kipwinger

That's the thing, I'm not sure that we all do agree on that. Especially when I see people suggesting picking up Zherdev, Connolly, and the like. It seems to me that when talking about forwards the only things many people on this forumn look at are points and cap hit.

Tim Connolly? Hudler vs. Zherdev? At some point are we going to talk about anybody who A) Actually meets the "top six" qualification that Babcock mentioned. B) Doesn't require that we speculate for days on end whether their extremely marginal professional success is worth the peanuts you apparently want to pay for a free agent.

Check that Doan hit out on youtube, it's really nasty. If Wiz brings that kind of edge to Detroit we're all the better for it. Plus, if he can do it to Doan he can sure as hell do it it Thornton, Marleau, Heatley, etc.

I'm not arguing with you about whether it's the right move or the wrong move to bring Wolski to Detroit, you obviously know more about his game play than I do and I'm fine with taking your word for it. If the kid is fine, and the situations in Pheonix or New York were his biggest issues, then there's nothing bad about the idea. I was just saying that there seems to be this idea that guys who DO HAVE consistency issues/work ethic issues, can come to Detroit and the organization and system will completely negate those bad habits. Only, the reality is that there are guys on our team now that have those issues, there were guys in the past that had those issues, and being a member of the Detroit Red Wings didn't change that. Sometimes it does, a lot of times it doens't. If that's not the issue with Wolski then I don't see why it wouldn't work out.

I agree, apparently every underachiever on the team should be promoted to the first line. Giving a third or fourth liner more ice time and a chance to play with the best forward in hockey will CERTAINLY improve their offensive numbers, but at the end of the day you've still only got a third or fourth liner on your top line. Apparently everyone is forgetting about the fact that you've got to match up and play defense, as well as be able to contribute in critical situations (offensively and defensively) as well. Bad idea, and bad logic for anyone advancing it.

I'm with you. I have never really payed too much attention to Wolski, so I am not going to say too much for or against him here. But if scoring consistency has been his biggest knock, don't think he's going to learn that here. Anybody remember how Franzen and Clearly both disappeared at the end of the season. Our leading goal scorer scored twice in the last two months of the season. Coming to Detroit isn't a magic cure all for inconsistency, let alone laziness. I'm not in a position to say that Wolski is either one, but we've got plenty enough reasons to see that those things don't just disappear when you play for this team.

Dude, I'm not against a Wolski for Hudler trade. As a matter of fact, I'm not opposed to most ideas that end with Hudler being someplace else. But comparing this scenario to Murph is a bit silly. Murph was already getting toward the tail end of a Hall of Fame career by the time he came here. Wolski is still unproven (I don't mean this negatively, just factually), Murph was proven and then some. The concern with him was whether or not he still had gas in the tank. He did. Not the same scenario.

Sacrificing a huge pile of money to the Brad Richards alter, praying feverishly (same prayer as always) that signing one all-star to a MEGE HUGE contract, will somehow transform his team into something that isn't totally pathetic?

I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. But if you look across the league, on every team, you'll notice that each (competitive team) has a couple of superstars and a lot of mid tier and lower tier guys. Superstars across the board play at a consistently superstar-like level. Stanley Cup winners are the ones who get that play from the stars, and get A LOT of additional solid play out of everyone else. We've already got our super stars, and they are going to continue to play the way they can (for a few more years). Now it's a matter of making sure that they have the right supporting cast. Very few teams have a Sedin/Sedin/Kessler or St. Louis/Stamkos/Lecavalier situation going on, but plenty of teams win cups without it. Additionally, we haven't lost the last couple of years because we didn't have enough goal scoring. Adding a Richards or Parise up front isn't necessarily going to solve our problems. Sure they'll score a ton more points, and give us offensive depth (which we need), but if they can't match up defensively, and play a physical and defensively responsible game against quality opposing forwards, they really haven't helped with our problem. We are always near the top of the league in "goals for", we've got to get that "goals against" down to beat the really good teams. Obviously Weber would help in that regard, but that's more and more a pipe dream everyday.

Yeah, I'm open to a trade. I'm not saying you have to sign free agents, but we really need to fill at least those two glaring holes in the lineup, either by trade or by free agency. In either case, those are going to be huge additions to the team. Hell, even adding a fourth line grinder can be a huge addition if that's what you're missing. Anyone remember Dallas Drake?

I like the idea of adding Carter, but that's no what I want to address here. Adding anyone that's 26 years old and an established player DOES give you immediate help AND future help. A quality guy at that age is likely to remain a solid and productive member of your team for at least the next 5 or 6 years. Don't get me wrong, draft picks help, and they are REALLY important. But on a team like the Wings, it's very likely a good draft pick won't even break the lineup until he's 25 or 26, and even then, many of them are unknown quantities at the NHL level.

Since when does adding a top 4 d-man and a top 6 forward not count as making a big move? Those are HUGE additions to any team. No, we're not going to go out and pick up a superstar, but adding someone like Wiz or Bieksa, and adding a forward like Laich (or anybody is this caliber), definitely count as big moves.

No, no they do not. A large part of the problem is the fans, or at least the hockey culture in Toronto. I've heard them described as the Yankee fans of hockey, proud and fanatically loyal, but short sighted. Unfortunately, for someone like me who revels in the Leafs' failures they are probably going to get better, if they have enough common sense to leave Brian Burke alone to do his job. Anybody else notice how all he's done is tear that organization down, strip it of dead weight, or at least get rid of contracts that didn't fit into his scheme? Also, notice how in most cases he's moved guys in return for relatively high draft picks. They are a few years away yet, but they're going to start developing that team, the right way. And in a few years they'll have a very quality hockey club, just like Burke did in Vancouver, and just like he did in Anaheim. Unless all the scrutiny from the dips*** fans and all the other indians wanting to be chiefs gets him fired first. They've been terrible for a long time, that won't change overnight, but they've got the right people in there to do it now.

My other big question concerns Brooks Laich. Capable of playing left wing or center, defensively responsible (+14), with a good offensive touch (48 pts. this season, down from 59 and 52 the last two years). He's young(ish) at 27 and has been improving steadily every year. Between his size (6'2, 220 lbs.) and his versatility, I really like him on our top two lines, allowing us to mix and match wingers and spread the offense out over the top three lines, providing the depth that we need to compete with the San Jose's and Vancouver's of the league. He made roughly 2.5 million on his last contract and would likely make a little more. Anyone think this is possible, provided Rafalski's defensive replacement come in around 4 or 4.5 million, in addition to the fact that the cap will expand, and Modano's (at least Modano's) contract is likely coming off the books?

You're right on both accounts, and you wouldn't necessarily have to put them together if you signed Carter. But if they were, I don't think you'd be in too bad of shape.

You may be right on this. However, and I'll probably get blasted for this, one of the VERY FEW criticisms that I have of Babcock is that he plays with the line combinations constantly. To the point that guys are playing with different pairings every few nights. In a game where chemistry and timing matters as much as hockey, it seems to really bog some guys down. I don't know if that's the reason they haven't been as good together, but I don't really care for it, and certainly you don't see other teams tops lines doing it (at least not nearly as often).

Fair enough. Like I said, I haven't really seen them too much, but sounds like trouble.

Yeah, it's probably an extremely long shot, but man would it ever look good.

Ok cool, thanks for the info. Anybody else like the looks of this? Zetterberg-Datsyuk-Holmstrom Franzen-Carter-Cleary Bertuzzi-Filpula-Abdelkader Eaves-Helm-Miller

Does anybody know if he can play the wing as well? I'm curious what kind of options he would give us as far as line combos?

God knows I'd want to see the deal done. If they can figure out a way of doing it, that would be a big break. It gives us the addition in the top six that Babcock wants (and we need) without breaking the bank for it. And gives us more money to work with when it comes to signing additions on the defense. Good point on the RFA aspect of Voracek, that might be a deciding factor. Rafalski's contract coming off the books this year was a huge break for us. Now this possibility. Can we really be this fortunate?

Damn, Voracek's cap hit is only 1.2 as well. We'd have to throw a lot more than Hudler or Abdelkader their way.

"No, please dear GOD no. At no point in his career has Jovanovski been worth that much. As for right now? You do know that while Jovanovski started the season as the Yotes' #4, they acquired Klesla during the season (who played ahead of him) and rookie David Schlemko passed him on the depth chart? Would you pay $5m for the #6 defenseman from a team that had the third-worst SA/G and the fifth-worst PK? A defenseman whose ONLY purposes on his team (Jovo scored 14 points in 50 regular season games, and did not play the PP) were leadership and defense/PK? I sure as hell wouldn't foot that bill. He's at least learned that his defensive zone exists, though, even if he still isn't very good there. Jovo might be a good fit on the third pairing to replace Ericsson. He's got some speed, he's physical, and he's as good defensively. But I wouldn't pay him more than $1.5m to do it. Past that you can get much better players." I agree dude, I wasn't arguing in favor of Jovo, I don't want him. I'm just saying I don't think he's going to take a big paycut to go somewhere else. He'll get 5-6 million, and hopefully it won't be from us.

Trade for Carter? Done. With that size, age, and kind of production on the top six, and the fact that at least half of his cap hit would be offset by the loss of Hudler's contract, I'd do it in a second. Of course, I thought it would be a good idea to go up to 4-4.5 million on a forward in addition to Hudler's contract, so I'd obviously be for it. Because of Carter's age, you could presumably pair Hudler with a young prospect (probably Tatar) and still come out even or ahead in regards to long term depth.

I completely agree. I thought we was pretty good in those playoff games as well, which is why I couldn't understand why he didn't play in more once Franzen was pretty obviously rendered ineffective. The only thing that I can think of (considering nothing ever came out) was that Babcock thought he just couldn't do it, or just couldn't keep doing it. And certainly the comments couldn't have helped reassure him. Again, I don't know if that's what really happened, but for some reason they didn't feel confident playing him in those games, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why.