eva unit zero

Maltby and Kopecky should be playing on the fourth line with Draper. Those three are the only forwards in the top-12 who are not top-six caliber forwards.

Isn't a center. Hudler was acquired as a center, played most of his minor league time as a center, and only was converted to play wing because he was too good to keep in the minors.

Matthias was ranked about 5th or 6th among Detroit center prospects at the time of the trade. Regardless of what people think of him now, he was not considered one of our top prospects at his position, let alone overall, at the time he left the organization.

I don't know if I can agree with Markov...simply because a lot of defensemen who made the kind of money he was looking for last season are not better than him. While he wasn't worth it from the Wings, it's hard to say it's not fair value given that guys like Brewer who are no better make more. Bertuzzi left because he wanted length to his deal; he would have signed the $2m deal Holland offered if it included a second year. Schneider was a UFA and took the best offer on the first day; it came from the defending champs. That's not greediness. Coffey was traded away, but didn't have a bad attitude and was never really selfish. He made some bad defensive plays but that's not the same thing. He was shipped out for sucking, but doesn't qualify under the paramaters I laid out.

Just thought I'd bump this thread since we're starting to get new posts about the same topic.

Luc Robitaille? Bernie Nicholls? Neither player was given up in the deal. Both were better players than anything LA traded away. If anything, Edmonton got hosed by only getting Carson/Gelinas/picks in the deal and not getting one of Robitaille or Nicholls. Murphy was a rookie and considered a blue-chip elite prospect, so at the time he still had a ton of value; more in 88 than he had when he went for Carson. And I swapped Graves for Oates because Oates had more value and makes more sense in that sort of trade; he's like a B version of Gretzky, but more defensively responsible. They could have slipped him into the lineup pretty easily as far as chemistry is concerned, as he dished out the same kind of slick passes Gretz did. I guess I just don't see Carson/Gelinas as a package with more value than Oates/Murphy/Klima/Sharples in 1988. Oates vs Carson is a wash; Yes Carson had a better season, but Oates was playing mostly on Detroit's third line with checking line wingers while Carson was spending his evenings passing to Luc Robitalle, the best left winger in hockey. That said, Oates was on pace for about 70 points. His about 50 assists would have matched what Carson put up with Robitaille, which is pretty remarkable given that Carson's left winger scored more points than both of Oates' wingers combined; not even factoring in point-per-game winger Dave Taylor on the other side. An Oates/Murphy/Klima/Sharples package with the picks and cash is a good enough combination of youth and skill in 1988 to bring back the same return that went to LA.

I think the point being made re: Schneider was that Schneider's contract ended and he re-signed in 2005 IN DETROIT and finished that deal before he left for Anaheim. Hossa played less than four months as a Penguin and was up front in telling them he wanted to test the market. That statement typically means "I'm probably leaving." for deadline rentals.

Honestly, the only players I would really feel OK naming in a thread like this are players who did one or more of the following: were selfish, made negative contributions to the team mentally that outweighed their positive contributions and generally had a bad attitude, and/or left primarily due to greediness... I will also not name anyone who got their name on the Cup in 1997, 1998, 2002, or 2008, but will only name players who were playing in the league in at least one of those seasons. For example, guys like Dino Ciccarelli, and Gerard Gallant had all retired by then, so they wouldn't be considered even if they would have made the list. Obviously, this removes quite a few players from consideration by making it pretty much a list of recent players who left for negative reasons. My top-5 list would be, in alphabetical order: Sean Avery Derian Hatcher Uwe Krupp Manny Legace Keith Primeau

I included the entire Carson trade, minus Graves, but added Oates from Detroit and removed McLelland from Edmonton. I basically redirected how those players got to Edmonton, but did it basically for the same major asset. The only difference is that Edmonton gets Oates instead of Graves, and Detroit's picks instead of LA's. Given that they basically traded Gretzky for Carson, and Carson was within a year shipped to Detroit with McLelland for Klima, Murphy, Graves, and Sharples....Gretzky could have been had without giving up Yzerman if they give up Oates and most of the Carson deal.

Downey was not one of the twelve most-used forwards. Not in games played or in minutes played. This means he was not one of the 'regular' forwards. Due to injuries and healthy scratches he played 56 games, but he was not a 'regular' as far as the term is normally used. And no, it would not have meant more beatdowns for Cleary and Franzen. How many beatdowns did they get in the 26 games Downey didn't play?

There were 20 skaters who played more total minutes than Downey. Derek Meech was the only one of them who didn't also appear in more games; however, Downey was dead last in average time on ice among Wings skaters. Does that mean he was the least valuable skater the Wings put on the ice? How about the 21st-most-valuable? He ranks 13th among forwards in total ice time, which places him in the press box with a healthy lineup. So while I am sure the team appreciated his contribution, his contribution was minimal at best when compared to the guys who were playing ahead of him. Understand this. And understand that anyone else with comparable hockey skills would have seen the same situation. It's not that he was a joke; he simply wasn't a good enough player to justify a regular spot. And therefore, he didn't have one. NN has tried desperately to make this clear to you, but you have refused to listen. It's not about being anti-fighting. It's about a difference in roster philosophy. You and some others want a third and fourth line stocked with a bunch of heavyweights. NN and some others want a group of skilled hockey players who can play a gritty game. The second group considers fighting optional after hockey skill, the first considers it the top priority.

Babcock is considered to be an elite coach. He just won the Stanley Cup. He did so by getting his team to play gritty and mean, but not retaliating. Tell me exactly...where does an enforcer fit in this style of play? And by enforcer, I mean a guy whose only purpose; whose only skill; is throwing punches. Someone who is not useful on the roster for his hockey skills, and would not be dressed were he not capable of fighting. Explain to me the uses a player who is only capable of fighting has on a team that generally avoids fighting in favor of physical play and skill hockey.

No. Beauchemin is so overrated it's not funny. He went from a waiver pickup to playing opposite Scott Niedermayer, and got all kinds of praise lumped on him. He didn't do nearly as well this past season because Niedermayer sat out. He suddenly picked up his play when he got Nieds back. Reminds me more of Lilja when he played with Lidstrom than anything else.

I commented on this earlier...Datsyuk's moves are almost exclusively based on his stick skills...Bure's moves were mostly based on his skating skills. Totally dissimilar players in that regard, and then you consider that Bure was a top goal scorer with rocket skates, and a defensive liability, while Datsyuk is a defensively sound playmaker who has decent scoring abilities and an above average skater, but he is not super-quick and is not a top-notch goal scorer. Datsyuk is much more comparable to a guy like Fedorov than he is to Bure, except that Fedorov had Bure's skating ability and could score goals almost as well as Bure.

postseason...generally means "after the season" And yes, it refers to what are also known as the First Team and Second Team. If you want complete awards voting for nearly all postseason awards, including All-Star teams, here is a good resource: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=5 EDIT: So you don't think Andreychuk scoring 54 goals and 99 points in 83 games in 92-93 was better statistically than his 93-94 season? I suppose it's arguable, given that he was closer to the All-Star selection...but that may have had more to do with the fact that Robitaille saw a 39-point drop from his record output and Kevin Stevens was coming off what was a career-ruining injury in the playoffs. Those two had dominated the LW position for years going into 93-94. Luc had been on the first or second team every year since he entered the league, and Stevens had joined him in his second full season of 90-91 and they continued together for three years.

Ray Bourque was a lock for the hall by 1990. He was a first or second team All-Star in every single one of his first seventeen seasons in the NHL. That's ridiculous. He could have just left Boston as a free agent in the early 90s and gone Cup-hunting and he'd have still made the hall, even if he didn't win one. Bourque could have retired after the 1990 finals and he still makes the Hall. Now please...never compare Paul Kariya to Ray Bourque again? One is one of the best all-around players to ever play his position. One was a one-dimensional player who was among the best players at his position for a fairly short time. There is no comparison.

For clarification...when I said "that good" I meant one of the top two players at his position. Not like 'Oh, he was never that good' in general, but he was never specifically the best or second best player at his position according to the voters for the postseason all-star team, while Recchi was. And btw, if you think only 10-15 players during Andreychuk's career scored 500+ goals and 1000+ points....you weren't paying attention. Andreychuk's best year was 1992-93, when 23 players scored 100 points, and he wasn't one of them.

Cash is listed as 'traded to Edmonton' in my post. I said the best possible realistic trade. Think about it. Murphy, Klima, Graves, and Sharples were considered to be worth Carson and McLelland a year later. So working it out based on the differences in player values in the two Carson trades, it's something like this, value-wise: "To Detroit" Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley, Graves for "To Edmonton" Oates, Carson, McLelland, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash. Compare that trade with: To LA: Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley for To Edmonton: Carson, Gelinas, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash. Now let's take out instances where the same player (or players considered to be of his value) move the same direction in the deal. "To Detroit" Graves "To Edmonton" Oates, McLelland "To LA" --- "To Edmonton" Gelinas You guys sure that this deal wasn't possible without trading Yzerman from a player value standpoint? Because Edmonton probably gets a better deal with a top passer like Oates taking Gretzky's place than they do with a couple muckers like Graves and Gelinas.

Kariya will probably score between 200-300 points over the next four seasons. The thing is...that makes him offensively comparable to Sundin, who was considerably better defensively and physically. I would argue that a much more complete player like Sundin, who lacked major career accomplishments due to loyalty to a very poorly managed franchise, is not 'even' as far as the HOF goes with an offensively similar player like Kariya, who refused to take a pay cut to improve the team that drafted him, and instead signed elsewhere for considerably less than he was offered by the Ducks because he felt insulted. He did this only to improve his market standing, as the contract he signed with Colorado would make him a UFA as soon as possible. He would go on to sign with Nashville, until he received a better UFA offer from St. Louis a few years later. He keeps signing with bad teams that can pay him rather than staying with or moving to a good team that could just use one more decent top-six winger to put them in contention. Does Kariya want a paycheck, or a Stanley Cup ring? If it's the former, is he a HOFer?

Yeah. In 2007 we lost due to a lack of toughness and grit, if by toughness and grit you mean "Two of our top three defensemen were out for the WCF due to fluke injuries that had nothing to do with physical play, and we went to OT in game five due to a fluke goal that bounced off the shaft of Lidstrom's stick on a power play that should never have occurred." In 2006, the Wings lost primarily because their goaltender had a mental meltdown. Unless an enforcer is going to threaten him in the locker room with what will happen if he DOESN'T win, "toughness" is not the reason the Wings lost that series. In 2004, the Wings could be argued as having lost due to toughness. But I prefer to view it as the Wings lost because the Flames were allowed to play a style much dirtier without penalty than what had been allowed through the regular season and first round. Game 3 of that series is a case study on this; the Flames had been physically far more punishing than the Red Wings that game, yet were not penalized until midway through the second period; shortly after they scored a power play goal. The Wings had already seen multiple roughing penalties against them at this point. More grit might have helped in that series, but it was possibly the most unfairly officiated series I have seen in my life; before or since inclusive, live or on video. And that is not even a close call, either. In 2003, this series loss was a combination of factors. Cup hangover could have been one; they returned the majority of the winning roster from the previous year. A new goaltender in Curtis Joseph, however Joseph made a number of major errors during a low-scoring series that proved to be costly. Allowing bad goals during a series without many goals is significantly worse as each mistake hurts your team far more. The Ducks were able to keep the Wings' offense generally to the outside, allowing oversized goaltender JS Giguere to see relatively few good chances and mostly long, unscreened shots. If you define 'grit' as "the ability to impose your playing style on the game and not be controlled by your opponent" then the 2003 Wings team are really the only ones that lacked grit; I am willing to give a pass to the 2004 team because they pretty handily dispatched Nashville in the first round other than Legace's questionable play. Once Joseph took over, that series was pretty one-sided. Grit and toughness have not been the issue for a while. Furthermore, grit and toughness are something you have to install through coaching and playing style, not by adding a fourth liner whose purpose is to sit in the penalty box more often than he plays. Toughness and fighting are part of hockey; that doesn't mean enforcers are.

Hudler is solid two-way. He's not GREAT defensively, but he's above average defensively. For a center with his kind of offensive talents, he is very good defensively. There are not many players in the world who are like Z and Dats where they are top notch at both ends of the ice. Being a Wings fan sometimes spoils people where they think "oh, he's the first line center. Well that means he's very good at both ends of the ice." The though process for most teams' fans is "He's the first line center? That means he's the most offensively talented center." Hudler is a good defensive player on a team full of very good defensive forwards. On most teams in the league, Hudler would be one of the better DEFENSIVE forwards. Hell even Robert Lang could play decent defense. If you are a guy like Craig Janney where you simply don't play defense? The Red Wings just don't acquire you. It's that simple.

The best possible realistic trade that lands Gretzky in Detroit in 1988 sees all of Klima, Oates, Murphy, Sharples, as well as the team's next three first round draft picks and cash shipped to Alberta if we are talking about the same kind of package that Los Angeles received. That might not be better for the Wings than what actually occurred long-term.

Honestly, I've always felt Bure was overrated in the stickhandling department. he had good moves...but most of his goals came from a combination of the use of his skating skills and his shot, not from puckhandling. He was a very good stickhandler, but as I have said before; I think his former teammate Russ Courtnall was actually better at controlling the puck at top speed. Bure was a better skater, but you see a lot of Bure crashing into the boards or net with the puck because he couldn't do everything at once and when it came down to it, there were a lot of times he couldn't get the shot off and still manage to stop because he had to put everything into trying to shoot and wasn't able to ALSO stop while doing it.

Because I asked why the argument 'He was never the best' can be used to keep Osgood out completely, yet is not a valid reason to push Andreychuk from 'lock' to 'maybe' while the better forward, Recchi, who was generally considered to rank higher on the 'better' wing is a 'maybe' I am being inconsistent? No. Asking about an opinion is not the same as claiming an opinion.

Saying Filppula won't ever be nearly as good a playmaker as Hudler has nothing to do with which players he likes or not. It's like saying that Jari Kurri wouldn't ever be the playmaker that Pierre Turgeon was. Turgeon was a much better passer and setup guy. Always. Kurri was better at a lot of other things....just not playmaking.