Zetts

We both know that's a ridiculous example, as that's an extreme exception. It's painfully naive to ignore past profits. I assure you, stock traders observe past profits. Does it determine everything? Obviously not. But it's stupid to say they're meaningless. If you were to read my posts: They COULD turn around, but they LIKELY won't. You really think all markets have a profitable potential? Great. Call me when Phoenix's profits surpass that of the Wings. Because market potential (a HUGE determinant of past profits) is clearly meaningless. So hell, it's 50-50 that could happen next year.

Yes...past profits do actually predict future gains (to an extent obviously). A good portion of profits/losses is based off of market potential. That has to do with the ability to generate revenue within that market. The portion of St. Louis's value attributed to the market (in 2010) was 62m. That's low. As a point of reference, that's 17m less than the Edmonton Oilers. The lowest market valuation that made money was LA's 73m in 2010.

The economy that the Blues operate in is their reality. They're not going to be re-located any time soon, and thus, whether it's based off of speculation or not, it transfers into a loss of value for the owner - the reason is irrelevant. As for inflation/time passing, that's again irrelevant, as it's a real (as opposed to nominal) loss that the owners experience. And the operating income losses are yearly deficits. That means that every year, the owner puts out more money than he gets back in. The biggest gain is 1 million in the past decade. Could they turn around? I suppose it's possible. I wouldn't invest in something that's lost 107 million over 9 seasons though.

St. Louis Blues yearly operating income: 2001: -9 million 2002: -18 million 2003: -29 million 2004: -29 million 2005: n/a 2006: +1 million 2007: -5 million 2008: -9 million 2009: -3 million 2010: -6 million http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_St-Louis-Blues_314286.html Yeah...I would not make that "investment" whether it's improving or not (which is debatable). Edit: Further to this, the value of the Blues actually fell 11 million between 2009 and 2010.

I think that we have to keep in mind that this is a different market from when players such as Datsyuk or Zetterberg signed their contracts. 7.4 isn't that much for a player of his caliber anymore, although obviously Stevie would like him to take less. I'd certainly be concerned about his poor showing in the playoffs, but based on the market, he's definitely worth at least 7.4. Having said that, I wouldn't blame Stevie for dealing him either, particularly due to Lecavalier's contract. Just because values above 7.4 are fair doesn't mean that it's what's right for the team.

I think that it's reasonable for me to ask. I understand that you're asking others' opinions, but if you start out by asserting that this is a perception of Babcock by some, obviously people are going to ask questions. In answer to your question, yes, I have heard that Babcock is disliked. My sources are entirely hearsay / online posts similar to yours though. Thus my personal curiosity. If someone doesn't give further elaboration, I just assume that he's disliked by his players like many other coaches in the league and leave it at that.

My first question would be what your friend's source is.

I definitely agree in theory. But I'm still so apprehensive about this upcoming season...there's so much uncertainty about how the D will perform. I specifically recall Rafalski being out for a bit last season, our play taking a big drop and then suddenly turning around when he came back. I think that his outlet passes were severely underrated. I hope that I'm just being irrational though and focusing on one (hopefully non-representative) time. Edit: Although another promising thing is the absence of McCrimmon...we'll see how that plays out.

Don't forget Clarke signing Kesler to that offer sheet not long after the lockout ended. It's actually funny looking back...that offer was for just under 2m, and was considered a largely inflated offer sheet. Imagine if the Canucks hadn't matched and had just let him walk.

I dunno...I guess it's good for depth. I don't really care if it's on a one year basis. Here's my complaint though. I love the Wings, but these "filler" players are becoming annoying. At first I understood that it was due to the salary cap, but as time goes on and it seems to be affecting us more and taking up more roster space, I'm a little less convinced. Particularly given the cap space we now have. Players like Bertuzzi, Hudler, Miller (because he's redundant, not because he's useless) and (sadly, as of recently) Holmstrom. These are players that don't necessarily hurt the roster, but they're not actively helping us win. It feels like they're just...there. They adequately fill a roster spot, and as is so important to Holland, we haven't over-paid them. I understand that this won't change this season, so why not add another one in Drury? But after the contracts of Bertuzzi, Holmstrom and Hudler are up, I want them all gone. And if we sign Drury, I want him gone too. (Sorry to Holmstrom, who is one of my favorite Wings of the past decade, but it's time to retire.) Those are my hopes for next off-season. And I will be so pissed if Drury screws that up.

That's not really how it works. Why are you even mentioning the round in which roster players were drafted? If that mattered, then Kronwall (1st round), Lidstrom (3rd round), Zetterberg (7th round) and Datsyuk (6th round) combined wouldn't be enough to match those magical 4 first round picks. Edit: My personal opinion is that Fil and 2 1st rounders should do it. Maybe also a mid-level prospect. That is IF the Coyotes actually wanted to trade him.

I don't know if we're necessarily that much worse off, but our losses are certainly magnified by the gains of teams that are clearly pushing to win (i.e. San Jose and LA). I really would have liked Gagne to replace (or maybe even upgrade on) the lost offense when we, in my mind, traded one of Hudler or Fil for some defenseman somewhere. I was thinking similarly to what SJ did...trade for Burns, then sign Handzus to replace Setoguchi. Apparently this isn't going to be that type of off-season though.

Not to be a dick, but your posts aren't even coherent.

Oh crap. They just keep getting better. Handzus isn't amazing, but they're still bolstering their goal-scoring ability. Lord I hope we have a chance at Gagne...and have plans to improve our D obviously.

Are you going to say the same thing when the Wings sign a backup? It doesn't address any of those needs either. Yes, what you mentioned is important, but it doesn't mean that we don't need other players too. From reports, Holland called him and said he had 15 minutes to decide. The Wings didn't put piles of time or money into this signing. We just added depth. Edit: To add to this, I recall Drew Miller being picked up off of waiver from Tampa (at a time that they were still not so great). He's turned out well. Just because one team wasn't the right fit, doesn't mean that he's useless.

Holland, you sack of CRAP, why didn't you brainwash him into coming here anyways??!!!111 ...Oh wait, are we all acting sane again?

I don't see it happening due to the Miller signing - that would be too many forwards (remembering Mursak and Emmerton are out of options). Not that I'd mind a player like that, it's just clearly not in the plans.

You're missing someone from the Central in the top 3... I'd put Chicago at #3, Kings at number 4, bumping the Wings to 5. Edit: Of course this is ridiculously premature too.

This is exactly what's so frustrating. The Sharks have edged us out the last 2 years. Then we lose a top pairing defenseman and they gain one. I really hope that Kenny has some sort of trade for a D planned, because the Sharks have been HUGE winners with their changes. They're going to be scary next year. Edit: Oh, and the losers: Florida. Yes, they've gained many NHL-caliber players, something which their roster previously didn't have. But they're over-paid and it just shows that they need to get to the cap floor. The players are odds and ends...Florida is just randomly throwing over-paid second-tier players into their roster.

Ignoring for a second that Eklund is full of crap... I really feel (and have for some time) that the Wings are likely going to get a top 4 d through trade. Holland won't overpay, and there's only 3 or 4 free agents that could fill a top 4 roll, all of who will want a lot. Regardless of the fact that Wiz is a pretty solid defender, he is NOT worth the 5-5.5m I'm guessing he'll get on the market. He's just the flavor of the day on LGW. Similarly, Ehrhoff isn't worth the 6+ he'll probably end up with from somebody. We know that Holland will get a top 4 d...he always ensures that the Wings are a contender, and with our current d we clearly are not. We'll likely be saying goodbye to some picks/prospects and quite possibly Filppula (or hopefully Hudler, but that's wishful thinking).

Thanks - I probably should have expanded more in my initial post, but at least I was able to convey my thinking. I think for the most part, picks in the first 2 rounds are interviewed, but from there on out I imagine that many players aren't. I certainly do empathize - these kids are under a lot of pressure and I'm sure that at their age few can fully articulate what they want to say. Grimaldi got much more attention then I think he was expecting due to his size. I do agree - I'm curious as to how important personality is when evaluating a prospect. Obviously we've seen that something like poor work ethic is not looked at favourably...but that's a bit different as it has a direct impact on the on-ice success. Painfully false claims. I won't say any more or this thread will be derailed. PM me, or here has been a thread where pretty much any time a homosexuality question came up it could be discussed.

Before becoming so hostile to someone who does in fact like the player, perhaps you should a) read my post just above yours and b) read the articles about him. He referenced his religion much, MUCH more than just in a circumstance about his tie. And regardless of any of our personal feelings, there are some reports that scouts are looking at it. You can argue whether that is fair or not, but I feel that nothing that I've personally said has been either discriminatory or judgmental of him. If you feel otherwise, please let me know which comment about him did anything other than present BOTH sides of the issue for consideration. Edit: Also, I didn't mean to say that nobody knew Rafalski was religious, just that he didn't make it the center of conversations. Wearing a cross is irrelevant. I haven't heard anyone judge Grimaldi for being Christian. It's for his extensive expression of it, that SOME people are commenting.

To clarify, I'm not the one who said that he was a locker room cancer and I also did not say that it made him a bad team mate. I appreciate that some of the Wings are religious, but none of them express it on even close to the same level as this guy. Not that it necessarily makes him good or bad, but we should be clear that he is MUCH more open about his religion than most. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Panthers-pick-Rocco-Grimaldi-8217-s-leap-of-fai?urn=nhl-wp8027 Reading some articles, he does seem like a great role model - I actually like him more and more. However, frequently discussing your religion doesn't necessarily make people too happy. If you ask what someone had for breakfast, and their response references their religious beliefs, it gets old. I don't actually know if that's the case with him - some signs do seem to point to it, but obviously I don't know him as a person. That's why I didn't say that he's a locker room cancer, etc, etc. I mean, half of the discussions of him in the draft reference his religion due to his frequent comments about it himself. http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/rossmoor-nhl-hopeful-discusses-roles-of-his-height-and-religion-in-todays-draft That quote to me shows that his religion likely won't influence his play. But clearly it's not just a few posters here looking at this...scouts have concerns about it too.

The way I look at it is that there's nothing wrong with being very religious. But there's a key distinction between the two. Rafalski made it to his retirement with nobody having a clue about it - he kept it as part of his personal life. That's good. In contrast, this guy couldn't even make it through his draft without not only making it very apparent, but using it to judge people. (Admittedly I didn't see this, I'm going off of what people here are saying.) They're two very different cases.

Haha, understandable. I'm really looking forward to seeing him play too. I hope he proves to be ready for the NHL and lives up to the hype. Further link about Smyth here. Looks like it's quite near to a done deal. Edit: To further clarify, Gord Miller's tweet: