kipwinger

Of course I wouldn't. The Pittsburgh Penguins didn't make it past the first round with the presumed MVP of the league, Crosby, a #1 drafted goalie, and James Neal having a career year. Why would I want to gut 4 roster players off my team for just one of those pieces (the presumed MVP)? Picks and prospects along with a roster player or two and I'm happy to make a trade, but there's nobody in the world worth Cleary, Helm, Abby, and Miller...unless Evgeni Malkin can play 38 minutes a night, kill penalties, win faceoffs, and still maintain his offensive numbers.

agreed. Additionally, if your team is already very thin then the superstar wouldn't really help much. Look at Columbus. An average goalie and a few 2nd and 3rd liners would probably do them more good than Rick Nash is right now. Also, what does the OP mean by average? Is Cleary average, or Abby, or Miller, or Helm. You could argue that they are all average, and I certainly wouldn't trade the four of them for Steven Stamkos or Erik Karlsson.

The Quicken Loans Center...puke.

I don't want to see that line ever. Why put all your playmakers on one line? Who would be the other line, Franzen-Filppula-Clear/Bert...ugh.

Yeah, we really just need depth signings on the top end. Signing one top line player actually makes the first, third, and fourth lines better by itself. If that happens you don't NEED Hudler's points, though they are nothing to scoff at, and you can give Nyquist the shot. However, without a top liner you end up scrambling to find quality line combinations, like we did last year, and you end up playing guys in roles they aren't suited for (e.g. Abby as a third line forward capable of scoring ever). Without front end talent our depth is seriously questionable and you have to resign Hudler to field anything close to a competitive team. side note: We don't disagree on much. 4 out of 10 disagreement here at LGW involve people not completely reading and comprehending what someone else is trying to say. 3 out of 10 involve one party or the other being pissed off because they sincerely want the team to do well and think they have correctly identified the problem. 2 out of 10 disagreements involve one party or another intentionally trying to be dick on the internet because there's really no harm in it, so why not? Only, 1 out of 10 disagreements on LGW is truly substantive.

To me, the main thing to consider when it comes to offering Hudler a contract is whether or not we expect Nyquist to be on the team full time next season. If management doesn't expect Nyquist to play everyday then resigning Hudler makes sense because he fills the second line winger position and allows you to field a real good Bert-Helm-Cleary third line, and a dynamite Miller-Abby-Eaves fourth line. However, if they are expecting them both to play full time then that really puts the bottom six in disarray because Nyquist has too much skill to be on the fourth line, and is mismatched in terms of style on a third line with Helm, Bert, or Cleary. I think someone here mentioned something recently about the bottom two lines needing identity. They have it so long as Gustav Nyquist doesn't play on those two lines. A highly skilled player on either of those lines as they are conceived above doesn't make any sense. So the question to me is, does Nyquist play every day? The answer seems to depend on getting a real scoring threat to play with Datsyuk. You get a Parise or a Semin to play with Datsyuk and Franzen, then you can afford to lose Hudler's production on the second line because the third line and fourth lines will be MUCH better than last year's incarnations. If they don't get the top liner to go with D and Franzen, then you might as well resign Hudler because you'll need the offense any way you can get it, especially considering one of either Bert or Cleary will have to be back in the top six which will ultimately limit the production you'll get out of the bottom two lines.

Pretty sure that the Wings already know they need a couple of defensemen. However, if you're inflexible about it and only want the three guys you've listed above, then you're going to be disappointed. There are plenty of talented defensemen out there though, so we'll be ok.

I know Mickey Redmond won with Montreal a couple times, but I'm pretty sure he never won a cup with the Wings. Does he count?

My favorite thing about the Joe is that it's not named after some s***ty corporation. I know the new one will be, but I really loved the fact that the Joe was named after something relevant to Detroit's sporting history.

Dino or Bertuzzi

Yeah, I was speaking more about pure enforcers.

I completely agree, and that's the most reasonable way to look at the enforcer idea in today's game.

As much as I'm usually against having these guys on the team, I can't deny that a huge part of me wished we had Colton Orr about the time Weber was head slamming. Could you imagine if Orr was out for the first shift of the following game? Priceless.

From my time here at LGW is should be pretty obvious that I'm against having fighters on this team. As long as we win, I don't care about seeing scraps. However, there's something to be said for this. Remember back in 2004 before the Pistons went on their 3 years of dominance and they brought Rasheed in? I recall Dumars, or Larry Brown, can't remember who, saying that Rasheed wasn't really the best at anything. But he had the right attitude. Maybe Suh is another good example of attitude. I love our hockey team, and won't stop no matter what they do in the off season. But worse things would happen than bringing in some mean bastard with an attitude. Might be the kind of spark plug that any team needs in order to stay motivated during the grind. ...but if we do chase a fighter, obviously he'll need to be the 13th forward.

What no Colton Orr? What kind of a list is this?

Haha, well we can both agree on that. I just don't like the idea of guaranteeing a guy playing time as a condition for signing. If they get signed and earn their spots on the big club...all the better for us.

If you think the kid is good enough to be comparable to those players then by all means, your point is valid. I've heard nothing to suggest that he's as good as all that, so I'd rather see him develop first. I've said all along, if he's in the company of superstars at this stage in his career then give him a contract. However, based on the (limited) information I have about the kid, it doesn't seem like he's in that category.

Again, read through my posts, I don't disagree with you. I've said from the beginning that he should be offered a two way contract and given the opportunity to earn a spot in camp. But he absolutely should not be GUARANTEED NHL playing time without ever having played outside of the NCAA. That was what the whole debate was about from the beginning, whether or not he should be guaranteed playing time for the Red Wings as a condition for signing with the organization.

Haha I didn't ignore it. I said the exact same thing on page three. Try actually reading the discussion before jumping into the middle of it and being argumentative. You might find that you've totally misunderstood the entire conversation from the beginning. All I've ever said was that he should be signed, given a try out in camp, and forced to earn his position on the Wings roster or else develop more in the AHL. Thanks for playing. Next.

Datyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen all played in PROFESSIONAL hockey leagues (Swedish Elite League, and Russian Superleague) in their respective countries, it's misleading to suggest that they didn't have sufficient professional development. If Schultz wants to develop in the SEL or KHL instead of the AHL I'm fine with that too. The point is, he needs to prove himself in a professional league before being given a spot on an NHL roster.

Kindl's numbers in his first full year in the league were as good or better than anything Ericsson managed to do in his first four seasons in the league. Back then Ericsson was the whipping boy, and now everyone seems to agree that he's developed into a valuable defenseman. Kindl is further along now than Ericsson was at a similar point in his career and I think it's pretty clear to everyone how much patience with Ericsson's development has paid off. Why not give Kindl that same development trajectory? It's not like he's holding anybody back, Smith will compete and perhaps start over him this coming season. But I certainly don't think that he's a lost cause who's "flopped" or "failed every test", and should be immediately replaced by a college kid with no known quantity in professional hockey.

That's the thing, nobody gets results by promoting guys straight from the NCAA to the NHL. Who has done that successfully? I can't even think of two or three instances in which that has worked out, let alone enough to say you get results either way. Unless you're an elite talent, you don't go straight from the CHL or NCAA to the NHL without a development period in between. If people think Schultz is that good then fine, but I certainly have no reason to believe he's ready to be named in the same sentence as superstars capable of that.

I've already addressed this issue. It would help for you to read back over the WHOLE discussion, but in the event that you won't I'll go ahead and paraphrase all of my assertions. 1. It is next to impossible to tell whether a kid will be good in the NHL based ONLY on 111 NCAA hockey games. 2. Unless you're a once in a lifetime talent like Stamkos, Toews, or Crosby you need to undergo proper player development. 3 Proper player development includes competing in training camp and spending time in the AHL. 4. Players who have not undergone this process of development, and aren't considered once in a lifetime talents, should not be guaranteed NHL roster spots over established players. 5. Justin Schultz is not a once in a lifetime talent. He also hasn't undergone proper player development. Therefore, he shouldn't be guaranteed anything without competing for it. FInally,... 6. Sign Justin Schultz to a two way contract and let him develop and compete like all of our other prospects. When he's ready, he's ready.

Again, I'll gladly concede this entire discussion if you can provide me with even one piece of tangible evidence that PROVES either of these assertions. Saying it doesn't make it so. There is no way to compare Kindl to Schultz because Schultz has not played enough hockey at a competitive enough level, and there's nothing at all that says the kid will inevitably become "great" so long as he's on a pairing with Smith for a few years. Everything you've said so far is pure speculation. Unless you've got some proof I'm not aware of. Pretty please, explain to me how you can FACTUALLY make the assertions "Schultz is better than Kindl" and "Schultz will be great". Pretty please. Also, and answer this honestly: Have you ever even seen this kid play one full hockey game?