularly. If, like with Filppula, he's the only scorer on the line then he'll be key on and shut down. But if somebody else can score, and defenses have to spread out to stop multiple players, then Franzen will thrive. As such Weiss is the x-factor. If he plays well, D and Z are on the top line and draw the tough matchup. Also, if Weiss plays well then keying on Franzen will be too dangerous because Weiss will make them pay. But if he doesn't show up, Zetterberg has to go back to the second line and the first loses the firepower necessary to draw the tough matchups. edit: Plus, Zetterberg needs to be on the wing. Out of Zetterberg, Weiss, and Datsyuk, only Z has shown to be an effective winger. Making him the second line center means Weiss has to be a wing which isn't natural for him. He doesn't really take a whole lot of shots.

I think we know what we'll get from Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, and to some extent Alfie. But if Weiss can have a productive season, particularly if he's a scoring threat whenever he's on the ice, then I think it bodes well for our overall success. The last 4 seasons or so we just haven't had much depth beyond our top two guys. If Weiss is a threat the ice opens up for D and Z, but also for Franzen, who has shown he's most dangerous as a secondary scorer.

Yeah, I'd imagine he'll have career years with us. In an interview with the Free Press (I think), Alfie said that Weiss was someone that teams prepared for when playing Florida. Now with Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Franzen, and Alfie on the team, opponents will probably be focusing less on Weiss and the ice will open up a bit for him. 60-65 pts. is my guess for this season.

What I'm saying is that if you use the standard deviation as a measure of probability, which scientists the world over do, then it's fairly reasonable to conclude that Franzen at 40 will be closer to his average than Zetterberg at 40 will be to his. Don't believe me, do the math.

I agree with the comparison to these guys, and want to point out that that ALL of these guys are extremely valuable players with some holes in their game. Mentioning Franzen in this group is probably the most accurate comparison I've seen made of him. I think this actually illustrates the point perfectly. You mention Franzen with these guys and people think "those are some really decent players". Start mentioning him with upper levels guys and you think, "why isn't Franzen like those guys". Franzen isn't like Marian Hossa for the same reason the guys you listed aren't like Marian Hossa. But that doesn't mean Franzen sucks, or is lazy, or should be traded. It means he's a good, but not great player, who's signed accordingly.

Correct. And angry fans tend to form hasty conclusions without much evidence. They also tend to scapegoat certain players (Franzen) for reasons which they willingly overlook in others (Clarkson, Clowe). You're right, as long as he doesn't play like he did in 2008 Franzen will continue to be a lightening rod. And I'm fine with that. Hell, I even suggesting trading him (as part of a package for Evander Kane) in another thread. I only really object to the obvious hypocrisy and poor reasoning involved, which both dooms Franzen (as a result of fan frustration) and exalts guys like Clarkson and Clowe (and Bickell, now that I've read back through old threads). I'd just like to see a little consistency. If you don't like lazy players, fine. Then don't like ALL of them. If you don't like inconsistent players, fine. Don't like ALL of them. But if you dislike some, and REALLY want others (for more money) then your opinions have very little credibility. Again, if the shoe fits...

What it proves it that many of the people who criticize Franzen for being inconsistent, one-dimensional, etc. etc. etc. actually wanted players who are MORE inconsistent, one-dimensional, etc. etc. etc. As such, it's hard to believe that their criticism of Franzen is based on these issues (as you say) and not some irrational dislike for a guy who has, nonetheless, shown that he's a very effective player signed to a very team friendly cap hit. Now on to other silly criticisms I've read on this thread. Of course Franzen won't play up to his contract when he's 40. Neither will Zetterberg. Or Kovalchuk (had he sayed). Or anybody else signed to a backdiving contract. The reason that GMs were willing to sign them were twofold. First, because they wanted to keep good players. Two, because they hoped that the early benefits of such contracts would outweigh the negative aspects later on. Furthermore if one looks at backdiving contracts relatively, it's not hard to argue that 40 year old Franzen's 3.9 million dollar cap hit will be MORE bearable than 40 year old Zetterberg's 6.08 million dollar hit. Of course time will tell, but thus far in their careers Franzen's production has stayed relatively consistent from year to year (hovering right around he career average) while Zetterberg's has fluctuated greatly. Mathematically Frazen's standard deviation is much lower, suggesting that from year to year his point production is actually MORE consistent (e.g. predictable) with his average than Zetterberg's. Therefore, 40 year old Franzen is (statistically) more likely to play closer to the level at which he earned his lifetime contract than is 40 year old Zetterberg. This would obviously make his overpayment MORE bearable.

I know, he's better than either and gets paid less. That's why I wanted to know if some of those who don't like Franzen wanted either of them.

Did you think they were going to make less than they did? Or were you pipedreaming? A) Everybody with any sense knew that they were going to get paid what they did. B) Everybody else should have listened to the guys who knew better. C) Anybody who adamantly thought they'd make less than they did, in spite of what more knowledgeable people said, has a woefully inadequate understanding of what physically large, moderately talented, UFAs make in the NHL these days. But the original point I was trying to make is that most people knew Clarkson and Clowe were going to get paid A LOT, in spite their limited success, but wanted them anyway for some stupid reason. Then these same people have the gall to turn around and jump on Franzen, who's only ever made less and produced WAY more than either of them in their respective careers. Neither of these two are known for their versatility either...so you can't really use the "When Franzen isn't scoring he's not doing anything" argument either. Bitching about Franzen, while wanting a worse player for more money makes one both foolish and hypocritical. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don't.

How many people bitching about Franzen now wanted Clarkson or Clowe a couple months ago? Seriously, anybody honest enough to admit it?

They look a little less like Christmas decorations now, but still look a lot like Christmas decorations. Until the Parise/Suter thing, I always had an affinity for the Wild. Mostly because I think Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are all alike in a lot of ways (mid-western, northern, all that). But having said that, I always hated their color scheme.

In terms of the design, they look like daredevils. Maybe Super Dave Osborne is going to start on defense for the American team. He'll wow the spectators with his steady defensive play and solid first pass, and then wow them again at intermission when he jumps his motorcycle over fifteen zambonis. In terms of fit, they are the skinny jeans of hockey. They're like football jerseys with long sleaves. Leave it to some godless super corporation like Nike to think it's a good idea to "modernize" hockey sweaters by making them tight. Nike Marketing Team: "And for this year's Olympic hockey team we thought about a classic design updated with state of the art moisture wicking fabric". Nike Marketing Team Boss: "I see where your head's at. Hockey is a sport rich with tradition, and their fans are often resistant to even the smallest change in the game. But I've got to be honest with you. I wanna see a bit more zazz. Turn the zazz up to 11. I know they think they like history and tradition, but we're Nike, they'll like whatever we tell them too. Don't let our dwindling market share fool you, we're the kings of public opinion".