• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulwoodsfan

  • Rank
    4th Line Grinder
  1. Datsyuk was hugely respected by his peers. They don't vote for the Hall, but their opinions are widely known in the hockey community. IMO Datsyuk goes in within the first 3-4 years of being eligible.
  2. signed

    I would have been OK with him walking, but maybe this is a reaction to Filppula/Weiss -- overpay the guy you know rather than the guy you don't know who will replace him, and hope that in a year or two he isn't considered overpriced for what he brings.
  3. We are hardly overloaded in goal. We have one young goalie we know can play (Mrazek). Whether any of Coreau, Patterson et al pan out is anyone's guess. It never hurts to freshen the pipeline at that incredibly unpredictable position.
  4. I've asked this before and I think it's worth asking again. With Mr. I. possibly out of the day-to-day operations of the team due to age and heath, how do we know the decision-makers still intend to spend whatever it takes, the way he did? Maybe the next generation would rather maximize profits than spend to and beyond the limit every year. Taking a big contract we have to pay in exchange for one we don't have to pay (Pronger for Datsyuk) presumes we don't mind spending money and getting nothing in return. I believe Mr. I. was that way, but don't know that's the case for whoever is making the ultimate financial decisions these days.
  5. The market for cap hits has started to get set. Devils took on Marc Savard's salary PLUS got a 2018 second-rounder for two minor leaguers, one of them 27 years old. I'd say that indicates we're going to have to give up something of value along with Datsyuk, and won't get much of value back.
  6. I remain worried that with Mike Illitch's influence on things possibly waning due to age and health, the actual decision makers in the org may not be as willing to spend to the max each year as he was. The idea the Illitchs would order KH to trade a contract that doesn't have to be paid so that they can use that money on someone else presupposes that they want to spend money and aren't interested in saving where it's possible to do so. I'm not so sure about that.
  7. Compared to the first three-four months of the season. In the late stages and even when he was playing fairly well in the playoffs, he was surrendering more and bigger rebounds than earlier in the season, and some of his angles were terrible. I agree he's far from fully formed but given the trajectory he had been on, to me that's regression and the coach bears some responsibility for it.
  8. I'm surprised at the surprise over Bedard. As I posted after the first round, Howard is horrendous at playing the puck, and a lot of technical flaws emerged in Mrazek's game this season. Rebound control was a problem even when he was winning, and his angles went to hell when he was slumping. Bedard has had six or seven years to improve Howard, and it hasn't happened. And Mrazek seemed to regress. Time for a change, good on whomever (Holland or Blashill) made that call.
  9. No seven-year deals, period.
  10. I don't blame Mrazek, and in fact I like him a lot. But I feel we may not be getting good enough coaching of our goaltenders from Jim Bedard. Both of our guys have -- and in Howard's case has always had -- some technical flaws in their game. Mrazek gets caught out of position and takes wrong angles at times. Howard is horrific at handling the puck. All of our coaches should be under a microscope and I think we might be able to trade up at the back end, at least.
  11. Aside from roster moves, I think Jim Bedard has to be looked at closely. I'm not convinced he is a good enough goalie coach. He has been in that role for 100 years. We've had some decent goaltending along the way, but we need Mrazek to take a step forward to achieve his full potential. Is Bedard the best man for that job?
  12. GDT

    It will be a complete shock if any lineup changes are made. Last game we got the matchups we wanted and the result was TB had all of seven shots on goal in the last two periods. Why would Blashill insert a guy who hasn't played in weeks and can't play a defensive game into the lineup after that performance? Count on it -- we will roll the same lines, get the same matchups and AA will get the lowest or second-lowest amount of TOI. And even when we win again, LGRW will be filled with complaints about AA's ice time, Andersson dressing, line combos and so on.
  13. Six out of 14 on that list are "bad contract," "stupid contract" or "overpaid." But here's the thing -- all contracts, including bad or stupid ones, set market rates. Those are all comparables DD's agent will look at. He won't care whether the guy should be paid that much, he'll just care that the guy is being paid that much. If some of those guys are overpaid, maybe DD is better than them and therefore should be paid as much or more. That's the starting point his agent will bring to negots.
  14. Well, we'll see (if he actually follows through on leaving). I will be shocked if we are able to get anything for the contract.
  15. Sorry but I disagree (obviously). I wish that were so but I fully expect we're going to have to offer a sweetener. Teams will know we are over a barrel on this and won't do us any favours.