YoungGuns1340

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If we add Backstrom, he's going to be a rental. And Osgood stays. Thats the price a GM pays if he thinks theres a player who can put his team over the hump. Holland did it not two years ago with Bertuzzi.

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they? Doesn't change the fact that they could be singing a different tune if March 4th rolls around and hes still unsigned. That happens all the time.

Wait, wait, wait. So the Wings would have to sacrifice one of their 9 potential top 6 forwards from their league-leading 215 goal team, that ranks 1st in the NHL for total goals for and goals for average, that has averaged 4.67 goals for since 2 of those top sixers have been injured....in order to improve their 19th best goals against average and 27th ranked penalty kill? What a preposterous idea! On a more serious note, and I don't mean to be haughty - I understand your concern - but I think this is the side effect we get from the goaltending we have. Despite that we are far and away (by 21 goals) the best offensive team in the league, we're still worried about trading our offense. Why? Because we need to score nearly 4 goals a game just to get the win. I can assure you - we will really be ok if we only have 8 20 goal scorers on the roster instead of 9.

Backstrom for Filppula. Gotta call it just in case.

Osgood won't be traded. And nor should he be. As much as I want to see him riding the pine more than on the ice, he's still a great guy. He's still a Red Wing through and through, and it would be of benefit to have him talking Backstrom through the playoffs if need be. Also, I thought this quote was interesting from Osgood. Its from the freep.

I hate to be snide, but the "so and so hasn't won anything in the playoffs" argument is bunk. It depends entirely on context. You could say the same thing about any number of goaltenders in the playoffs. Tim Thomas hasn't won anything in the playoffs, yet he damn well could this year. Same with Nabokov. He may not have won anything today, but in 4 months he has as good a chance as most to have won it all. As for Backstrom, I posted this in the other thread. The Wild don't operate under the same philosophy that the Wings do, as most teams don't. This is from February 15th, and it includes a great quote from the Wild GM http://www.startribune.com/sports/wild/395...L7PQLanchO7DiUr Is that a guarantee Backstrom is going to be traded? Absolutely not. But it certainly suggests that the Wild could be swayed by the right offer. Again, its been discussed elsewhere, but the Wild are going to be looking for a roster player in return for Backstrom - particularly a forward. Their conservative style makes it difficult for them to attract skilled UFA forwards (consider that the Wild actually traded for Demitra simply to convince Gaborik to stay longer) and they're going to lose Gaborik in the off-season (he even rejected a contract worth 8M/year). They also aren't rebuilding, but they're realistic in their expectations. Thats why they're apparently contemplating trading Backstrom if he can attract a young forward that can help them now, and to improve over the next few years.

Nope. The Wings have over 1M in cap space with the accumulation of LTIR. And it will continue to increase fractionally. By the deadline, they'll likely have over 1.3M in cap space (they have 1.2M now) and that is non-prorated cap space. Essentially, the Wings can add a contract, or any combination of contracts, that cost about 3.5M.

Why NOT go after Backstrom? He might NOT tank in the same way Conklin or Toskala would. Works both ways. At any rate, I'm guessing it has something to do with that whole Backstrom being an All-Star goalie ranking top 5 in both GAA and sv% thing. And the fact that hes a legitimate starter. And the fact that his contract isn't an albatross. And also for the sake of argument, Thomas has about the same amount of experience as Toskala and Backstrom. Cam Ward didn't have too much either.

We might as well send Lidstrom the other way if we're talking Brodeur. At any rate, at this point in the game, I'm not just saying the Wings should go out and get any goaltender possible. What I'm saying is they should take a long hard look at Backstrom - he's the only realistically available goaltender who is a clear-cut upgrade. Backstrom ranks 3rd among in starters in save percentage (not including Craig Anderson), and he ranks 5th in GAA, with Fernandez and Hiller (technically back-ups) being 2 of the guys ahead of him. He also faces 26.5 shots a game. Osgood, on the other hand, faces, on average, 23.5 shots a game. Just to give you an idea, if Backstrom had played the 31 games that Ozzie had, and had faced the 729 shots Ozzie did in that time, with Backstrom's save percentage of .926 (thats with 1248 shots against, mind you), versus Osgood's save percentage of .879, Backstrom would've statistically let in 54 goals fewer than Osgood over those 31 games. Now, I'm not saying he WOULD let in that many goals fewer, but what if he lets in just 15 goals fewer than Ozzie. With how many 1 goal games we win/lose, how many more points would we have? How many fewer goals would we need to put forth the effort to score? And, in the spirit of hypothesis, I wonder why it is that Val Filppula saw 4:40 on the PP (more than Datsyuk's 4:08) when we played the Wild - well over 2 minutes more than he has on average with the Wings down Franzen and Holmstrom the past 2 weeks.

Huet was one of Washington's best players in the playoffs, and Roloson's name has been mentioned ad nauseum. But the bigger anomaly is this: teams who need to add a goaltender at the deadline almost always have holes elsewhere as well, or in general are not considered elite teams to begin with. The Red Wings are. To that, I ask When was the last time the starter for a Top 3 NHL team was statistically the worst? At any rate, if the "risk" is that we'd be losing a forward, the numbers posted by plenty of members here have shown that we're losing one forward - if not, two - anyways. If the "risk" is that we'd be losing potential assets (say, a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick for Filppula), then I'd suggest the bigger risk is wasting likely our best chance at the cup that we're going to have for at least the next few years. As I've posted elsewhere, next year brings essentially the same goaltending, the same defense, and weaker offense. The following year Lidstom may retire, and the likelihood that we'll be able to "replace" him is nil, as the salary cap is going down considerably, with presumptive estimates in the 40s. Not only are we likely to lose Lidstrom, but others as well. If you want to talk risk, then I say the bigger risk is where we are now - standing a few weeks from the deadline with potentially the strongest team we'll have for a few years, and the weakest goaltending we've had in more.

Ottawa will be selling, yes, but Vermetter is one of those guys they're going to be selling, and he'd be an ideal piece to attract Backstrom in return. I say this, because, the way Murray has handled things this year, I think he still thinks his team doesn't have issues. I don't think hes going for an all-out rebuild, but a "rebuild" similar to what Philly went through a couple years ago. But then again - this is Murray. He should've be taken out with the trash. At any rate, I agree both with your assessments of Philly and Filppula. It would be an overpayment. But we've overpaid before. Matthias and a 2nd is close to Filppula's value now, and was a little less at the time, but Bertuzzi didn't have nearly the value that Backstrom does now. Bertuzzi also wasn't needed nearly as much as Backstrom is. Ultimately, I'm not saying we're definitely going to get Backstrom. But I'm also not saying that if we don't get him, that Kenny didn't try to. The biggest thing for me is that the future of the Wings is so uncertain. Realistically, is this team going to be better in the next few years than it is now? We know we're going to lose a forward, and likely replace Howard with Conklin next year - we cant afford to give Holland a raise. If we retain Hossa, we'll have to lose two forwards. Either way, next season looks like the same goaltending, same defense, but weaker offense. And the year after that, does Lidstrom retire? If he doesn't retire, is he still going to play like Lidstrom? And this is all in expectation of the salary cap potentially dropping into the 40s, which means we'd have to cut payroll even further. Now, what I'm not saying is that the Wings are going to be a bottom-feeder in a few years. But what I am saying is, what are the odds that we're going to have as strong a team that we have now within the next few years? I'm not saying it can't happen, but to say the Wings are going to keep this pace up in the coming years sounds like counting your chickens before they hatch. Thats why I say go for it.

So what does it mean when hes on pace to score half the goals he did last year?

...you...don't remember the way he lauded the play of Jason Williams?

Thank you. Precisely my point. I have no problem respecting a well-formulated opinion. Otherwise, it only induces petty flame wars. Wears me out.

Good move on Gainey's part, in that at the very least hes showing the fans that hes being proactive in trying to stop the bleeding. They've still got plenty of other holes though.

Saying that the Wings have the best offense in the NHL and the 19th "best" goals against average are facts - those which Sandman were referring to. Thats not opinion. Maybe you would like one of my clues? I have many.

I respectfully disagree completely. Backstrom simply will not be traded for future assets. The Wild have gotten the short end of the stick too many times by both seeing UFAs go, and being unable to attract offensive players on the open market. They're a playoff team now, and have many key pieces to that. They're going to want young players who can help them now and help them to break through the playoff cusp. In particular, our competition is Ottawa and Philly. Ottawa wouldn't think twice about shedding Vermette for Backstrom if they found his contract demands worthy - I question this though, because Murray is an idiot and rarely offers the deserved raises. However, Philly on the other hand is in a great situation. Like the Wings, they're stacked up front, especially now that Briere is healthy. Biron and Niitymaki are both FAs, and they can cut Knuble's payroll in half, if they choose to re-sign him next season. Otherwise, the only forward they need to re-sign is Upshall. Essentially, Philly wouldn't have to sacrifice much to re-sign Backstrom to a deal worth up to 5M per year before the deadline, so their trading for a rental is a lesser concern than it is for the Wings. Finally, both Lupul and Hartnell's names have been in the rumor mill already, as Holmgrem is thought to be dangling either in exchange for a goaltender or an upgrade on the back-end. Like the Wings, Philly can sacrifice depth up from and still improve if it comes in the form of a Dman or goaltender. And make no mistake - Hartnell or Lupul - perhaps more, would look good to a Wild team thats going to lose Gaborik already and has a hard time attracting top 6ers as is. In short, the Wings are going to have to offer Filppula. A few areas where I think the Wings have the upperhand is that Filppula costs 1M+ fewer than Hartnell or Lupul, and only .3 more than Vermette, yet hes putting up better numbers than Vermette. He's also the youngest of the pack, and wouldn't hurt the Wings if we were forced to trade him.

This is my perspective: Yes, I agree. If we are going to trade assets for a goaltender, it has to be Backstrom. Hes easily a top 10 goaltender. With that said - do I think we can retain him next year? No, I do not. He'll cost too much. But regardless of Backstrom, if we sign Hossa to a $6M deal, we will lose one of Filppula, Franzen, or Hudler anyways. Do we essentially trade one of our forwards for a rental? Yes. Yes we do. But this is where I think the Wings have to eat some assets. They did the same thing with Bertuzzi - traded Matthias and a pick for nothing. But Bertuzzi wasn't putting the Wings over the edge in the playoffs. Backstrom CAN do that for the Wings. That's why I think you sacrifice trading for Backstrom at the expense of a forward. To summarize, if the Wings DONT improve their goaltending, they don't better their playoff chances. Yet they'll get a pick or a prospect - likely a Bertuzzi package - a 2nd round pick and a decent prospect. If the Wings DO improve their goaltending, they have a better shot at the cup, and they DON'T get the extra 2nd round pick/prospect. It depends on what you think: 1. Better playoff odds with Backstrom ---> losing a forward, losing a 2nd round pick and prospect. OR 2. A 2nd round pick and a prospect ---> losing a forward, having problematic goaltending that could cost us a Cup. Which do you choose? Personally, I think we all know when we're going to reap the benefits of trading Hudler or Flip for a 2nd round pick and a prospect, or something around that. We won't see the prospect for a few years, and even longer for whoever is taken with that 2nd rounder. So essentially, what everyone here is concerned about are a couple of players that are going to have minimal affects on the Wings in 3-5 years. That, in my eyes, doesn't justify going into these playoffs with the worst goaltending of all 16 teams.

Here's a link to an article that offers some insight on the possibility of adding Backstrom at the deadline: http://www.startribune.com/sports/wild/395...L7PQLanchO7DiUr I think Filppula for Backstrom fits the mold of "getting an asset" for Backstrom. The Wild have a great goaltender in Harding, too. Trading Backstrom doesn't ruin their chances like trading your starter would for most teams. Filppula seems exactly like the kind of "Wild forward" and would get the minutes he needs. Hes also signed long-term reasonably. And as I've said elsewhere, the Wings can afford to lose a forward, and they're going to lose one anyways.

TB won't trade him. He'd have great stats if TB wasn't a bad team. Hes been one of their best players, and was the centerpiece in the Richards deal. Hes also cheap. It would hurt them more than help them to trade him.

Huet did. Roloson did. Mason did. Ellis did. Luongo did. Bryzgalov did.

Don't worry. Your opinion doesn't have any value.

Here are the facts: 1. Our goals for is the best in the league. 2. Our goals against is 19th in the league, and only better than 2 current playoff teams. 3. We are going to lose at least one forward next season regardless of whether we win 1 or 16 playoff games. Considering that, it makes all the sense in the world to give up one of Hudler, Franzen, or Filppula in exchange for Backstrom. Why Backstrom? Because he is a legitmate starter and a clear upgrade in goaltending. Why would the Wild do this? Heres a good article to give you an idea of the Wild's perspective: Star Tribune Journalist Talks about Wild's Deadline Possibilities I've gotten past the point where I care about the specific names that compose this roster. I'd hate to lose Hudler, but if thats what it takes to upgrade our goaltending, then trade him. Same thing with Franzen or Filppula. Now, these aren't necessarily facts per se, but they are logical statements: 1. The Red Wings won without Hossa last year. Even if they trade ONE forward, they will still be better offensively than they were last year. 2. The reason its a scary thought to trade one of our forwards to begin with is because we need to score a lot of goals to win games. If we have a better goaltender that can stop more goals than our goaltenders now, we will not need to score nearly 4 goals a game to win, which furthers the idea that losing a forward at the deadline wouldn't cost us. 3. Whether you think the problem with our goals against is an Osgood issue or defense issue, a better goaltender is going to stop more pucks regardless of whether our problem is defensive or goaltending. Now, let me reiterate, we are going to lose a forward in 4 months time regardless of which forwards are re-signed and regardless of our playoff performance. I think the idea that we should wait to trade a forward in the off-season because it would "hurt our depth up front" is bunk. Its counter-intuitive when our offense is ridiculously good without an extra forward and our goaltending is an issue. Would you prefer a 2nd round pick and a prospect in July because we traded Hudler or Filppula or would you prefer a better chance at a Stanley Cup? Personally, I think its ridiculous to prefer the one over the other. Even if we don't win the cup after making a proposed move like this, at least we wouldn't be left wondering what would've happened if we'd fixed our most glaring weakness by slightly reducing our strength. As a sidenote or two, to round out the argument, with the LTIR we've accumulated, we could add Backstrom's pro-rated salary regardless of whether we shed 3M in cap space or 1M in cap space. Also, a removal of one of Franzen, Filppula, or Hudler only guarantees one of Leino or Helm - likely Helm - a full-time spot in the forward lineup, which is in no way a bad thing. Finally, the Wings aren't going to get the best value possible for trading any forward when the rest of the NHL's GMs know we have our hands tied by the salary cap. See Quincey. Finally, I think Holland should make this deal on deadline day, and if they think trading Conklin would be disrespectful to Conklin, then they should keep all three goalies, which would be possible with the removal of the roster limit. Is it a radical idea? Yes. But the Wings are anything but conventional, and if anyone team can handle it, its this squad. Retaining Conklin means Conklin still has a legit shot on a stanley cup team. Regardless of how many games Conklin plays down the stretch, if the Wings win the cup, hes got his name on it. With Osgood, the issue is similar. As an aging veteran whose head has been kept above water by this Wings team all season, hes not getting the boot. Hes not being waived, traded, or bought out, despite the fact that many GMs would consider him deserving of that. He, too, if the Wings win the cup, will have his name on it, regardless of how many games he plays down the stretch as well. Both Osgood and Conklin have spent enough seasons as a back-up to know how to handle the situation.

Actually, you could probably get Hudler to sign for less than 3M on a short term deal. It wouldn't make sense for Hudler to sign a long term deal when wherever he is - on the Wings, or another team - hes going to see more ice time next year, and along with his continual improvement, he could probably produce more than the 27 goals and 67 points hes on pace for. It wouldn't make sense for him to seek a 3.5-4M deal over 4-5 years when hes likely to garner more than that, on average, on the open market. It would be in his best interest to take around a 2 year, 5.5M deal (and if I'm not mistaken, that puts him right up to UFA eligibility), stick around on a talented team, and then take advantage of the open market when hes still a young forward with an impressive resume who doesn't have to worry about never experiencing Stanley Cup glory. In reality, since we have to either trade or let two UFA forwards walk next season (assuming Hossa is serious about accepting 6M), then the smart idea would be to trade Filppula for Backstrom. A desperately needed net is upgraded for the playoffs, either Helm or Leino and their much needed energy gets a full time spot, and we make the space up front that we're going to have to make regardless next year. We upgrade our team this year, and we lose nothing next year that we wouldn't lose otherwise. Edit: Actually, I'm going to propose the Wings offer either Franzen or Filppula for Backstrom, assuming nhlnumbers.com is correct and we've accumulated 2M in cap space through injuries. If thats the case, then adding the $3M Backstrom is feasible by trading the $1M Franzen.

Its funny. It seems like everyones plan for Hossa was that, as a premier goal scorer, he should have a premier center setting him up - either Datsyuk or Zetterberg. But whats weird is that Hossa seems to function better with lesser players. Its as if having Hank or Datsyuk on his line didn't allow him to dictate the play like he wanted to. I'd be interested to see what his numbers look like when hes NOT playing with either or Hank or Datsyuk, at even strength OR the powerplay. This is what I love about Hossa. The guy could score 40 goals if he was being centered by Draper, Filppula, Franzen, or Helm - as long as its a guy who gets him the puck and stays out of his way. The majority of his production comes from the work he does all on his own. Now that hes "on his own" so to speak, I think he might actually stay as hot as he is. In reality, I doubt 50 goals, but I'm gonna anticipate 45-48 easily.