kliq

I'm not even going to touch on Rasmussen, because as much as we like to think we are draft experts, I don't consider reading a few paragraphs on the internet qualifications for evaluating talent we have never seen play before. Pittsburgh and Chicago, I knew you were going there. Unfortunately due to the dominance of these two teams a false narrative has been created among fans, that narrative being that to win a cup you HAVE TO tank and get lottery picks. Here is the question I ask, and I ask you to please not look at this in a simplistic black and white way. Do you really believe that to win 16 games in the playoffs, you need to tank, but to win 14 or 15 games in the playoffs, you don't need to tank? Plenty of good teams have had deep playoff runs without having to tank to get there, but unfortunately those who think in a very black or white way always just use the argument of "you don't win the cup, doesn't matter" which is only the case because of the domination of 2 teams winning 6 cups since 2009. I'm sorry, but if you are capable of winning 14 or 15 games, you very well could have won 16 if a few bounces go in a different direction as it has been proven that hockey has the largest amount of luck of all major sports. Additionally, if we actually analyze those two teams, I think it goes a lot deeper then simply saying they tanked. I'll start with Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh was very lucky to get Crosby and Malkin down the middle, and the fact that they did is pure luck, no strategy. The Crosby lottery pick was after the locked out season, every team had a 1/30 chance in winning the draft lottery, the fact that Pittsburgh won it is as skill-full as winning a game of BINGO. After that draft pick, there future was pretty much laid out for them. Sure tanking (or just being bad) played into it, but the ultimate difference maker was the right ball coming out. Chicago is a team built by being very bad, very hard to argue this one. Kane was a lottery pick, and Toews was a 3rd overall pick but IMO the biggest move they made was drafting Duncan Keith with the 54th pick in the 2002 draft. IMO, if they dont make that move, they don't win 3 cups. Either way, my point is that tanking is not the sole reason why Chicago won, they won because of drafting smart, having the best coach in the world, and making very good roster moves despite having their roster stripped multiple times. What is being ignored are the Philadelphia Flyers, Vancouver Canucks, New Jersey Devils, Boston Bruins (who also won a cup), New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning, San Jose Sharks and Nashville Predators, teams that went the distance sans one or 2 games (well lets exclude NJ, they got killed). The majority of these teams built their teams through the draft, but not necessarily by getting #1 overall picks like the ALWAYS mentioned Chicago and Pittsburgh. Now like I said before, if you want to make the simplistic argument of "2nd place in just the first loser" "they didn't win, so it doesn't count" or any of the other cliche's out there, go ahead, but in reality what this shows is that to build a contender in the NHL, you don't need to tank and have lottery picks. Maybe to build a dynasty you do, with with the new draft odds, even that is unlikely to happen. I am NOT saying that I think Holland is doing everything right, there have been a lot of mistakes made, but my point is can we please stop using Chicago and Pittsbugh as the ONLY examples of how to build a team. I have said many times, if I were Holland I would dump about half of the contracts, make a trade for a #1 d-man, play the kids, and continue building through the draft, but I'm just sick of the constant referencing of Chicago/Pittsburgh. I realize you never used the word "tank" Dickie, but you do seem to imply the only way to become good is to draft at the top of the draft. Bottom line, the key to winning in the NHL is drafting smart, not drafting high.

So in the finals with Letang out, that would be their first pairing....right?

Can't argue that, but if Holland plans on trading him, signing him to a short term deal makes the most sense.

Out of curiosity, what pairing did Daley play on with the Pens?

Interesting, where you would you play Rasmussen?

Ironic word choice, but thank you.

Thanks for your input but this has nothing to do with lines, its roster management. If you read my original post, I didnt post lines, you did. You don't like my thread, don't post in it.

Funny thing is, the Lions did exactly what you want. They got top pick after top pick after top pick with nothing to show for it. If the Lions taught me anything, it's that tanking for a high draft picks guarantees s***. It's about draft the right players, and developing them the right way.

Wrong thread....please move on. This is a thread about what we are going to ice based on our current roster, not another thread for you to whine about Holland.

That's only 21 players though if Sproul and Konrwall are in IR, your allowed 23, Right?

Ownership/management want the playoffs, it is what it is. We're not tanking, we are clearly doing a re-build on the fly. Best to hope for is that our kids develop as our vets slowly but surely become UFA's and eventually we have a new crop of stars. I get the Mike Valenti school of thought on tanking, but it's just not going to happen. Personally I would like something in the middle, but you have to be a realist.

That actually made me laugh out loud

Mitch Callahan signs with the Oilers http://www.wxyz.com/sports/hockey/red-wings/edmonton-oilers-sign-forward-mitch-callahan

Looking into Daley some more, he seems like a good player but he has a pretty bad injury history. Since 2014 he hasn't stayed healthy Here are his GP over the past few years: 2016-17 - 56 games (had an upper body injury, knee surgery, and missed games in playoffs with a lower body injury) 2016-16 - 82 games (broke ankle in the playoffs) 2014-15 - 68 games (knee injuries, and ankle injuries) 2013-14- 67 games (ankle injury) Didnt realize this initially, another injury prone D-man is not what we need. Hopefully he is back to 100%.

Maybe not to you, but read the thread as it's clear some people get so worked up from such small moves because it's Holland. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this move, I just don't think it matters. The more I think about it, I don't even think Calgary will even see a pick.

I havent watched too much of Daley. What about his game do you not like?

It's a 7th round "conditional pick", it doesn't matter. You are making mountains out of mole hills. You realize with it being conditional, they can just not hit the condition and give up nothing. You can't trade a player for nothing in the NHL as far as I know, so this is the only way to do it.

It's a backup AHL goaltender, it really doesn't matter. Plus it's conditional likely based on how many games he plays. If he sucks, they bench him and lose nothing.

And you have been so good lately. I guess you can suppress the troll all you want, but eventually it's going to come out. Come on Jonas, your better then that now.

With the shift in the odds for the lottery pick, tanking has become less important when it comes to acquiring a top pick. Just look at Colorado and Phily this season. Colorado had one of the worst seasons in years and got the 4th pick, Philly just missed the playoffs and got the 2nd pick. To answer your question though, you're probably not wrong. It's definitely a move that was made to get the team into the playoffs. Not even going to say once you get in you have a chance, I know that's a trigger for you lol.

Disagree. The problem is because people are upset with Holland in general, they nitpick every little thing he does. A move like this should have no reaction because every team makes moves like this. SJ added Antoine Bibeau, you think their fans even care. This isnt me defending Holland, its just trying to put things in perspective.

Plus that is where he got his start. Played in Nashville from 2000-2007.

Don't see it happening, especially when AA is the most likely Wing to be traded. Easier to move a player when his cap hit is low.

You guys are hilarious, only on this board would a trade for an AHL backup upset people.

I have to say, I am quite surprised by the lack of rage regarding this deal. Sounds like this is a deal nobody "loves" but nobody outside of the usually cynical "hate" it. I would have preferred to let the kids play, but the more I read about it the more I'm becoming ok with it. Would look a lot better if guys like E, Kronwall, etc. were not under contract.