Aethernum

If the boys give this effort every period, every night, it should be a good season. Outworking the Lightning right now, and that's the difference.

$1.8 million for a Top 25 Face-off man in the league? I'll take it. Say what you will about his skill with the puck, but among the players used regularly as centers for their teams (i.e. - took 500+ faceoffs last year) he was #24. That's pretty good.

The starting point on our end for any trade involving Karlsson is going to be Larkin. Something like Larkin + Marchenko + two first round picks (2017 and 2018) would be the asking price, I would guess.

They get the puck to their team. That's called possession. If you want to know why Glendening's name gets called so often when we're in close situations and PK settings, that's why. Do with that information what you will, but understand that better hockey minds than either of us find his contribution to the team valuable. I wouldn't presume to know better than Mike Babcock or Blashill. Would you?

Except for face-offs, after which Glendening had the puck more often than anyone else on the team - including Datsyuk. But don't let statistics get in the way of your ranting.

You're misunderstanding me. Again. Is it intentional? I can't fathom how else you consistently mis-represent my argument. I am making no claims about Tatar's possession numbers. I am making no claims about his ability to score goals, or about his decision-making with the puck, or about his value to the team as a whole. Quite literally the only thing I am saying is that the claim "Tatar was a turnover machine" is not supported by the statistics that we currently have available. Are those statistics perfect? By no means. But professionally trained statisticians at the highest level of the game list Tatar as having turned the puck over fewer times this season than most of his teammates. So criticism of him on that point, specifically, is unfounded. If you want my honest thoughts on Tatar, here they are: I think he's critical to our team's future, and we need to start playing him that way. His usage throughout the season was, to me, too inconsistent to expect him to thrive in the primary scoring role that we need him to be. That said, he still had a season of generally poor physical play and not great decision-making. Even being on the back lines, he should have done better than he did. He wasn't as physical as we know he can be. In the end, I think if Tatar plays to his fullest potential, he has more Abby in him than Datsyuk, and that's okay. But he isn't being used that way all the time. I'm not saying his improper usage excuses or explains his poor play. I'm saying he was used wrong and he let being used wrong affect him more than it should have. And yes, I'm allowed to make an argument with nuance in that way. I'm not trying to harp on the numbers here. I'm trying to harp on the trend - that this is a perfect example of - where certain players are targeted for poor play, but the claims made about them are ludicrous and factually incorrect. For example, if I said Datsyuk is a washed up old man who has lost his scoring touch and can't play physical and sucks at handling the puck, you would laugh me out of the room. Now, Datsyuk IS getting old and he can't score like he used to. That part is fair. But tacking on the "sucks at handling the puck" claim - which we all know is patently absurd - makes clear that I'm just bashing him for the sake of bashing him. So look, say what you want about Tatar's value to the team. Say what you want about his possession numbers. If you want to bash him for being a poor possession guy, then that's a discussion we can have. But as far as we can reasonably measure he wasn't responsible for an unusual amount of turnovers compared to his linemates. Now, it's entirely possible for somebody to have a small number of turnovers and still be a bad possession player, or vice-versa. It's possible for somebody to be good at one thing or another and still have had an off season. And more generally, we don't have to hate everything about a certain player just because their game faltered in one or two specific areas this season. But this inability to see grey areas and say that because Tatar was bad at X - or generally bad this season - he has to be bad at everything and it's open season on everything about him...that's a type of argumentation that lacks nuance and reasonable thought and I'm going to push back on that. Is it quibbling over a footnote? Maybe. But I think it's important for our desires as fans to be informed as much as possible by reality. Sorry.

The thing about saying "even if" is that you're not arguing it is that way, you're saying the other person's argument is invalid even if it were true. Come on now, you can do better than that. And for the record, I'm not saying anything about Tatar as a player. My only point here is that people shouldn't make statements about players' statistics that aren't true as far as we can tell. And as far as we can tell, Tatar was actually one of the more responsible guys with the puck this year for our team. So slam his goal-scoring this year all you want, but stop digging for reasons to arrive at the conclusions you already want to reach. So Holland is supposed to make ballsy signings and compete for a Cup every year, but he's supposed to only sign players for 75% of what they'd get anywhere else? Okay... (I don't want Lucic, but saying you can sign him at that number is just troll-level absurdity.)

The thing is, even if the statistic isn't well defined or applied consistently, there's no reason to assume the player with fewer giveaways actually had more over the course of the season than the person who was actually listed with more. The only way that would happen is if stat-recorders around the league consistently missed giveaways by Tatar more often than they missed giveaways by other players on our team. Are you prepared to show how that happened? Look: Are the stats great? No. But you have nothing to back up your original argument that he's a "turnover machine" other than you feel that way. You're just hating on a player because - and you said this yourself - they didn't score as many goals this season as last season (which is true of just about everyone on the team, by the way) and that disappointed you. Tatar isn't loose with the puck by comparison to other players on this team. Criticize his goal-scoring, or his decision-making, but saying he's error-prone with the puck is still wrong. And you have yet to present any evidence to the alternative besides "It's obvious." What did somebody say earlier this month? Please calmly put the controller down and slowly step away from the Xbox. I'm honestly curious - how much do you anticipate Stamkos and Lucic getting paid, in this scenario?

There's a difference between mis-using statistics to reach invalid conclusions and straight up lying about what the stats really are. Tatar having a low number of turnovers this season might not have anything to do with whether he can be trusted with the puck - although the onus is on you to make that case - but saying he is a turnover machine is just empirically false. And you don't care because you want to hate him. That's the point.

You missed my point. This is my point. You're going to believe what you want to believe, and reality be damned. Okay.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=realtime&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=giveaways&aggregate=0&teamId=17&pos=S Why do I feel like "the eyeball test" is just a convenient way of saying "I'm choosing to believe what I want to believe"? Tatar was 12th on the team in giveaways. Of the players who were on ice for a comparable number of games, only Sheahan, Helm, and Glendening had fewer giveaways. All of the following had more turnovers, some despite not playing nearly as many games: Larkin, Nyquist, DK, Zetterberg, Ericsson, Green, Smith, Abby, and...wait for it...Datsyuk. (Admittedly, Datsyuk's takeaway/giveaway ratio is the best on the team, but he had more giveaways in 15 fewer games.) Can we stop randomly selecting individuals to hate just because the whole team had a bad goal-scoring season? Please?

Can I pick something not on the poll? A clarified goaltender situation.

You're right. But boy, if there ever were a message from the hockey gods, this is it.

Wow. This upcoming season is going to be one for a lot of good-byes: To the Joe, to Pavel [retrospectively], and now to the greatest hockey player who ever lived. P.S. - The Howe Center (Presented by Little Caesar's - if you want) sounds perfect right about now. P.P.S. - Don't engage the troll.

They're going to ask for a sweetener because they can. Because who else can we go to? Because this is a situation in which our team has no leverage, and if you think any team is going to do us the favor of getting us out of a $7.5M hit without taking anything in return, you're nuts.

That kind of money isn't going to land us Stamkos. Someone will. Or close to it.

You missed something.

Not really, unless the Blues decide to blow up a championship caliber roster, which they have no reason to do. But maybe if Holland grows a pair he can get Shatty for Pulks, Sproul, and a fourth rounder. (/s)

Are you serious? Stamkos is one of the ten best hockey players on the planet, and he's the team's captain, playing an elimination game with the chance to go the Cup Finals. There's no sentimentality there. He gave them the best chance at winning, so they played him. But of course we want Stamkos to come here so we have to fit everything we see into that narrative. The hockey universe revolves around Detroit, right? *sigh* I'd guess that in about two weeks Yzerman will announce they've got Stamkos signed for life, and half the people here will implode under the weight of their own self-righteousness.

This was a Game 7 of a Conference Final. They put him in because they thought he gave them the best chance at winning.

You missed the point. Our management doesn't think that way because they're smart enough to know better - one game isn't going to make Stamkos want to up and leave. As I said, I'd bet my right arm he's in Tampa next year no matter what happens tonight. Newsflash: The hockey universe doesn't revolve around Detroit. See, here's where you're missing the point. It might be a surprise to you, but GMs at the professional level are actually intelligent enough not to let the outcome of one game or series decide the value they place on a player. St. Louis' management knows what Backes is worth. Period. They've had years to make that calculation, and one game or one series or even one post-season isn't going to change their mind. Unlike fans, GMs can't be so reactionary and impulsive. St. Louis getting eliminated or winning the Stanley Cup changed nothing, except in the eyes of wishful (and delusional) fans who think everyone secretly wants to come play for their team. Let's say Detroit wins the Cup this year. A battered and tired Datsyuk - who just played an extra 20 games - takes a look at this career and decides this is it. He's going to go out on top. Why not? What better ending could you imagine? His family is still in Russia. He still wants to be with his daughter. He still has a year left on his contract. Nothing changes. See how it works?

This is a really cynical way to watch hockey. At the end of the day, Stamkos will be in Tampa next season. Almost assuredly. And Backes will probably still be in St. Louis. I just don't see any way that a championship caliber team lets their captain walk. I hope I'm wrong, obviously, but I'd bet my right arm we don't get either player this off-season. There are more realistic trade options out there that I expect Holland will go after, but these two are not on that list. Not in today's NHL.

His agent says no. But that could mean anything. As for the contract, if we're not going to be contending next year anyway, I'm not sure it is worth the first/second round pick we'd probably have to give up to convince someone to take on the contract.

When I last kept up with things, I was told teams would get at least a full year's notice. Given that we don't have any vote or even confirmed markets for new teams yet - and no GM meetings any time soon - I would be pretty surprised if that were the case. I think we could use another year or two to figure out which of our young guys we want to keep, although just about every team probably feels the same way. If it is after next season, I don't know why we haven't heard more.

Bye bye cap space. It's always easy on paper. As for Stamkos, even with his health history you have to take a shot at signing someone of his skill level. But I don't see how that's possible for us given that he is likely going to get a Toews/Kane-sized contract. --- On another note - have I missed some important updates in regards to expansion? Last I heard we were still multiple years away. I'm not saying Holland shouldn't be planning out hypotheticals, but allowing the shadow of something that's probably 3-5 seasons away to dictate roster decisions now seems premature to me, unless I missed something pretty big.