haroldsnepsts

The thing is the "helluva an offer" is an equally weak source. The reality is we don't really know anything more than we did before. Either way, it seems extremely unlikely the Blue Jackets would deal Nash to Detroit.

Not really a surprised. Trading your franchise player to a division rival doesn't exactly happen very often. As I said before, hockey strategy aside it's just bad marketing. If you think Columbus fans are unhappy with the team now, imagine how they'd feel if they traded Nash to the Wings. There'd be a riot.

After the forum upgrade it seems people need a refresher on the forum rules. Here's the one I keep having to quote as I'm warning people: Here's another good one: I suggest people re-read the forum rules. http://www.letsgowin...tion=boardrules I know everyone's a little jumpy waiting to see what Holland will do next, but personal attacks will not be tolerated and will result in suspension. Furthermore, mocking other members about their reaction to signings is still trolling and off topic and will be punished. For example, in a thread about Holland and free agency, someone posting "They should fire Holland" is a valid opinion, even though it's not particularly well thought out and is an extreme reaction. But in a thread about some other topic, chiming in saying "Fire Holland" to mock that member is trolling, which will result in deletion of the post and punishment. Make sense? Also, if you make a brilliant and insightful post about the Wings or hockey in general, but the last line of your post contains a personal attack, all your hard work will be deleted and you will likely be suspended for your efforts. As I've been saying over and over, discuss the content of the post and not the person making it. Everybody say it with me now.

No, but I thought Phoenix might be leaving Phoenix.

From hockey memes twitter https://twitter.com/...3468032/photo/1

Caps re-signed him. 3 year extension $18.25 million total. http://capitals.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=637986

I'd add Kindl stepping up in a big way to that list. He has yet to show consistently that he can be an NHL defenseman, and right now the Wings only have six signed so they'd need him to play well all season long on the bottom pairing, or at least until the trade deadline. That defense also needs to stay healthy all season long too. I don't know who they'd call up from Grand Rapids now with Janik gone. It's why I'd expect Holland to pick up a veteran 6/7 guy for cheap before the season starts.

Agreed. I just meant that you think you've got a player locked up for a certain number of years and then suddenly there's a hole in your lineup that you could've tried to fill some other way. Like when Hudler took the Wings to arbitration that commits him to signing with the Wings so I'm guessing Holland was counting on him being in the lineup. Then suddenly he bolted to the KHL and you're short a player and free agency options are limited.

I agree Stuart was underwhelming. Playoffs are usually when he elevates his game. As for Lidstrom though, you have to remember he had a hairline fracture in his ankle that was hindering his play. He wouldn't even face it towards the shooter at the point, hence no pk time.

He definitely left a lot of juicy rebounds. His defense did a great job covering for him and the Wings were unwilling or unable to crash the net to get a stick on them.

To me, this is the heart of it:

1) reduce player revenue from 57% to 52% 2) seven year contract limits 3) 28 years old, 7 years in the NHL for UFA status 4) keep entry level contracts 3 years 5) keep salary arbitration drop the puck Oct. 11th to kick off the regular season. Instead, this will likely get ugly. Here's a pretty good breakdown of what the owner's demands may mean (and it ain't pretty). http://www.onthefore...ncy-negotiation Salary reduction UFA status Arbitration

Agreed. It's why their demands are so ridiculous. They not only want to ratchet down players salary based on revenue, they want to reduce it even more by changing the definition of "revenue."

Honestly the idiocy of this first proposal from the league side surprised me. I didn't think negotiations would be a piece of cake, but I didn't think the owners would be going for such huge concessions from the players, given they announced that the cap and therefore revenue went up yet again just a few weeks ago. And I think it's important to remember that the players already have their salary tied to revenue in spite of the fact that their job has pretty much zero control over league revenues. That is a big risk and concession on their part. But now that revenue has gone up so players salaries have as well, the owners already want to restructure things to make it even more favorable.

That misrepresents people's arguments here, which has the not-unintended effect of making their position even more difficult to prove. Replacing Lidstrom is pretty much impossible. I don't think anyone expected Holland to go out and replace one of the best D-men who's ever played the game. Even getting Suter wouldn't have done that. But that's not the same as saying he could do more to improve the defense and could have better prepared for Lidstrom's eventual retirement. And you may not think it's an unreasonable request, but the reality is it's awfully difficult to prove something that didn't happen. Which not coincidentally also puts you in a pretty advantageous position to argue from. You get to defend what actually happened but expect someone to build a concrete case for some hypothetical alternative that was both possible and would improve the team. It's like if the Wings lost a game and someone here was complaining about their effort, expecting them to name a shot that someone could have taken that almost certainly would have scored. True. I was just making an educated guess based on every response you've ever had to someone proposing a move that Holland could have made. I'm not sure what this has to do with the portion of my post you quoted or why you feel the need to inform a moderator here as to what the purpose of this board is. It's a point you should take to heart though. As you make the obvious point, this is a hockey discussion board. So people will come here to express their displeasure with Holland if they feel like it. That makes perfect sense to me, even if I don't agree with them. They dont' have to construct an argument that meets your standards in order to be able to criticize Holland, or anyone on the Wings for that matter. What should Holland have done in 2009? Who should he have signed? Using 2009, you could set an example here to show others how to properly build a case for criticizing Holland. As for Ericsson, considering he was drafted dead last and a converted defenseman, I would've thought you'd consider him one of Holland's greater successes. Ericsson was among the better d-men this season, especially in the playoffs. Holland took a player who was basically an afterthought and now has a #4/5 D-man who can play 18+ minutes a night.

I hope so, but this list is after how many days of negotiating? The owners are really going for it here at the start. No arbitration, 5 year entry level contracts, ten years before a player is a UFA, AND notching down salaries by over 10%?? Those are all huge. Honestly on that list reducing salaries is probably the least aggressive and most realistic starting point.

Well at least the owners picked a reasonable starting point. I've gone from wondering if we'll lose some hockey games to wondering just how many.

That's the one. what a model of fitness! I'd never guess that was a pro hockey player and not just a guy in his twenties who's in pretty good shape and loves beer.

That's why I was guessing Florida. I'm pretty sure they need to get to the floor, they just lost Sammy, and they made the playoffs last season for the first time in 10 years. That salary still sounds ridiculous, but if they won a playoff series, it would almost be worth it financially.

The thing is, how many people here are actually calling for the firing of Ken Holland? It's been what, maybe 4 people? I'm not even sure because I think the jokes being made about people saying fire holland probably outnumber the people actually saying it by ten to one. There's a huge difference in expressing your disappointment in what's happened so far this offseason and even the last few seasons, then calling for him to be fired.

Florida? Massive overpayment, but replacing Sammy with Doan is a pretty big upgrade.

I'm hoping that's just lip service. It wouldn't be good for anyone if he said "we've taken a big step backwards" no matter what he actually thinks. But losing Lidstrom and Stuart, letting Hudler and his 50 points go and replacing him with Sammy. About the only steps forward so far are potentially in goal and the bottom lines with the addition of Tootoo (I still don't like him but am trying to be optimistic about something). The Wings won 1 playoff game last season. The real question is by the trade deadline this coming season, will they be in a position to make the playoffs and win more than one game?

Absolutely agree. Though I don't agree with the post you quoted, he's at least talking hockey. If people would stick to that we'd be fine. It all goes to hell when people start attacking the person for their unpopular opinion. Plus some of the smarter trolls toe the line and antagonize people without it necessarily being an outright personal attack. I don't want to speak out of turn (correct me if I'm wrong fellow mods) but Matt and the mods prefer to keep things on the looser side around here so people can speak their minds rather than clamp down on every little thing. I think in general it makes is a more fun place to talk hockey, but it also does mean there's some irritating stuff that you have to live with on occasion.

No surprise there. Teemu had a great year and made it clear he didn't want to play anywhere else.

Your position seems to be that unless someone can provide concrete examples of players that were available, trades that almost definitely would go through, and would almost certainly improve the team, they shouldn't complain. That's an absurd expectation. At the time who would've predicted that Holland could get Stuart from the Kings for a 2nd and 4th pick? Or taking the Kings as an example, who would've thought they'd get Richards for Simmonds, Schenn and a pick? Or trade a defenseman they'd recently signed long term to bring in Carter? And that both of those trades would be huge factors in their Cup win? It's likely you would've shot down all of those trades as unrealistic or wouldn't improve the team. But who the hell knows until they actually happen? If I could provide those kind of examples beforehand, I'd take Holland's friggin job. I'm not complaining because I think he sucks. I'm complaining because I think he's one of the best GM's in the NHL, so he better be able to come up with some moves that the average fan couldn't know about. It's awful hard to provide irrefutable evidence for a trade that didn't happen. That doesn't mean I can't be unhappy with what Holland is saying and doing. For now I'm withholding full judgment until the summer is over. But Lidstrom retiring is something he and management should've started planning for 10 years ago. Looking at our blueline right now, it sure doesn't feel like they did. Your position seems to be that if Holland made the move, it was the right one. If he didn't, it wouldn't have made the team better or it would've cost too much. The only thing I've heard you complain about regarding Holland was Ericsson, which you were wrong about.