Aethernum

He probably comes closest, but there is still a pretty large gap between the two players. Ovechkin has already accomplished far more in his career, and he has many years yet to play. For him to not have a Cup with the career he has had is pretty remarkable. Edit - Oh, we're already having this discussion. Well, I agree with GMR. Ovechkin is one of those rare players whose skill set would be impactful during any era of hockey. If he played in the 70s nobody would care that he doesn't play defense, and he would just be even more venerated. His point totals - for this era of hockey - are ridiculous. He should get a Cup before his career is over, and I mean that both as far as my expectations for him as a player (i.e. - I think the Caps will win one eventually) but also as far as what he 'deserves' given his body of work.

Okay. Hello. There are two arguments being made here: 1. Nyquist is not (currently) a good secondary scorer. 2. Neither were other good players in their first few years, so based on the talent we've seen from Nyquist - both in regular seasons past and in the IIHF World Championships - maybe we should give him some time. It's possible for one brain to entertain both of those ideas at the same time and find them both compelling. It's also possible to discuss those ideas without being sensationalist and condescending. Let's carry that mindset with us as we turn the discussion back to the thread topic, okay?

Woah. Okay. He'd be the most skilled player in NHL history to never win a Cup, by a lot.

He isn't a complete player, but he deserves a Cup. Can't believe that team lost in less than seven games. Anyone who thinks the Pens can't compete with any team in the West is wrong.

Hold onto your hats, folks. They still have some kick in them.

Is there a team in the NHL that wouldn't be strong with a good power play, legitimate top 6 center and physical winger, and a top tier defenseman? I'm not saying you're wrong - in fact, I'm saying you're right no matter what team you talk about.

The East hasn't played the West yet in the playoffs. Has the play in the Stars/Blues or Preds/Sharks series really been that much more impressive than Caps/Pens? I don't think so. If anything I think this is the season the East has started to finally close the gap. I would take the Top 3 in the East (Caps, Pens, Tampa) against the Top 3 of the West (...which is who, exactly? Blues, Stars, and Hawks, maybe...?)

Honestly, I'd keep him in GR for another season. Being the odd man out of the line-up doesn't do much for his development, especially considering Blashill is our coach now (not saying Blashill can't develop players, but rather than Sproul and Blashill will have worked together already, so he wouldn't be seeing much of anything that would be new as far as the system goes). You're right; I think he could be a legitimate top-tier guy, but you have to keep him playing. I've been disappointed with how Smith/Marchenko and some others on the offensive side of things (Pulks and Jurco) have been brought up because they're close to being good enough, but then sitting all the time instead of playing because they're not quite there yet.

You're missing my point. Trades with imbalanced cap hits only happen when the team taking on the larger cap hit is getting something worthwhile from the other categories - picks or the better hockey talent. I suppose it is possible that we give up a hefty amount of picks to make the deal go through, but a Nyquist+Jurco+Sproul/Ouelett for Fowler trade just isn't happening. Fowler is the best player in that trade, so Anaheim would be taking on a larger cap hit and worse players. There is no part of that deal that makes sense for them. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that you would trade Fowler (A top pairing D-Man scoring at .41 points/game who is only 24) for Nyquist (A second or third line winger barely getting above .5 points/game and will be 27 next season), then don't tell me it can happen the other way. Other teams exist for the purpose of beating us, not giving us their best players and relieving us of our dead weight. --- And no team is going to do us the favor of taking on Datsyuk's cap hit without asking for something in return. What that probably means is taking on some bad contract whose value is less than Datsyuk's but which would still impact our cap. No GM in their right mind would help us out in that way without taking a pound of flesh as payment - just because we're Detroit doesn't mean we get special favors.

If you were Bob Murray, would you trade Fowler for Nyquist, straight up? And you're over the cap before you make that trade, anyway. So either you're getting rid of Helm/Ericsson, like you said, and putting another youngster on the roster with no NHL experience, or you're trading away our only insurance if Mrazek gets hurt. That makes our team even worse. Being a GM is a lot harder than it looks.

Plugging inexperienced guys with no defensive abilities into depth roles is exactly how this team gets burned. Between Radulov, Mantha, Tangredi, and Callahan, if even two of them work out as NHL-caliber players, then we'd be lucky. You're putting all four into your starting roster and hoping for the best? Come on. And let's be clear on the cap situation: Between the three top-four defensemen not named DeKeyser, you have an average cap hit of $4.333M. So DeKeyser is getting at least that much and probably more since he's our future #1. If Mrazek is our starter, then he's getting paid starter money, which is $4M/yr, minimum. And if Sheahan is our third center next year, he'll probably get paid what our current third center gets paid, which is $3M. Those three alone, plus the roster you outlined, puts you over the cap before the retained salary of the Fowler deal OR the Datsyuk trade. And if you think we're getting rid of Nyquist, Jurco, Sproul/Ouelett, Datsyuk, AND Pulk without retaining salary, you're crazy. And by the way, this is all for a roster that is worse than what we have now, and which involves taking on two 7-year deals for guys who will be 36 when those contracts end. I'm not saying you can't talk about what you'd love to see happen, but I'm beyond frustrated with people thinking they can do a better job than our current GM, and trying to prove it by throwing out unrealistic deals and absurd rosters that would put us over the cap AND make us a worse hockey team.

Spoken like a true armchair GM. Edit - I'm sorry for being snide about this, but that excuse is flimsy and you know it. Even putting the Fowler trade aside, you're over the cap as soon as you re-sign Mrazek, Sheahan, and DK. And within that trade, we're getting the better hockey talent, so we're going to be on the hook for more of a cap hit. Nyquist alone has a bigger hit than Fowler, so Nyquist + ANYONE is going to involve retained salary, which just puts you more over the cap for a roster that's worse than what we have now.

Stuff like this annoys me. Cam Fowler's cap hit is $4M. Nyquist + Jurco + Ouellet + Sproul is a cap hit of nearly $7M. That matters, because to make a deal like that work, we probably have to retain $3M in salary or more. When teams make trades, they're looking at three things: 1) Hockey talent 2) Number of players involved 3) Cap hit They don't just look at #1 - they're also looking to balance out the other two. So we'd likely have to retain at least $3M in salary, plus probably take on a contract or two from the players that get sent to us in that trade. We don't just get to dump all our garbage on another team and pick up a good player in return. That's not how things work in the NHL, and we need to stop pretending otherwise. To investigate this a little more: You've got about $60M tied up in that roster, plus at least $3M in retained salary from the Fowler deal, plus the retained salary we would no doubt have to keep on the books from Datsyuk and Pulk - that's an $8M hit of which we're probably keeping at least 50%. No team is going to freely take an $8M hit without making us take on a contract or two, or retain a lot of salary. That's (generously) $67M all before re-signing DeKeyser, Sheahan, and Mrazek, whose cap hits could easily be $6M, $3M, and $4M respectively. Not to mention you've got four guys on your starting roster who either haven't ever seen significant NHL action (Mantha, Tangredi, Callahan) or haven't in years (Radulov), plus two guys who went back and forth being scratches all year as your 3rd pairing defensemen. You've gone over the salary cap by a healthy $5M, at least, and your roster isn't any better. Arguably, it's worse. And you've saddled us with two 7-year contracts that will go until Helm and Okposo are both 36 years old. I'm not saying I don't like making moves for Fowler or Okposo. I'm saying we need to all stop pretending we can play GM better than one of the 30 guys who gets paid to do it at the highest level in the world.

You are spoiled and you are part of the problem.

An impatient fan base that expects a Cup every year is what causes teams like Anaheim to fire respected coaches after four straight division titles. He's absolutely dead on about this: If you expect Detroit to compete for the Cup every single year, then in today's league of parity, you are out of your mind. Making the playoffs every year is as about as reasonable an expectation as you can get. After that, everything is up for grabs. Look at this year: Maybe you'll be the Tampa Bay Lightning and get an easy first round matchup, or maybe you'll be the Chicago Blackhawks and have to face the St. Louis Blues. Would anyone here be disappointed at a first round exit with the quality of play that we saw in the Chicago/St. Louis series? I seriously hope not. Sometimes it just doesn't fall your way. I don't disagree with Holland on this.

The building won't be judged by how it looks, but by what is brought into it: The history of one of the greatest sports franchises in the world. You're completely right. It just still stings a little - maybe less because of the building itself and more because of what it says about our way of life in general.

But you would see it on every television broadcast. Instead we get a pizza character. This is an incredibly disappointing decision for me, all around. Like most Detroit fans, I like to think that there is something special and unique about this team and its history, especially for an American-based team. A large part of that was wrapped up in our arena, and the ownership is throwing all of that away. It's an embarrassment and makes it harder to be passionate about hockey in Detroit. I seriously hope they reconsider. Our Original 6 heritage should not have been sold so cheaply.

My guess is Abby, but I think Glendening is a serious candidate. He has more heart than half the team put together.

I have to admit it, I didn't think the Blues could do it. The moment they lost Game 6 I said they were toast. This is the tastiest crow I've ever eaten.

I just don't see how St. Louis wins a Game 7 against Chicago. If they're going to win the series, it had to be in these next 16 minutes.

St. Louis has the entire hockey universe rooting for them and one of their defensemen steps on the goalie's stick. Yeah, I have a feeling the Blackhawks take it in seven.

That fits his style of play, but he is also our best face-off man. I'd love to find a way to combine his FO numbers with the skills of Larkin/AA/Mantha on the wing. I know Larkin/AA play center, but they aren't used to NHL level centers yet.

The thing is, with how the last few seasons have gone for the Blues, you know if they lose this game that they will crumble. The mental elephant in the room will be too much for them. If they don't put the Hawks away tonight I have a feeling they lose the series. But I hope I'm wrong.

I'm wondering if a short leash could be the problem.

Right, but he also played the sixth fewest minutes of anyone on the team. I'm not saying you're wrong - it would be great if he had scored more - but directing your criticism at a secondary role player who was the second-leading goal scorer for our team in the regular season and our best player in the playoffs seems counterproductive. He played the sixth fewest minutes on the team. Our problems are with the people assigned to actually show up and blow people away. Definitely seems like a jab in that general direction. Or towards the team mentality as a whole - growing too complacent to just make the post-season and consider the rest as extra.