kliq

Tats!!!!! What a pass Zetterberg!

I wouldn't worry so much about who is on the ice when the opponent scores, but rather who is involved in the play or made a crucial mistake when the opponent has a strong chance.

He signed a 2 year deal for 8mil. That is a bridge deal. Is it the amount you have an issue with? Or am I misunderstanding, and you are talking about Howard?

I agree Sheahan is having a bad year, but on the right line I think he can be effective. I remember last year in the playoffs really liking him playing on the 4th line with Glendening and Abby. Much better then Miller or Ott. I wouldn't be upset if we lost him though.

Howards cap hit is 5.3 million. Trading Howard for a 6th round pick is essentially giving him away, and if you pick up half of his caphit that means you are still paying 2.65 mil. Bring in another goalie at even 1 mil per year, that becomes 3.65. So all that to save 1.65mil? I would rather keep Howard as a backup.

Out of curiosity, why is Iginla a POS?

I posted the following in a different thread, but its more relevant here: I do think it is time that we trade some vets, not all but definitely some. The four I would start with are Howard, Vanek, Smith and Green. I think all can get a return, and I feel that they are not needed if we continue with a re-build. Not to mention all will be gone in 2 years once our kids will be ready to take it to the next level. I would keep Abby/Helm, I think both are good vets to have on the team to play with the kids, its no different that TO keeping Bozak. Plus we have both long term. I would trade Ott and Miller to a team looking for 4th line depth, though I cant see us getting much more then a late round pick if that. I would even take future considerations. I would trade E in a heart beat, but I dont think we could pull that off. I would keep Zetterberg, I fully admit I have an attachment there and want to see him end his career here. Kronwall is going to be on LTIR soon IMO, I dont think he is tradable. I would trade Nielsen if he was willing to waive his no-movement clause. Nyquist/Tatar, I am very conflicted on.

To be fair though, his regression started the day he turned 24. I'm not sure either coach is to blame. I definitely see what you are saying though, and you make a very valid point.

The Nyquist thing baffles me a bit. In January - March 2014 he played in 34 games scoring 36 points and scoring 22 goals. Those are not just good numbers, those are up there with the elite. He is the reason we made the playoffs that year. He did had a ridiculously high unsustainable 18.3% shooting percentage, and I always thought he would regress from a point per game, but I didnt think it would regress by 50%.

Very possible, maybe the AHL guy knew the AHL really well, but his methods just don't work in the NHL. Then again, look at Howard, he's playing the best hockey of his career. Who knows. My worry about Mrazek is that the scouting report is out on him now and teams are learning his weakness and he is not adapting well.

Im not sure I agree that all those GM's had a contender for every one of the 13 years, but that is besides the point. My point is that every GM will eventually have a down swing. The second is not so much a trick question, but a point that every successful GM surrounds themselves with good players/coaches/management. If they didnt they wouldn't be a good GM. Ok, I guess that was a trick question lol.

The argument here is whether or not Holland has accomplished anything as some have said that he deserves zero credit. You seem to be taking the conversation elsewhere. "What has Ken Holland accomplished" and "Should Ken Holland still be our GM" are two different questions. As far as "what have you done for me lately" it is not for you to say. It is all about the perception of the owner and nothing to do with the perception of GMRwings1983 or myself. If Illitch is the person making the decisions, its whatever criteria he chooses. I'm still waiting for you to name me one GM in NHL history who kept their team a contender for more then 13 years, and to name me a GM who has had success without good people/players/coaches around them?

You said: "As soon as Thornton hangs the skates up it's rebuild time Burns, Pavelski and Couture can't carry the load all alone." Based on your posting history, in your mind "rebuild" means trading everyone, anything else you have coined "retooling". Because of this, when you said "its re-build time" my assumption was that you meant trade away all their top players. Name me one GM in NHL history who kept their team a contender for more then 13 years? If any GM stays on for the long haul, they are going to struggle at some point, especially in a post cap world. Same thing happened to Lou in NJ. Also name me a GM who has had success without good people/players/coaches around them? Again, this is not me saying that Holland can do no wrong, he has made a lot of bad moves in the past few years.

So if Thornton were to retire at the end of this season, you would trade away Burns, Pavelski, and Couture? Despite the team being a contender?

Werenski is having one hell of a year as well. I was lucky enough to pick him up for nothing on my fantasy team

Your not wrong, but isn't that the job of a GM to surround themselves with good management, good coaching, good scouting, and good players? That is literally a GM's job. If a GM surrounds themselves with bad management,, hires bad scouts, signs bad players etc. Would you not say the GM is doing a bad job?

So you consider the Blues a success, but list the Sharks as a problem? The Sharks have accomplished a hell of a lot more then the Blues, even dating back to last year as they were the one's that eliminated the Blues and reached the conference finals. Even this year the Sharks sit #1 in their division. When you evaluate a team like the Blues, are you calling them a success because of anything they have actually accomplished? Or is it based on your personal preference of their style of play? Same goes for the Sharks, but on the other side of the spectrum.

Agreed, I am not taking anything away from Yzerman as he has made some really good moves. My point was that starting with an elite forward and d-man is a huge help.

One question I have, is do they put rest to the notion that you need elite players to be a contender? OR do they have elite players but we just dont know they are elite yet.

Ya its really not fair to compare to alot of those teams. I will give Yzerman his due, but its not as hard to rebuild a team when you have a young franchise forward in Stamkos and a young franchise D-man in Hedman coming in. Same goes for Botterhill coming in with Crosby/Malkin. As far as the Blues go, would this team really be considered a success? Sure they have had great regular seasons, but they have been a bust in the playoffs. Some teams are just not built for post season hockey. Both the Blues and Caps seem to be in that boat.

Nick Jensen a career AHL'er is on our first pairing? I understand the logic of putting our worst guy with our best guy, but doesn't that give us a glaring hole on our first pairing? If I am on Buffalo's top line, I would be loving this.

Toronto is a bad example as its a place where there have always been too many chefs in the kitchen so to speak. Even this current regime, all it takes is the board getting inpatient with the re-build and it would not shock me if things went south quickly. I am not a giant Burke fan or anything, but I dont think Burke was given free reign in TO. As far as the Holland/Ownership thing, I understand how you are not sold on that as if memory serves me right you don't follow baseball. For me, the Tigers/DD/Illitch situation solidified it for me. I know I make it pretty clear that I am not an anti Holland guy. I appreciate what he has done for this franchise, and I do think he has one of the strongest resumes of any GM in history, With that being said, I agree with both you and kickazz in that when his contract is up I would like to see him placed in a different role, and in a perfect world Yzerman brought in as GM. It really bothers me that Yzerman is not apart of this organization anymore. I think Yzerman is more in tune with what is happening in 2016 then Holland. At the same time, what I dont want is another Babs/Blashill situation where people assume that different = better. Trust me people, it can get wayyyyy worse then it is now.

I guess they have to take some or else they wont hit the cap floor. Can we trade them Franzen/E and a 7th for an 8th?

That is what I think, though I will be the first to admit it is pure speculation on my part. I have mentioned before, I am a GM for the company I work for. I have pretty much free reign to do what I feel is best for the company, but like most GM's I am given an overall direction by the owner of my company and my decisions have to fall in line with the big picture. I just cant see a world where a family like the Illitch's, a family that was known for being very involved back in the 90's would just tell Holland "do what you think is right, we have no opinion". I just have a hard time believing that.

To be fair though, every point you have made against Draper could have been used against Yzerman a few years back. Personally I would be interested in seeing what Ken Holland could do if he was given the green light to no longer worry about making the playoffs for a few years. As far as the long term contracts go, I'm not too worried. A couple dont hurt (just look at TO signing Martin). The one's I dont mind are Abby/Helm, and contracts like Zetterberg and Franzen should be easy to trade once the cash amount per year drops (ie. a Pronger situation for a floor team). Howard I think can be traded, if we begin to really struggle I think Nielsen would drop his no-trade clause and I would put money on it that Kronwall is permanently on LTIR in a year or so. The only one that really may bite us IMO is E. Come on Vegas....you need a big D-man!