kipwinger

"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.

I was happy with the Wings signing him too, I liked it in theory. I just think that there's a time and a place to say things like what he was saying, and to do it the way he did doesn't really make a coach feel real good about playing him in the playoffs when it matters. I don't want to say it's a lack of heart, but when you feel like maybe the will to play isn't there anymore, then it's probably time to quit.

Yeah I like Montador a lot. He's a better fit, and comes from a very defensively responsible system which is always real positive for an FA pick up. With those third pair guys, it's about getting a lot of bang for the buck, which is why I was curious about the Wallin thing. But at similar prices you're absolutely right, Montador is the better choice.

To take this in a different direction, can anyone make a case for Ian White and Niclas Wallin of the Sharks as possible alternatives to the defensive holes that need to be filled. Both are good, stay at home defenseman. The problems I see are these: 1. Neither can reproduce the kind of offensive numbers Rafalski put up, so that's lost. White was acquired in a trade for a first round pick so SJ is probably going to want to re-sign him. Wallin is at best a third pair guy, and makes 2.5 mil, so he'd have to come down a little bit (he's 36, so it's realistic) in order to take over the Ericsson role, but he was a stud in the playoffs (against us anyway). Because they are on the west coast I really haven't seen either of them play enough for me to say anything about them either way. Any thoughts?

I was a little irked by his "I just don't know if I have it in me" attitude all season. I think that's largely the reason Babcock went with Draper as the extra forward when Franzen was down in the playoffs. He's been a great player for a lot of years but if that's how he feels then he'd better just retire.

He wanted to sign long term with the Wings and we didn't have the cap space because we signed Zetterberg long term the same year and had to re-sign Franzen in the offseason. That's why he went to Chicago and signed long term. To give credit to you (can't believe I'm saying this) he did in fact sign the one year deal, although he certainly wanted more. "Late in the regular season, on March 23, 2009, Hossa was quoted as saying he would like to sign a long-term career deal with the Red Wings for the upcoming season. He also stated he is willing to take less money to continue to play for Detroit, saying, "I know if I go somewhere else, I could have more, but I'm willing to take less to stay here. Hopefully things work out." Hossa's comments came just several months after the Red Wings signed forward Henrik Zetterberg to a twelve-year contract extension." "On July 1, 2009, Hossa signed a 12 year contract with the Chicago Blackhawks worth $62.8 million. The contract is front-loaded with $59.3 million due in the first eight years for an average cap hit of $5.2 million per season.[28] It was also the most lucrative deal in team history until defenceman Duncan Keith signed a 13-year, $72 million contract several months later in December 2009.["

Here's something interesting to check out. I was looking at Erhoff, Wisniewski, Bieksa, and Suter (for next year's class) career comparisons and I noticed something pretty striking. Their numbers are pretty much identical for all intents and purposes. They are all roughly the same age, put up the same kind of numbers, are all career plus, and average the same time on ice. Admittedly, each player is a different guy. Wisniewski is bigger and more physical than the rest, Erhoff has the best offensive numbers, Suter plays the most and has been consistently a top pair guy, etc. Obviously, each player is a different fit for each team looking to sign them, but as far as any one of them being far and away a better player than the rest statistically, or monetarily, there's just not that much difference. Here's the links to each, have a look and see what you think. Suter...http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/stats/_/id/3047/ryan-suter Erhoff...http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/stats/_/id/1965/christian-ehrhoff Wisniewski...http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/stats/_/id/2966/james-wisniewski Kevin Bieksa...http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/stats/_/id/3269/kevin-bieksa

Agreed. All I'm saying is that Jovo will definitely make the money, and if they're roughly the same price, or if Wiz is cheaper, lock him up.

That's the point, he's not going to take a cut. He's not old enough for that yet. He's going to sign a contract like Roman Hamrlik did with Montreal in 2007 (4 years, 22 million). Hamerlik was 33 at the time and playing good hockey. Jovo is 34 now and playing good hockey. He's not going to take a massive paycut and go year to year at 34 years old. He'll do that at 37-40 when his effectiveness is limited. I have no idea why anybody thinks that Jovo would take a huge paycut. Of course he wants a cup, but he's not at the twilight of his career yet where he's got to either get paid or get a cup, at this point he can still do both. He's got a lot of decent hockey in him, he'll sign a 5-6 million dollar contract for three or four years.

ED JOVANOVSKI IS 34 YEARS OLD, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A 6 MILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR, 34 YEAR OLD HOCKEY PLAYER SIGNED A 1 YEAR CONTRACT???? If anything he'd be looking to lock up something for the remainder of his career, and do the rent a player trade for a cup. Plus, if you're going to give him 5-6 million a year for one year, why not give Wisniewski 5 million a year for three or four years and lock up your defensive corps for a couple of years. Remember everybody, when Lidstrom leaves, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to sign Suter or Burns. So going into a Burns/Suter negotiation would you rather know you've got Kronwall, Stuart, and Wisniewski all locked up for a couple years, or would you rather have Kronwall and Stuart locked up with Lidstrom retiring and Jovanovski a free agent to sign or replace the same year. (I realize we have to re-sign Kronwall and Stuart too. Realistically they'll get their raises, probably before the end of the next season). For the amount of money it would take to sign Selanne (even though it's an incredible long shot) why not invest the money wisely and pursue Dubinsky, Laich, Scottie Upshaw, or Erik Cole, for the same or similar money and lock them up for three or four years. Datysuk and Zetterberg aren't going to be this good forever, we've got a realistic window of opportunity to be competitive for the cup for the next 2-3 seasons before those guys are getting too old to carry the load anymore. I honestly don't see spending next year filling holes with stop gap measures(any paying a lot for those measure too), hoping for a jackpot the year after, when there are plenty good young hockey players to fill those holes. Plus this year we're in a good position. We're very close to being the most cash heavy of the competitive teams. Something that we may not be able to say in a year or two.

Damn dude, don't be so touchy (especially considering I'm the argumentative one). Cap hit IS the only thing that matters to the TEAM. But when you're talking about free agency, the TEAM has to make a deal with a PLAYER. Presumably, the team wants to keep the cap hit low, while the player probably cares less about the cap hit and more about how much is actually going to go into their bank account per year. The point is valid either way, you're right. But when it comes down to it, when you're trying to entice a free agent to come to your team, usually the biggest draw is how much you're going to pay them per year, not how much of a cap hit the team is going to take. The point I was trying to make about structured contracts was that sometimes you can have it both ways. Depending on how you structure the contract sometimes a guy can take home seven and a half million in a year (worthwhile to the player) while his cap hit is only six million for the same year (worth more to the management). This is roughly what happened with Zetterberg in 2010-2011. The player doesn't give a s*** about the cap hit in most cases. He cares about what he makes per year. When you're talking about a player leaving one team to go to another you think that salary figure doesn't factor into the decision making? You think Johan Franzen agreed to his deal because the team would have a 4 million dollar cap hit, or because he would make 5 million dollars the same year.

Wait, it gets better. After they sign with other teams for seven million each, Selanne will leave the team he wants to retire with, and Jovanovski will take a massive pay cut to leave a team and city that he's happy with, and then the Wings will sign them both and be back in the hunt. This is only logical after all. Thank god he's the smart one here (and clearly not prone to whimsically imagining outrageous salaries and FA destinations and acquisitions without any sort of historical precedent).

I wish I could disagree with anything you've said here, but sadly, you're probably right. I do still think Wiz or Bieksa are the best options on the back end. But Laich or Ladd are mostly just wishful thinking. I'm still knocking on wood until mid july though. However, you bring up a good point with Bert and Hossa. We drafted Franzen and Abdelkader though. And Cleary was sort of a reclaimation thing, nobody knew he'd turn out like he did. But still, very valid point.

Wow, your short term memory is a real doozie. Look, the posts are numbered so this should be easy. In the post numbered 21, you responded to a comment I made about why it was dumb to sign Jovanovski or Selanne because they were too old, by saying that we could either sign a "good" player, presumably Jovanovski or Selanne, or a "mediocre" player, presumably Bieksa, Erhoff, or Wizniewski considering I mentioned those players (by name, in the post that you were responding to) as being better options than Jovanovski. AGAIN, THE POSTS ARE NUMBERED. IT WAS YOUR POST. #21. Also, in post #19 I asked the forum "if I was missing something" because I thought it was a dumb idea to sign Selanne and Jovanovski. You responded by saying that there were no better UFAs in this year's class to sign, and according to you, that's what I was missing. Now, you're saying that Erhoff, Bieksa, and Wiz are better. But in POST #19, when I said it was dumb to sign Jovanovski, you said it was smart to sign him because there were a lack of better FAs available this year. #19. I was starting to get really irritated by this constant back and forth until I realized, while looking at other forums, that you're the same guy who was in favor of signing Joni Pitkanen about three days ago. You believed it was a good idea to sign him, long term, in spite of his "consistancy issue". After everybody on this sight told you what a terrible idea that was, you've moved on to Jovanovski (and very stubbornly, I might add). After reading this I realized, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is likely that as soon as someone (obviously not me) convinces you that Jovanovski is also very inconsistant, overpriced (he's not taking much of a cut, if any), fairly old, and dogged by injuries, you'll probably be on to the next guy. May I suggest Roman Hamerlik? Eventually, through a process of excruciating elimination, you'll finally realize that Wizniewski, Bieksa, or Erhoff are the best options, and all will be right with the world. Sad as it is to say, the real loser here is me. I'm the dumb one. I can't believe I just spent this much time debating with someone who suggested signing Ed Jovanovski and Teemu Selanne. It should have been obvious you didn't have a clue the second you proposed that humdinger of an idea.

Explain how we're going to afford to sign a premier defenseman when most of Lidstrom's contract is going to make up the raises that Kronwall and Stuart are going to get? C'mon Yoda, help me see where that extra seven million is going to come from? You said that you never suggested that Jovanovski was better than Erhoff, Bieksa, or Wiz. Except that you did say that (and I just highlighted where you said it). You also said that there were no better UFA options than Jovanovski. Except that there are better options (and I told you ten posts ago who they were). Now you're saying that Jovanovski isn't better than Wiz, Bieksa, Erhoff; which is what I've been saying all along. And considering he already makes six million dollars and isn't likely to sign for too much less, if any at all, why wouldn't they just sign one of those three guys.

And you implied it here. Unless good is not better than mediocre in your ordering of things. Or unless you blatantly refuse to acknowledge that we were talking about Jovanovski this entire time, and unless you blatantly refuse to acknowledge that about ten posts ago I mentioned Bieksa, Efhoff, and Wisniewski as UFA options in this year's class. Also, by your rationale if Erhoff and Bieksa are going to go for 7 million this year, then how much is Suter or Burns going to go for next year? A zillion? How do you suppose we'll afford that, when we have to re-sign Kronwall and Stuart next year to raises, plus likely having to fill in the holes left by Lidstrom, Holmstrom, and Bertuzzi. Best case scenario we'll have about the same amount of free money after re-signing Kronwall and Staurt and filling those holes, as we have right now. Only the best free agents in that class (who are better than Erhoff, Bieksa, and Wiz) will cost more and we won't sign them either.

Well you said it here.

Don't even get started on that one. Plenty of people on this site think he should be given more ice time. Shoot over to the Hudler's future forum and prepare to be amazed.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you came to the conclusion that Ed Jovanovski is a better defenseman (particularly a puck moving defenseman, and PP specialist, which is what we're replacing) than any of Bieksa, Erhoff, or Wisniewski. He's been a minus 12 of his 15 seasons in the league and doesn't average many (or any) more points than those guys do. Plus, they are all much younger and are only going to improve on a defensive squad that includes Kronwall, Stuart, and Lidstrom. Plus he's more expensive, making it harder if the Wings do want to pursue a forward or another defenseman. But apparently they are mediocre and he's a star? Weird. You honestly think Ed Jovanovski is going to take a 3 million dollar pay cut to play anywhere at 34 years old? Especially when pretty much every team is looking to upgrade defense all the time. I agree he's not worth it, but he'll get it, or very close to it.

Which is why I showed you his playoff totals, which were over the coarse of the ten games he played in the post season. I figure that once you combine the pre All-Star totals with the second half, and include the playoffs, you'll notice he still only had 4 more pts. in roughly the same amount of games, give or a take a couple. It's still a long way off from being an "AMAZING" second half that us peons at LGW "refuse to acknowledge".

Haha, fair enough man. Like I said, he's a mediocre player with a mediocre season. He hasn't earned, nor does he deserve more of anything, FOR THOSE WHO KEEP SAYING HE SHOULD BE ON ONE OF OUR TOP TWO LINES. Also, I saw that "eva unit zero" (if that is your real name) commented on Hudler's "amazing" second half performance which "was, on the whole, second-line worthy" but which "LGW simply refuses to acknowledge". Below is a link to Hudler's season splits, a statistical analysis which is easy to find for anyone who wants to know what they are talking about. http://espn.go.com/n...120/jiri-hudler Before the All-Star break: 4 goals, 14 assists, -5. After the All-Star break: 6 goals, 13 assists, -2 Playoffs: 1 goal, 2 assists, -1. Simply AMAZING second half. He totally caught fire. NOTE to Eva: Acknowledged. Jiri was by the slimmest margin better in the second half than he was in the first. Also, his first half performance was one of the worst one the team. P.P.S. You can learn to verify the accuracy of your claims by using the internet, a thing which provides you with all sorts of proof that your wild conjectures are true, and sometimes helps to prove that other people's wild conjectures are false.

Not to mention the fact that both of those guys cost a lot, and because they are old you can't count on any kind of production over the long run. Jovanovski makes six million dollars and put up 14 pts. in 50 games last year. Why in the hell would you pay him six for that when you could pay Wisniewski, Bieksa, or Erhoff 4.5-5 for 70-82 games and 50 pts. And those guys are all 27-30 years old. Same for Selanne, admittedly he had an awesome season last year, no doubt about it, but the dude is 40 years old. Anybody really want to take a chance that he'll do anything like that again. No to mention the fact that we've already got Holmstrom (38), Bertuzzi (36), Draper (39), Lidstrom (41), Osgood (36), all potentially playing huge roles for next year's team. Or in the case of Lidstrom and Bertuzzi and Holmstom DEFINITELY playing huge roles on next year's team. Now we want to count on Selanne and Jovanovski to be healthy and play a championship level too? Not this guy.

replace the much aged and often broken Rafalski, and get stronger and deeper up front by adding the much aged and often broken Selanne and Jovanovski? Am I missing something?