Dabura

And no one's saying they do. Except maybe Ryan Lambert. Really, though, there's nothing especially fancy about them. I find it kind of silly that people will rattle off a whole list of stats, but when it comes to asking, like, "Does a guy's team shoot the puck a lot when he's on the ice?" - "NO GET THAT DEVIL MATH AWAY FROM ME. WATCH THE GAME NERD. I BET YOU NEVER EVEN PLAYED THE GAME. HOCKEY CAN'T BE QUANTIFIED. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS."

You used to be kinda smart, man. What happened? Kronwall - 6'0 Green - 6'1 DeKeyser - 6'3 Marchenko - 6'3 Ericsson - 6'4 Smith - 6'2 Kindl - 6'3 The Wings' D group needs point production, high-end skill, better puck movement. Barrie offers those things. We're not losing games because of how big our defensemen are or aren't. We're not losing games because of how big our forwards are or aren't. (How big and "physical" are the Blackhawks? How big and "physical" are the Lightning?) We're losing games largely - if not mainly - because our D group simply isn't good enough. Barrie is very, very good: That said...we're not getting him, as the Avs hate us. And if he'd cost Nyquist or Tatar, I wouldn't want him anyway. We're scoring one goal a game and people want to get rid of Nyquist (our leading goal-scorer this season) or Tatar (our leading goal-scorer last season)? C'mon. I get that offense comes from defense and Barrie is a premier offensive defenseman and an outstanding possession player - but I don't think we can afford to trade one of our better scorers for a defenseman, unless that defenseman is outrageously good, e.g. OEL.

I'm strangely ok with this. Typically, I'll look for any reason to s*** on Ken Holland, any reason at all, doesn't even have to be a good reason. But I seem to be in the minority on this one in thinking this really isn't all that bad (assuming the cap continues to rise and we shed some big contracts over the next few years). This summer alone we can free up roughly $10M in cap space by simply not re-upping Richards, Quincey, Helm, and Miller. Richards and Quincey alone would give us $7.25M to work with. Datsyuk won't be around much longer. Green's under contract for only three seasons. Kindl will be gone soon enough. Smith probably doesn't have a long-term future in Detroit. Howard may be moved at some point in the next two years. Is it wrong to give Abby seven years? Yes. Absolutely. Is it a terrible, roster-busting committment? Probably not. The team will be getting younger, lots of first and second contracts, lots of cost control. Abby gets to stick around and be one of the veteran leaders. I can live with that. *shrug*

What's wrong with high numbers? It may just be a matter of speed and PK prowess. AA could replace those qualities that Ferraro brings to the table and maybe also help us out in the faceoff circle, where we've been getting mauled.

It's true. May play today. Love it!

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/873004 The man is a tank.

Also: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/rumor-roundup-contract-talks-on-hold-but-dont-expect-jets-to-deal-byfuglien/ Isn't an organizational pillar? And which of our defensemen are organizational pillars? How many of our guys log big minutes against the opposition's best players and manage to put up big points and push possession in the right direction? Because that's what Byfuglien does. I don't think we target him, though, and I think it'll have everything to do with "character" and a belief that he "wouldn't be a good fit in the locker room." Which, I dunno, fair enough, I guess. He does seem like a bit of an ass clown. And, when you think of "Red Wing type players," you don't really think Dustin Byfuglien. Which, I'd contend, is a reason why we should be interested in him. We're too samey. But, whatevz. I'm not a GM.

Aside: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/rumor-roundup-lightning-look-to-move-contracts-to-re-sign-stamkos/

Byfuglien probably wouldn't cost much, because he's on an expiring contract. I'm eager to see what happens there and also with two other desirables in Kevin Shattenkirk and Dennis Wideman. Shattenkirk is probably the crown jewel of this Might Be Available class of defensemen (with Byfuglien a very close second). For what it's worth, the Blues have been winning in his absence. The emergence of Colton Parayko (4G, 3A in 11 games. Not too shabby!) may ultimately lead them to move Shattenkirk. But, of course, the season is still very young and anything can happen. Who knows. I'd also be looking at a few other, less celebrated names, e.g. Ryan Ellis, Mattias Ekholm, Simon Despres. The numbers show that he's a much better defenseman than he is a forward. Middling forward versus borderline-elite top-pairing defenseman. And he doesn't like playing forward anyway.

In a few more words than that: The belief is that he can be a weapon, that he can help us win games. That our chances of winning a given game are greater with him in the lineup than they would be without him in the lineup. He appears fully capable of stepping in and being a top-six impact player straight out of the gate. No sheltering him, no hiding him from tough matchups. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is the kind of kid who normally gets drafted in the top five or even three. This is the kind of kid organizations build around. This is a truly exceptional player. What's great about it is our future hopes and dreams won't necessarily rest on his shoulders. With Mantha, Athanasiou, Nosek, and Bertuzzi knocking on the door and Svechnikov not too far behind, we have the pieces in place for an absolutely monstrous forward group.

Simply put, the kid is That Good.

For what it's worth, neither the Lightning nor the Blackhawks are especially big.

It would explain why he looks like a zombie.

Ryan Lambert (hissss) kinda sorta touched on this today: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/are-the-los-angeles-kings-in-decline---trending-topics-142235294.html He doesn't really come down on either side of the fence, but he points out that the '09 Pens team that beat us in the Finals didn't really have an elite defenseman. Of course, when you have Crosby and Malkin and you're able to run Jordan Staal as your 3C, you don't necessarily need an elite defenseman. But then, I guess that's sort of where I'm coming from when I give the edge to the 1C. I'd probably rather be super-deep at center (with an elite centerman on the top line) than super-deep on defense. Team D and outstanding goaltending can go a long way in minimizing the need for elite talent on the back end. Ultimately, though, you want both an elite 1C and an elite 1D. Also, water is wet.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the new look.

Moar: http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2014/12/04/mike-green-bottom-pairing-defenseman/ http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2014/12/08/mike-green-bottom-pairing-defenseman-part-two/

Two very good reads: http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2015/05/29/mike-green-2014-15-season-review/ http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2014/11/18/mike-green-doesnt-get-enough-respect/

Oh, for sure. There are a number of reasons why (possible) future UFAs are voodoo and, as such, shouldn't really factor into your planning and decision-making. Certainly the Wings can attest to this. And yet, Kenny's mostly shrewd management over the past several years has in fact put us in a position to take serious runs at marquee players (Green being one such player), and I doubt that this is purely coincidental. Look at our situation. All of our young players are making modest money. We'll have the option of walking away from a number of roster players next summer. We have a ton of money tied up in players that, for the most part, Kenny should be able to trade for futures, which would free up cap space. And, of course, we have a wealth of attractive assets in the system. In short, our cap situation is manageable and flexible and we're overloaded with quality assets. If Kenny wants to make some magic, he's put himself in a good position to do so.

It's a tough call. Obviously it depends on a number of things. What kind of team are you trying to ice? What kind of systems are you employing? What are your head coach's stylistic preferences and philosophical leanings? What kind of talent do you already have at your disposal? What are your team's strengths and weaknesses? Are we talking a truly elite 1C (e.g. Kopitar, as opposed to, say, Ribeiro) and a truly elite 1D (e.g. Keith, as opposed to, say, Kronwall)? What kind of teams are you likely to face in the playoffs and what are their respective strengths and weaknesses? That's overthinking things, I know. But, the point is, it's sort of a coin flip (assuming the options are more or less equally talented players). I'm a defenseman by training (though, I spent some time as a winger), and the best coach I ever had would always tell the defensemen that forwards are morons and a team's fate will ultimately be decided by its group of defensemen. Defensemen control the game; they're the hands of fate. They decide how the play will unfold up/down the ice (how the puck will be advanced [by Team A] and how that course of action will be countered [by Team B]). They protect the net. They're the "point men" of the o-zone cycle. At the same time, though, you ain't got s*** without an elite centerman. Personally, I guess I'd lean ever so slightly towards the 1C being the more desirable of the two. I believe solid team D can minimize the need for an elite defenseman (isn't that basically what we've been doing since Lidstrom retired?), whereas you really can't succeed without an elite centerman's scoring and playmaking and two-way play and the fact that he can go up against the opposition's best players and make life exceedingly difficult for them in all three zones in a way a defenseman can't. I don't know if I actually buy that, but I'll go with that as my answer. At the very least, we know Tyler Johnson was The Difference in our battle against the Lightning. And I think Johnson's wrist injury was an absolutely devastating blow to the Lightning that pretty much guaranteed they wouldn't be winning the Cup. In terms of this Wings team, I said in the Robbie Russo thread that I might take Eric Staal over Dustin Byfuglien, even if Staal were to cost way more in the way of assets. (Certainly his 2015-16 cap hit is much greater than Byfuglien's.) That's based on the team as it stands right now and the Wings teams that will have to overcome The Fall of Datsyuk and Zetterberg over the next several years. On D, I really just want six solid defensemen slotted in roles for which they're either perfectly suited or slightly overqualified. I think we can win the Cup with a top four of DeKeyser, Green, Kronwall, Marchenko. I don't think we can win the Cup with Datsyuk, Sheahan, Richards as our top three centermen.

As much as we could use a bona fide top-pairing defenseman, I do wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to target a top-end forward like Eric Staal. Having Datsyuk, Staal, and Zetterberg/Sheahan/Richards/Larkin as our top three centermen would probably help us more than having Byfuglien on the top pairing would, even if the asking price for Staal would be considerably higher. Plus, with Datsyuk wearing down and possibly coming up on the end of his NHL career and with Zetterberg clearly in decline, we could really use a younger top-tier centerman who could lighten the load on our two superstars and hold down the 1C spot when Datsyuk retires/gets too old for the job.

This is a sneaky-good add. I've seen him play a couple times and I remember being impressed. Not "Holy ***!" impressed, but certainly "Huh, I'll have to remember that name. I hope he's on the Wings' radar" impressed. It's safe to say he's NHL-ready or somewhere thereabouts. Should we expect a trade or two? Honestly, I'm kinda surprised he signed with us, given our logjam. Maybe he knows something we don't (i.e. Kenny told him the logjam won't be a thing much longer). Or maybe there wasn't much interest in him. Or maybe this was a factor: http://www.secondcityhockey.com/2015/6/2/8707385/could-blackhawks-target-soon-to-be-free-agent-notre-dame-defenseman-robbie-russo?_ga=1.119500425.1206362005.1439812391 In any case, we've added a very good young defenseman at zero cost.

Ew, no. Tatar is more skilled, more dynamic, a better possession player, three years younger, coming off a 29-goal season, hasn't hit his ceiling, and will cost a couple million less against the cap for the next couple of years. And we'd be giving him to the Leafs, which I'm sure would never come back to haunt us in any way, shape, or form. Also: no to Phaneuf, who sucks and has one of the most insane contracts in the league. I'm pretty sure acquiring him was Babcock's idea. Speaking of Babcock, I think we might have to embrace the possibility that the way Babcock was doing things was, in some cases, not necessarily the way they should've been done. (Not that this will be a new concept for anyone.) For example, we look at Glendening as a fourth-line shutdown center, and maybe for good reason. But, at the same time, he scored twelve goals last season. Maybe he'd be more valuable to us with more o-zone starts, a slightly more favorable quality of competition, and better linemates? The thing that really has me thinking is the HERO charts for our defensemen. Look at this: DeKeyser Ericsson Green Kindl Kronwall Quincey Smith (Appropriate responses include "Woof," "What the actual ****," and "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!") To me, the fact that Kindl's chart looks the way it does (very little ice time despite very impressive numbers) begs the question: Has Mike Babcock actually been holding this team back? Or, maybe a better question: Was he a bad fit for this D group? I'm reminded of something Craig MacTavish said in an interview last year: I don't know if that was true of the Holland-Babcock dynamic, but I think it's pretty safe to assume it was. I think you could go a step further and say Babcock is the ultimate "win the next game" coach. It wouldn't surprise me if our D group proves to be more capable under Blashill. Maybe the need to add a top-pairing defenseman isn't nearly as great as we think it is. Maybe it'd make more sense to over-prepare for Datsyuk's decline and/or retirement by targeting someone like Eric Staal. We may be over the cap, but I believe we're poised to make a big move or two. We've got a ton of assets, the young players are all making modest money, there's a ton of money tied up in non-essential personnel (i.e. it probably wouldn't be too difficult or painful to clear up significant cap space in a hurry)...I wonder if Kenny hasn't been eyeing the UFA class of 2016 for some time now.

I'd thought they were, but I wasn't sure. I'll take your word for it!

For what it's worth: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2015/07/23/new-red-wings-coach-jeff-blashill/30604193/ An important point that the folks over at Winging It In Motown made back when we signed Green: over the course of his career, Green has rarely (arguably never) been paired with someone as defensively sound as DeKeyser is. So, when people point to those Mistakes Mike Green Makes, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Dude was paired with Tim Gleason in these most recent playoffs. Tim freaking Gleason! Oh, and about last season: Green isn't really a Barry Trotz defenseman. Brooks Orpik -- a bad defenseman who gets a pass because he's big and mean and slow, not unlike Tim Gleason -- warms the cockles of Barry Trotz's heart. Green? Not so much. There's also this: http://public.tableau.com/views/HEROv2-D/Dashboard1?:embed=y&:loadOrderID=3&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y That's an exceptional HERO chart. Compare it to Erik Karlsson's: http://public.tableau.com/shared/FTSM69TMW?:display_count=yes It must be noted, of course, that Karlsson plays the minutes you'd expect of a two-time Norris Trophy winner (in terms of not just ice time but also quality of competition and zone starts). Only a few other defensemen in the NHL/world could perform so well in such a demanding role. Point being, Green's chart is surprisingly similar to Karlsson's, but Green has had it a little easier. Still, Green's chart 1) is very impressive and 2) suggests he could hold his own as a top pairing defenseman. And then there's Tim Gleason: http://public.tableau.com/shared/QNQFQ6JN3?:display_count=yes And good old Brooks Orpik: http://public.tableau.com/shared/BSDJWKK5D?:display_count=yes Not that our D group is anything to brag about. (Which I'll probably address in a forthcoming post.)

Too early to say anything about Svechnikov, though I do feel good about his future. Mantha has all the tools to be a top sniper - but the golden boys of the NHL are your 1Cs, 1Ds, and 1Gs. I believe Larkin will be a 1C, or, at the very least, a damn good 2C. This is a franchise player. This is Zetterberg's successor. In Larkin, we basically drafted a top-five talent at 15th overall. He's the kind of kid a team tanks an entire season for.