kipwinger

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?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, second line worthy? He's a WINGER with ten goals, -7 defensively (against third liners), and about 13 min. TOI. Boy what a clinic he put on. He's not even close to as good as our own second line wingers who weren't even as close to as good, as every other quality second line (on competitive teams. What good does is it to compare them to terrible teams). The worst of our top line wingers is probably Holmstrom with 18 goals, 19 assists, -6 (largely against first and second liners) and 14 min. TOI. Tomas Holmstrom is also 11 years older than Jiri Hudler. As a matter of fact Hudler hardly as better offensive numbers than Eaves or Miller, and Hudler plays on the Power Play and had more games played. But let's keep telling ourselves he's quality because he's got better offensive numbers than whoever plays on Edmonton, or Florida, or the Islanders' third lines. I honestly cannot figure this forum out. It baffles me. You take a guy, who had a not very impressive year, against not very impressive players (relative to first and second line players), and with essentially no responsibilities, and he turns in a pretty mediocre year. Which is fine, Jiri Hudler is a mediocre player, so I'm ok with it up to this point. Here comes the part that gets me. You people want to give him MORE ice time, MORE responsibilities defensively, and a LARGER portion of the ice time in critical situations (something skewed in favor of top six forwards and top four defensemen). And why, I might ask? Because two years ago he scored 20 more points. HAHAHAHA. Apparently, I've lost my mind for thinking this is a terrible idea.

1. It is not a very good long term strategy for you to have over half your cap space tied up in five players. 2. It is a TERRIBLE strategy to have two rookies for a third defensive pairing, something that you've suggested here, and would probably be unavoidable if you had half your cap space invested in five players. 3. You suggest promoting Jiri Hudler to the first line (which includes 5 or 6 more minutes of ice time) when he was incapable of playing quality defense last year with 5 less minutes of ice time, against third liners instead of first. Tell me how effective he's going to be against Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan or Sedin, Sedin, Burrows or Thornton, Marleau, heatly/setoguchi/clowe. I realize that on the first line Hudler will score more, so will every team we play against. 4. Filpula does play defense, you want to trade him? 5. Your third line of Bertuzzi and Holmstrom is essentially made of two wingers who do the exact same thing on the ice with Helm thrown in the middle for some reason. They are also probably the oldest, slowest, and lowest scoring third line in hockey even with helm (because you've hamstrung him by putting him on the ice with REALLY old, slow, guys). Conclusion: In the post cap world, you can't just throw a six or seven million dollar all-star into as many positions as you can and expect to be a better team overall. You can't afford it in the long run and still develop talent. You also can't afford it in the short run and have a third or fourth line capable of playing against teams who do develop talent. Ken Holland likes to say that in the post cap world it's about getting more out of the guys that you aren't paying much, rather than paying a bunch for really good guys (obviously not verbatim).

I'm changing this post because when I wrote the old one I was being a total dick. I don't agree with your projected team, I would go so far as to say that I STRONGLY disagree with your ideas about the building of this team. That said, you're probably still a pretty cool dude, and there's probably no reason for me to have replied earlier in the manner I did. See below for the reasons that I disagree with your projected lineup, and have a good one Berry.

I didn't say his Franzen's cap hit was 5 million, I said his SALARY was 5 million. They had these awesome things called graduated contracts, now largely invalidated by the Kovalchuk deal, which allowed players to make more money up front than they did at the end of their very long contracts. Cap hit is only half the battle. Of course, it matters a lot when you're putting your team on the ice, but when you're trying to lure good players to your city, salary is the most important number. How much of a cap hit we take is all in how the contract is structured. Here's a list of all the Wings contracts from 2010-2011. Notice how most of the cap hits are lower than the amount the player actually goes home with at the end of the year?...Hmmmmm. You'll also notice that Draper, Abdelkader, and Osgood's cap hits are higher than their salaries. Structured contracts dude, it's all about the structure. http://www.sportscit...-Wings-Salaries

You had me right up until you didn't. I"m going to be very disappointed if the Wings sign Tanguay or Jokinen. What better way to spend money and add absolutely no toughness or physical play up front. Remember that Sharks series? Do you realistically think that Alex Tanguay or Jussi Jokinen would have made one bit of difference in that one? I know they score (so please don't list off a bunch of numbers to me), but we scored last year, and the year before, we always have plenty of scoring up front. We don't have size, toughness, or depth in the top six. Please, please, please, sign Brooks Laich, Erik Cole, or make an offer sheet for Andrew Ladd. Anything other than another 190 lb. European forward.

Hating on Datsyuk is like(ly) to get you killed! Hating on Datsyuk is like asking to line up against Kronwall...REAL DUMB!

Hating on Datsyuk is like fantasizing about your mother...DON'T DO IT! Hating on Datsyuk is like drinking skim milk...AVOID IT! (I can keep this up all day)

By this rationale Lidstrom and Kronwall are just as physical as one another, or Filpula and Stuart, considering they all battle hard for loose pucks and more often than not, come up with them. Staying on the puck and working hard on your assignments is not the same thing as a defenseman being physical. Shea Weber is physical, Kronwall and Stuart are both pretty physical, Ed Jovanovski is physical. Shane Doan is a very physical forward. Joni Pitkanen is not a physical hockey player, unless of course you change the meaning of "physical hockey player" to "hard working" hockey player. In which case you'd still have to convince me that Pitkanen meets the qualifications, but at least then I'd be able to walk around talking about how Henrik Zetterberg is the most physical player in hockey.

Given all of our pressing needs on defense and how much we're going to have to pay for those, if the Wings sign Brad Richards to the (ungoldly) contract he's going to sign somewhere, I'll probably throw up. Also, I'll probably start assuming that Ken Holland and Jimmy D have been replaced by some sort of pod people genetically engineered in a laboratory by Glen Sather.