kliq

In this hypothetical scenario, you are trading away Quincey, Cleary, Ericsson and Miller (maybe Helm/Abby?). First off, the return on these players is not going to be that high. Secondly, keeping our kids and our "big 3" we still have a chance of making the playoffs, or we are 9th or 10th seed which means likely nowhere near the top few picks.

I could see this being a handshake agreement, but I dont see how you get this in a contract.

Then without unloading everyone, how do you achieve this goal?

The NHL isnt toning down on this because fans are "turned off". They are toning down on it because of research on head trauma, and lawsuits from former players. You can also make the same argument the other way: "I don't care if some people are turned off by the lack of physicality or fights because if they are guess what ? Watch something else that's the beauty of choice".

So you think Holland should trade away all of our vets, and a ton our our young guys, just for a CHANCE to land one of those top picks? Look at last season, even with half our team hurt we still got in the playoffs. You cant guarantee yourself a top pick unless you just unload everyone. Plus, one player does not make or break a team. Look at Dallas with Seguin, or Edmonton with what seems to be all the top picks of the 2000's, you can have a top player and still suck. Tanking it is stupid because it guarantees nothing.

I think this is a good example of how just firing your GM/coach don't necessarily make things better.

He also forget Quincey, he was very good this year. Certainly better then Smith.

Completely agree. Best case scenario for us is they both play great next year, Jimmy ups his trade value, then we trade him for something we need. I am a huge Jimmy fan, but we cant have a 5 million dollar backup for more then 1 year.

This is why I have no issue with Holland not signing UFA's, they have a tendency of being busts. Take 2013 for example, 3 of the biggest UFA's were Lacavalier, Wiess, and Clarkson. Every single one of them got big contracts, and every single one of them were busts. The way to go is homegrown talent. Making a trade or signing a UFA can work, but it has to be the right player that you have no doubt will fit in your system.

The bolded stuff I 100% agree with.

Completely agree. The Wings are the model that the other NHL teams try to follow. This is why I find it funny when Wings fans have temper tantrums because we haven't won a cup in 7 YEARS! 29 other fan bases just look at us and role their eyes.

Totally agree. Anyone who thinks that hockey can go back to the way it was 50 years ago is either completely clueless to how much faster/stronger/skilled the players are now a days, or just refuse to accept it. Anyone who thinks the players of 50 years ago are "tougher" then today, have no clue. If Jacques Plante gets hit in the temple with a Shea Weber Slap Shot, he's not shaking it off, he's unconscious. I would even argue if it hits him in the wrong place, could result in death. The reason why the guys from years ago played through injuries is because the guys from 50 years ago were not being hit even close to as hard as the guys from today. Sure guys back then played through broken fingers and toes etc. but so do the guys now a days (ie. Abby). Plus, if all these guys from years back thought that the way it was is better then today, they wouldn't be suing the NHL in 2015.

I agree with you, but 1 year ago we didnt know that was going to happen. In retrospect, Babcock is clearly the superior coach, but last year when the voting took place we didnt know Roy was about to tank. The thing about Coach of the Year, is it doesn't necessarily reflect who is a better coach, but rather who had the most impressive coaching performance for that one year. To be honest, its all speculative anyways. To truly assess who is the best coach you would have to shadow every coach closely behind the scenes anyways which none of us or those who vote do anyways. It really is a hard award to give out, there are many different arguments that can be made.

The 7 million is not a problem, its the term that is the problem. Phaneuf right now is probably worth 7 mil, but in 6 years he wont even be close.

That doesn't do justice to the award. Previous years performance is just one piece of criteria of many when it comes to determining the winner. Last year it just happened to work out that way since Colorado saw such an amazing turnaround (2nd worst to 2nd best doesn't happen often). I actually think your last line works against your point. Typically, overachieving has a direct correlation to coaching. My guess is that Roy came in and turned the team around with a whole new approach, but after a years worth of video for opposing coaches to watch, his methods/strategies were exposed.

Your dreaming if you think this would ever happen. My gut tells me that if they trade him to us, they eat a very small amount, but take a large contract back (ie. Eriksson or Weiss).

I'm not saying Roy is the better coach, what I'm saying is that for that particular year Roy deserved to win. Bringing up the point that Colorado sucked again this year may even be a point towards Roy. Maybe his roster wasn't as good as people thought. Babcock did have alot of AHL guys, but it was AHL guys who recently won a Calder cup and were definitely NHL ready. Also, If it wasn't for Nyquist leading the NHL in scoring from I believe Jan-April, I don't think Detroit even makes it last year. Either way, I don't want it to sound as if I'm taking anything away from Babcock. He and Roy both did amazing jobs last year, I just think what Roy did was more impressive, you think what Babcock did was more impressive. As far as 2013 & 2011, I don't remember all the different factors that would have gone into it those years, and I don't care enough to go back and look lol. In 2011.....is that the year Malkin & Crosby were injured most of the year? I so, and they kept the same place in the standings, that's my guess as to why he won. (I could be completely wrong with this though) I believe that the coach who gets the most out of what he has, deserves to win the Jack Adams Award. I also believe that to assess what the coach has, you have to factor in how his players performed the previous year. It may not be the only factor, but it is a major factor.

I'm so sick of Chicago.....lets go Wild!

I agree with you on population sample, but I believe your results be more accurate if you took the first 179 games of everyone's career. A player can improve drastically in the differance between 179 games and 280 games. I agree with your second paragraph. As far as your third paragraph, I would call them inferior teams as Anaheim was I believe #7 seed, and Edmonton was a #8 seed. Though in the context of this conversation we are talking about our offense (so their defense) and defensively those teams were on fire. I will give you that one. I still remember in the conference finals, Anaheim only allowed 1 goal in their sweep of Minnesota, unreal.

The award is for 2014-2015, the problem is you cannot assess the skill set of a team without looking at the previous year. You cant just give the award to the coach who gets the most points, that's the presidents trophy. If you were simply looking for the coach who got the most out of a team, most points would be the way to do it. Like it or not, you have to take the year before into consideration as that's the closest thing to an accurate benchmark that you have to analyze and assess the skill set and abilities of your players. Could this assessment be skewed by an awful coach the year before....of course, but there is no perfect system. People will complain regardless of what the NHL does for this award.

Your probably right, but you really should be comparing them with the same about of games played, not total NHL seasons. Zetterberg/Datsyuk's stats after 179 games would paint a better picture. Also, as far as playoffs go this is a bit skewed. Zetterberg and Datsyuk's first few playoff games were against alot of greatly inferior opponents on an elite roster. Nyquist has been going up against teams like Anaheim, Chicago, Boston, and TB on a much worse Detroit squad. But I get your point.

To just look at it from just Babcocks perspective is only telling half the story. Patrick Roy took a team that was 2nd worst in the NHL the year before, and got them in the playoffs at 2nd seed. I don't see how that is less impressive then what Babcock did (not taking anything away from Babcock). Its almost as if your holding the team improvement against Roy. The coach of the year should be given to the coach who got the absolute most out of his players based on his players skill set on paper and their previous year's performance. The reason why most coaches dont get Jack Adams Award when their teams win the presidents trophy is because usually the team is stacked and is doing what it should be doing. I agree it shouldn't automatically go to the most improved team's coach, but typically the most improved team is improved because of either additions from the GM or coaching. I think Babcock did a hell of a job in 2014, but I think what Roy did was more impressive. Think about it like this.....if Babcock went to Edmonton next year and they ended up the #2 seed, I guarantee you he wins the Jack Adams.

His GM signed him to a home town discount, gave him a no movement clause and then a few months later wanted to trade him and spoke about his lack of leadership publicly. Cant blame Thornton for that one. I wouldnt want Thornton as my team leader, or as "the guy". Can he handle being a 2nd line centre, going up against mostly second pairings....I think so.

I disagree. I think its more about finding the right player opposed to finding a guy that is a certain age (though I would love it if the right player was a stud D-man in his prime). Though with that being said, you do bring up some great points.

Thornton is one of the best setup guys in the game. He may not be good enough to be "the guy", but he is more then qualified to be a second line center. Plus his cap hit is pretty low for a player of his skill set (6.75 million for another 2 years). Having a guy like him come in would allow D & Z to play together on the first line. What is your issue with Thornton?