Zetts

I dislike how it always seems the Wings have to be criticized for something around here. But despite the OP's obnoxious tone, there is a reasonable point. A fourth line of Miller-Emmerton-Holmstrom makes me gag. I don't think that the answer has to be players known for toughness, but some sort of theme/identity for the line would be nice. For example, a line like Mursak - Helm - Abdelkader would be great despite not having huge, bruising checkers or a legitimate fighter (ignoring the fact that one of Helm or Abdelkader will be playing a bigger role than fourth-line duty).

That is one creepy thought. ...as is that. Usually you donate to someone to grow out their moustache for the month. As was mentioned above, the money goes towards prostate cancer research. You can donate at www.movember.com/.

He's looked great tonight, despite not having a point yet.

What year was that? ...I don't recall it. Must have been before I was born.

Can we please keep this about coaching, not f**king Hudler? I know line combos relate to coaching, but Hudler's lack of ice time is not the reason for our problems. We don't need a debate about the merits of Happy AGAIN.

Earn their multi-million dollar paycheques? And nobody has given up on anything. Or at least, I haven't. I'm still pissed though.

We're not exactly overflowing with talented prospects or high picks that we can trade. Sure, we've got a few, but due to the limited number, we can't just keep trading them. I'm fine with waiting for the offseason to get what we need. Holland has never left us without a competitive team. The teams selling at the deadline don't want Hudler/Ericsson/Miller/etc. They're usually looking to get decent young talent (or reasonably good draft picks). This year might be a bit different though, as we have the cap space, and are about to become very, very desperate for defence.

There's a good chance the Wings could push for Suter, but we simply don't have enough to offer (that we're willing to part with) to get BOTH Parise and Suter. I think we'll have to chose to either address this year's most glaring need (offence) or our future need (defence). I'm willing to bet we'll be pushing for the future. I agree that we'll try to shop Hudler, but I'm not sure what we would get. The Wings don't usually trade their own players for picks, and I highly doubt you could use Hudler as part of the deal to land Suter. I guess we can hope though. Ericsson is staying too, given his recent contract. To get Suter, we'd probably have to give up something like Smith, a reasonable offensive prospect and a first? I don't know, that's a guess. Some years are overpayments, some underpayments at deadline time.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2011/11/red_wings_mike_commodore_to_ma.html I know that the lines get mixed up a lot, but looking at this fourth line.....it's just SO painful. What is that line supposed to provide?

No buyer's remorse. He's been fine and will continue to improve as he gets better adjusted. However as far as potentially bad signings, Buffalo might be a little worried with the start of Leino. 27 million / 6 years. 1 goal, 1 assist, -4 in 10 games.

What's your point? Everyone knew he was having a bad start statistically, that's not really in question. You could also project Phil Kessel to an 82 goal season right now. His numbers will improve. I'm not sure if we'll ever see the 90+ point Zetterberg again, but he'll still return to looking like an elite player.

The whole team got lit up last night. Let's not use that as an excuse to single out a third pairing defenseman who has been otherwise fine this year. He's also been more physical this year, although I do agree that he could use his size much more effectively. Edit: He's definitely not worth the contract right now either, but we're 6 games into it. I'll hold off on judgment for a while.

I'm glad that the Wings are trying new things - that was the whole point of the new, young assistant coaches. Likely it was one of their ideas, and no, it's not really working. But I like that the Wings are trying to be innovative. It might not work now, but we're still winning games, so I'm fine with them experimenting. Some different looks may serve us well in the playoffs, especially if we find some new things during the year that really click for the players.

Bad news about Cleary: http://www.freep.com/article/20110929/SPORTS05/110929033/1053/sports05 Edit: The article also mentions Commodore and Datsyuk being injured, although neither injury seems particularly serious.

Maybe in theory. In Wisniewski's recent suspension, Shanahan referenced suspensions going back to March 2008.

Yeah...no. Not going to happen.

Does he dive? (We all know somebody was going to say it.)

I wouldn't read so much into the pairings as to say Kindl will be ahead of Commodore on the depth chart during the season. Having said that, where is the Kindl hate coming from? He improved a lot last year, and he's just getting started in the league. Kindl isn't some throw-away scrub, he still has potential to develop and maybe be a second-pairing D one day. If he improves as much as he did last year, he'll actually be reasonably valuable.

I'm not sure if this has been posted on these forums before...but apparently somebody made a Jiri Hudler motivational song: I actually have a fair bit of hope for him this year though. I really do believe that he'll be back at pre-Russia form.

Despite the notoriety for his huge hits, Kronwall is greatly under-rated outside of Detroit. He's a stud, and in a hypothetical world (as Kronwall will NOT be traded), Hemsky would just be a starting point to acquire him.

If they over-achieve they'll squeak into eighth. I don't see them winning a round though. No high-end goal scoring, extremely mediocre defense and questionable goaltending. They just spent money (in arbitrary ways IMO) to get up to the cap floor. There's no reason to think that the roster will click what-so-ever. Could it? I guess, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't think I can really give him a grade. The premise of this off-season seems to be that we're waiting until next off-season, and are trying to hold out until then. So if Holland does well next off-season: A+. He made small sacrifices short term, and still iced a competitive team so that we could become elite again in the future. And we won't be screwed if the cap does in fact go down. If Holland fails next off-season: C-. He wasted a year and did nothing. Obviously that's ridiculously unfair. He can't see into the future, and is acting right now on what he feels will give them the best long-term shot. But hockey is all about unrealistic expectations as we've seen all over these boards, and it's part of his job to figure out these problems. I am quite nervous about next off-season though. I would have liked to get Lidstrom's replacement (i.e. a true number 1) to plug into Rafalski's spot, so he'd have a year to click, and then sign a #2 to replace Rafalski next off-season. Sadly, the options sucked. The way it stands (assuming Lidstrom retires), we're going to need a couple of big signings next year, because a player like White won't cut it once both Lidstrom and Rafalski are gone. And two such significant moves at once are hard to get right. God I hope Lidstrom stays one more year after this.

I assure you, if this somehow happened, Boston would have to throw in a roster player of substance. Tampa is a talented team that's finally seeing success. I highly doubt Stevie wants such a large step backwards.

That's fair...and entirely true. I look at St. Louis's losses as a trend over a decade though. This is not an example of them being successful for a long time, then for one or two years losing money - it's an established trend that to me shows a deeper underlying cause as opposed to a sudden event like a tsunami. However, you may be right. We seem to (at least somewhat) agree. We just come to different conclusions. I can't think of a time that a team lost money for a decade (ok, they gained 1m one year) and then became successful. The lockout did admittedly help St. Louis, but not enough.

Congrats, you day trade. ...anyone can. I was referring to someone who actually knows what they're doing (i.e. a professional). If you're a day trader that puts *NO* value in past profits...LOL. Again, they're clearly not everything, but you can't say they're not relevant in predicting future profits. I have a degree in Economics, and my capstone paper was based on team values. That, to me, is more significant than day trading. I hate giving "credentials" online though. I could claim to have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, so I don't see how day trading makes your point. You didn't say to ignore profits...yet they don't predict future gains? Then why can't we ignore them? And again, why didn't anyone think after the NHL took over Phoenix that they suddenly could make more than Detroit? That was a change. Can changes alter profits? Yes. Obviously. It won't suddenly turn a sink-hole like St. Louis profitable though. Their market won't allow it. But ultimately, clearly neither of us will change the other's mind - I'm not going to continue with this conversation. Continue ignoring the past performance of businesses and a market's potential. Plop an NFL team in Edmonton. Why not? Edit: Fun fact from that previously mentioned research - Over the past decade about 36% of operating income of NHL franchises was solely predicted by the operating income of the previous year.