Dabura

We're gonna have crazy space this summer. Plus, while I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate to say it, Datsyuk's gone soon. The concern, moving forward, is going to be how well our kids do. At the very "worst," they're all big-time players by the time their respective second contract seasons come around and they need to Get Paid like Niskanen does now. But that'd be a pretty nice problem to have (hence "'worst'"). Personally, my concern re: the long-term commitment we'd be giving Niskanen is more about the resulting look of our blue line than the money itself. I've really beaten this horse to death and I'm sorry for it, but we'd be more or less bound to that top five. That's a big deal. Kronwall's not going anywhere. DeKeyser's not going anywhere. Ericsson's homegrown, a new father, loyal, our biggest body, currently our best shutdown guy by far - not going anywhere. Smith is probably the least safe and secure, but he'll have to really disappoint and/or a very good option will have to present itself for him to get moved. Or maybe he becomes an all-star and prices himself off the team. But, at the end of the day, we do need to sign Niskanen. It needs to be done. I just hope the Pens get bounced ASAP. The deeper they go, the less inclined they'll be to let him go, methinks.

Just rambling out loud. We had so much optimism about our roster during Nyquist's streak. Remember that? I'd never seen us so jacked up about the future. What happened? (I mean, beyond Nyquist becoming human again.) I hate to say it, but I think the loss of Legwand - which I guess is kind of inevitable - could be a serious issue, if winning the Cup is the actual goal. That's a roundabout way of saying I'm really concerned about Weiss. You don't want to mess around with your 2C spot. Slotting Z there is always an option, and I suppose Helm or Sheahan could work. But I'd really like a proven top-six center not named Zetterberg who hasn't been injured for the past two seasons. I'm not saying move Weiss, I just think some high-priced insurance might help me sleep better at night. We could also stand to get bigger down the middle, Sheahan being our only centerman over 5'11 (and Legwand being a bit bigger than Sheahan). We do need to get bigger on the wing, but you'd like to have some size at center as well. /spoiled Wings fan

Semantics, probably, but I'd say it's more personnel (and injuries) than philosophy/systems. We're built for a skilled possession system, but we've lost our two engines in Lidstrom and Rafalski, and only getting half seasons from Datsyuk and Zetterberg didn't help. Plus, Quincey. And Kindl. And Lashoff. But it seems like we're mostly on the same page there. Basically, we need moar skillz.

That's exactly why, IMHO. If I'm Snow, I'm trying to get to players early.

I guess it comes down to this: Would you be ok with Niskanen @ $5.5 for 6 years? Would you be ok with our blue line being Kronwall, Ericsson, Niskanen, DeKeyser, Smith, and [one of Sproul/Ouellet/Backman/Marchenko] for the foreseeable future? Honest questions, not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious. If we're thinking Niskanen could be had for, like, $16M ($4M x 4y) - that'd be great, a no-brainer. But that isn't happening. Indeed, everything I've heard points to him re-upping with the Pens, even if he has to leave coin and term on the table to make it work. But let's say he does test the waters. Would we not expect a bidding war of biblical proportions (if only because the UFA class is just that thin)? I get that he's doing really well this season and we wouldn't have to give up any assets to acquire him (actually, we would. Sort of.) But this would be a very serious investment. That's my hangup. Dude's gonna re-sign or he's gonna get P-A-I-D. Sky high stacks! I'm not necessarily opposed to paying out the ass for him, though. Why? Simple: if this season is a sign of things to come from him, he's our new #2 defenseman and possibly our future #1. Point being, it's entirely possibly he is an elite NHL defenseman and this season has been his coming out party, and it only gets better from here for him and the team that's lucky enough to secure his services for the next five or six or seven years. Or maybe this season has set the bar too high and he'll never quite live up to expectations. It's a tough call. That's what I'm saying.

Eh, yes and no. We are, but it's mostly deadweight coming off the books. It's not like money is super-tight and we'd struggle mightily to find a good free agent who's willing to sign with us.

I guess I'm being kind of a wet, contrarian blanket. I can't say we need a solid top-four defenseman and then shoot down a seemingly perfect match who'd only cost money. And it's not like epic overpayment isn't the norm these days. I'd just feel better if he were a surer thing. Like, Yandle is a similar player who's rumored to be maybe kinda sorta available for a top-six forward and a prospect, and while Niskanen is right-handed and would only cost money, I'd probably rather trade a key piece or two or three for Yandle's services based on Yandle's body of work. Any acquisition is a risk, a gamble, but we could be 90% sure Yandle would be a beast for us. Niskanen? Less certain.

Nabokov is, like, 70 years old. Ken Holland is so turned on right now.

Broken record, but Niskanen would be a huge gamble. He's had a really good season, while playing for a contract, on the Pittsburgh Penguins, with Jacques Martin working his evil strategic voodoo. For that, Niskanen is going to score a massive contract. Just so incredibly massive you won't even believe it. And it'll probably be a team that needs to reach the cap floor. And everyone will probably be laughing at that GM in a year's time. And we'll probably want to laugh, but then we'll remember we have Franzen. But then we'll rationalize Franzen as a tremendous value.

I'd want him more for the power forward side of his game, I think. He's not perfect, but, given our needs, he's pretty close (assuming a reasonable asking price). I feel like he needs a fresh start with a good organization, a good coach, a good team, a winning culture.

(Warning: dead horses ahead...) Defensemen do have to be able to play D, but playing D entails more than simply defending in your end. Being a great defensive team is, like Sutter and Babcock say, a matter of what your defensemen do with the puck in your end. It's why the Kings are the best defensive team - their defensemen move the puck out of their zone exceptionally well, driving the offense with dominant possession. The result: the Kings don't spend much time defending, because they don't have to, because they can fluidly shift from defense to offense. It's why Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall is the best top three we've ever had - they drove possession, they drove the attack, they kept our d-zone time to a minimum. It's why the Bruins singled Smith out for bullying - he makes his fair share of mistakes in the d-zone, but he makes up for it by being one of our better puck-movers on the back end. He pushes play up the ice, away from our net. He drives the attack. Look at Game 1 against the Bruins. Were we just that good at defending against the Bruins' attack, or was it more that we moved the puck out of our end quickly and efficiently and with purpose? All of which is to say, I firmly believe our biggest issue is our transition game. Given how young our blue line is and that Quincey is borderline incompetent around our net, I think we're pretty good at defending and getting the puck back. It's when we get it back and it's our turn to dictate play and push the pace, that's where we falter. Trying to make as many in-zone passes as we possibly can (four or five when one or two should get the job done), a.k.a being cute. Failing to cleanly connect, tape-to-tape, on at least 50% of our D-to-forward breakout passes (the pass is too far ahead or too far behind or hits his skate or gets picked off etc.) Forwards not always doing their part, often leaving the D with no good options or low-percentage ones. Trying to skate the puck past two guys instead of making a simpler, safer play, e.g. chipping it off the glass and out. We're also not getting enough from the blue line in the offensive zone. On the other end of that spectrum is the Bruins, with their three or four defensemen who really know how to direct a cycle, hold the zone, bomb it from the point, make a team pay on the power play.

I guess the good news is the Kings just pulled off something incredibly special against one of the better teams in the league, and they did it on the strength of fantastic goaltending, loads of goals (!), and excellent special teams (on top of all the other things they do so well). If there's one team that has what it takes to defeat the defending champs, it's Darryl Sutter's squad. The Ducks are a really good team that would probably take the Bruins to seven, but I don't think they can hang with LA or Chicago in The Playoffs. They don't really have a Keith or a Doughty. They roll four solid lines, but Getzlaf and Perry are their team. Their goalie is a rookie who's looking to rebound from his first taste of postseason adversity, and the backup, well, he lost the starting job to said rookie (though, he did look really good in relief of said rookie in Game 6, so I'm interested to see how that whole thing plays out). Their one Cup was won on the backs of Neidermayer and Pronger, and they seem to be in denial about it.

Yeah, this kinda blows. So much promise, and now Ovie's gone, and I missed him. Why is that machine beeping? Guy punches father in the face (?). There's three teams left: Blackhawks, Kings, Bruins. Just as in Mortal Kombat the movie, "One of [these] three will decide the outcome of the tournament." Between these three, the Kings are the obvious good guys. But I think I'm going to pull for the Rangers, if only because my dad scheduled hernia surgery on the same day roots for 'em. I'd say it's about time Lundqvist carries a team to the Cup and wins the Conn Smythe. But srsly, Chicago's gonna repeat.

Well gee, I wonder who's gonna win this series.

IMHO...if the Sharks move a key player, it'll be for a player of comparable value. They're not going to start selling off their core for futures. They're going to try to make a very good roster even better. So, I don't really see how we'd land Burns or Pavelski or Vlasic.

I'm gonna go all Controversial now and say Dustin Byfuglien should be at or near the top of our list.

You know who'd be great? Patric Hornqvist.

When Strader said the winner would be facing Anaheim, that's when this new divisional playoff format finally truly clicked for me. This is how it should be. Divisional rivalries.

With the Sharks 4 games from elimination...

Personally, I don't think handedness is an especially big deal. Could we really use a righty or two? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, a good defenseman is a good defenseman.

Names that come straight to mind: Boyle Byfuglien Doughty Girardi Karlsson Letang Pietrangelo Seabrook Shattenkirk Subban Weber Honorable mentions: Faulk Jones Trouba Faulk is very high on my list of pipe dream acquisitions.

I think we have to realize it's not the '80s anymore. The (Chuck) Norris Division, where all you had to was look at a guy the wrong way and you'd have an epic line brawl - those days are long gone. You see it resurface now and then, here and there - but, for the most part, Jungle Law doesn't govern like it used to. The game has changed. Speed and skill and depth and cerebral line matchups and efficient, controlled, effective physicality are the new school. Standards have changed. The societal landscape has changed. Moral and ethical lines have shifted. We are, for better or for worse (for better), more informed, more careful, more politically correct. Also, today's average NHLer is bigger, stronger, faster, more physically imposing than he's ever been. The biggest thing, though? I think it's simply the heightened pressure to win. It's the parity. Which is better: Having a protector, or not having a protector? If it were that simple, we'd all take the protector. But in the age of parity and the cap, the question tends to be something closer to "Do I want a defensively responsible guy who can kill penalties and maybe take that faceoff in our end when we're up a goal with 30 seconds left and the other team has pulled the goalie and we just iced the puck - or do I want a guy who you know what never mind I want the guy who's killing penalties and taking that d-zone faceoff." Parity means two points are never free. You have to bring your A game every night and ice the roster that gives you the best chance of securing those two points or taking a game in a playoff series. If your judgment as a coach or general manager slips even a little, it can be a five-game losing streak, which might cost you a playoff berth. Because it's that competitive now.

To be fair, ice hockey has always been one of the more dangerous pro team sports, for a variety of reasons. Blocking shots, for example. That's ludicrously dangerous, but it really is just part of the game. I see an osteopathic doc, largely for hockey-related issues. He's hardcore Canadian, but he feels the game - even the cleanest check - is profoundly damaging to the body. Slip on the ice and fall on your ass, that could cause you problems in the long run. Someone whacks you in the head with a high stick, that could be a lot more than "Yeah, he kinda clipped me a bit. But my head is still attached to my body, so it's all good." It's a brutal, brutal, brutal, brutal sport. Beautiful and awesome and at times even artistic, yes. But, without question, brutal.

Malik with a good rant about all the blatant assholery we've seen in just the first round: http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/georges-rant-what-the-hell-is-going-on-spearing-and-kneeing-old-time-hockey I think this is what happens when you set a ridiculous precedent, namely $5,000. If you asked a hockey-savvy middle-income family if they'd be willing to shell out $5,000 for a chance at having their family name on the Cup, they'd probably consider it. If you asked a better-than-average National Hockey League player, who makes $5,000 every time he blinks, if he'd pay that price for a 50-50 shot at injuring a key opposing player in the playoffs, he might not think, "Hey, that's a great deal!" But he probably wouldn't think, "Wow, I really can't afford to do that."

I've been phrasing things really poorly lately. Must be the Wings withdrawl. What I meant was, it's been great-and-terrible (or terrible-and-great) for Kings fan, and equally great-and-terrible for Sharks fans. Though, there's probably more pressure on the Sharks here. Imagine if the Kings pull this off. Man oh man.