kipwinger

not really sure what you're getting at with this? That he's past it and shouldn't be signed? I agree. I've already said so.

Look I'm not arguing in favor of the guy or saying he still has it and we should sign him, but at one point in time he had a cannon of a shot and scored a bunch of power play goals, can we at least agree on that or do you want to nit pick it a little more?

Point man on the power play rather (lots of power play goals is the essence), and you're right, he is terrible defensively. I don't know where I got that from.

I actually thought about this before, it's a really interesting idea because he does have tons of offense, decent enough defense, huge shot, PP quarterback, fights, hits. etc. My two biggest concerns are his injury history (lesser concern), and the fact that by all accounts he's a huge douchebag and his prima dona attitude is a locker room distraction. Probably better to stick with Wiz.

I see what you're saying here, but it's extremely likely that he WOULD have a career year somewhere else. Any team he would go to would likely not have the front line scoring depth that we do and so he would therefore play more minutes and with better players than he does on our team. However, that doesn't mean that we aren't better off after any potential trade. Think Leino. Did Leino look WAY better after leaving Detroit? Yes. Are we a better team without him? Yes. Not arguing for or against keeping Hudler (I have never liked him though). But if he goes somewhere else, he's going to score a lot more. That in no way, validates or invalidates any potential trade. Depending on the moves we make, just clearing his cap space for nothing, regardless of how well he plays somewhere else, might end up being the best thing we could have done with him. What does this have to do with Drury? Who the hell knows. Everything equal, I'll keep Hudler I guess.

Wouldn't it be great if Blueadams was really some highly contentious free agent trying to create some buzz for himself and promote a better contract by writing posts which manage to both shamelessly pander to everyone on topics we all agree on, as well as repackage and resell the bad ones, purely out of self-congratulatory and narcissistic egoism? "Yeah, sure, I don't have a problem starting the season regularly playing three or four guys with little to no NHL experience and Joey McDonald as backup, but I DEFINITELY WOULDN'T pass up this opportunity to steal Tim Connolly at 4 million a year. Hell, at that price you can't afford to NOT sign Tim Connolly,...Of course Lidstrom's coming back, and who knows maybe the Captain will take a discount because he's such a helluva team guy." (Note to Blueadams: Before you get all pissy, I know you didn't ever mention Tim Connolly, just using him as a comedic example)

Now that's a statistical breakdown boys.

Good stat work on the penalty question guys. Seems like that question is effectively laid to rest.

We are currently ranked 4th in "Goals per Game" in the playoffs. Ahead of the team that beat us, ahead of the two teams in the finals, and one behind Tampa Bay, who advanced to the Conference finals. Suppose the reason we had more goals per game and couldn't score timely goals against the Sharks was because they played better TEAM DEFENSE, and shut us down? All five guys on the ice have to play D everybody, not just the two defenseman. That's why we "back check" , "forecheck", pick up our in zone "defensive assignments", etc.

And in both of the years we lost to the Sharks we had more goals per game. Suppose the reason we can have more goals per game and lose two years in a row is because they play better team defense and shut us down when it matters? Suppose they scored more because they had the puck more and cycled for larger peroids of time? Suppose they had the puck more because their defense forced more turnovers? Also, I don't want anyone to think that we should ONLY spend on defenseman, or that the defense is the ONLY problem. I'm saying whatever forward we sign needs to be defensively responsible. In a perfect world, like D and Z. The original post was in response to some of the names I'm seeing thrown around on this forumn. Zherdev? Connolly? You're talking about guys that are double digit minus in their careers. Scoring is nice, but a team full of Brett Hull's wouldn't be too hard to beat would it?

Agreed, plus/minus matters a lot but it's not a stand alone stat. You need to look at it in conjunction with other stats for it to mean much.

There were only twenty eight players with over 30 goals this year, and only five over 40. Few or none of them are UFA's, with any realistic possibility of leaving their current teams, and if they do, you're going to pay a fortune.

Because forwards have to play defense too. Because between 2008 when we won a cup and 2009 when we didn't our goals against increased by almost 100, so 50 extra points don't really matter. Because both teams playing in the cup finals right now were in the top five in "Goals for" AND had the lowest "Goals against" in the league. Because if you pick up forwards that don't play defense you may score more, but everyone scores more on you as well. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to sign a forward. But he better play good defense (unlike everyone I mentioned already) or he's not worth having. I'll take a 15-20 goal scorer who plays stud defense over Wolski, Zherdev, Connolly, or Hudler for that matter.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly the wrong way to look at things. Which is the reason why Scotty Bowman preached forechecking, backchecking, and defensive responsibility. The team that possesses the puck most is not the one with the better offense, it's the one who's better at taking it away from the other team. On good teams the forwards have to play defense as much as the defenseman do. And as Konnan just mentioned, the d-men are usually the launch pad for the offense as well.

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.