A new netminder?

[Z is next captain! 0]

We should see if we can get Backstrom for a second round pick. Or Craig Anderson for a third. And we can throw in Ozzie to give them a bench warmer.

As bad as he has played this year, that would be so disrespectfull to osgood. He has been a big part of our team(minus when he was dumped a few years back for legace)

His number better be retired when his careers over. I don't give a s*** whether or not he has put up HOF numbers or not, wait on second thought....... 3 cups, Red WIngs all time winninest playoff goaltender. 2nd in wins(within our organization behind Sawchuk.

That alone deserves his number to be retired

Edited February 16, 2009 by Z is next captain!

[Dano33 41]

We should see if we can get Backstrom for a second round pick. Or Craig Anderson for a third. And we can throw in Ozzie to give them a bench warmer.

Backstrom for a second will NEVER happen, and Anderson is not the answer.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

The Wings looking to trade a mid-paid player makes perfect sense, but only if they are doing it to dump some salary, or only get a player back who will be an UFA at year's end. They will need to dump some salary if they are serious about singing Hossa.

Move a mid-teir player for an RFA. Qualify him and hope that he signs an offer sheet. If that player is a goalie, maybe it would work, but it is a lot of risk.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Here are the facts:

1. Our goals for is the best in the league.

2. Our goals against is 19th in the league, and only better than 2 current playoff teams.

3. We are going to lose at least one forward next season regardless of whether we win 1 or 16 playoff games.

Considering that, it makes all the sense in the world to give up one of Hudler, Franzen, or Filppula in exchange for Backstrom. Why Backstrom? Because he is a legitmate starter and a clear upgrade in goaltending. Why would the Wild do this? Heres a good article to give you an idea of the Wild's perspective: Star Tribune Journalist Talks about Wild's Deadline Possibilities

I've gotten past the point where I care about the specific names that compose this roster. I'd hate to lose Hudler, but if thats what it takes to upgrade our goaltending, then trade him. Same thing with Franzen or Filppula.

Now, these aren't necessarily facts per se, but they are logical statements:

1. The Red Wings won without Hossa last year. Even if they trade ONE forward, they will still be better offensively than they were last year.

2. The reason its a scary thought to trade one of our forwards to begin with is because we need to score a lot of goals to win games. If we have a better goaltender that can stop more goals than our goaltenders now, we will not need to score nearly 4 goals a game to win, which furthers the idea that losing a forward at the deadline wouldn't cost us.

3. Whether you think the problem with our goals against is an Osgood issue or defense issue, a better goaltender is going to stop more pucks regardless of whether our problem is defensive or goaltending.

Now, let me reiterate, we are going to lose a forward in 4 months time regardless of which forwards are re-signed and regardless of our playoff performance.

I think the idea that we should wait to trade a forward in the off-season because it would "hurt our depth up front" is bunk. Its counter-intuitive when our offense is ridiculously good without an extra forward and our goaltending is an issue. Would you prefer a 2nd round pick and a prospect in July because we traded Hudler or Filppula or would you prefer a better chance at a Stanley Cup? Personally, I think its ridiculous to prefer the one over the other. Even if we don't win the cup after making a proposed move like this, at least we wouldn't be left wondering what would've happened if we'd fixed our most glaring weakness by slightly reducing our strength.

As a sidenote or two, to round out the argument, with the LTIR we've accumulated, we could add Backstrom's pro-rated salary regardless of whether we shed 3M in cap space or 1M in cap space. Also, a removal of one of Franzen, Filppula, or Hudler only guarantees one of Leino or Helm - likely Helm - a full-time spot in the forward lineup, which is in no way a bad thing. Finally, the Wings aren't going to get the best value possible for trading any forward when the rest of the NHL's GMs know we have our hands tied by the salary cap. See Quincey.

Finally, I think Holland should make this deal on deadline day, and if they think trading Conklin would be disrespectful to Conklin, then they should keep all three goalies, which would be possible with the removal of the roster limit. Is it a radical idea? Yes. But the Wings are anything but conventional, and if anyone team can handle it, its this squad. Retaining Conklin means Conklin still has a legit shot on a stanley cup team. Regardless of how many games Conklin plays down the stretch, if the Wings win the cup, hes got his name on it. With Osgood, the issue is similar. As an aging veteran whose head has been kept above water by this Wings team all season, hes not getting the boot. Hes not being waived, traded, or bought out, despite the fact that many GMs would consider him deserving of that. He, too, if the Wings win the cup, will have his name on it, regardless of how many games he plays down the stretch as well. Both Osgood and Conklin have spent enough seasons as a back-up to know how to handle the situation.

Edited February 16, 2009 by YoungGuns1340

[Guest MrSandMan]

If Osgood does not show an improvement before March 4th, I think you have to strongly consider bringing in another goalie.

Why would they have to trade their entire system to do so?

Last year Huet, as an impending UFA went for a 2nd round pick - that's it.

Here are the impending UFA goaltenders:

If things do not change, you have to start considering other options.

Can any new goalie walk into any dressing room, suit up and play stellar game after game? Or do they need time to "work" into the system?

I honestly don't see Holland making any goalie moves regardless the situation (aside from a Long Term injury)

[Guest MrSandMan]

Here are the facts:

Oh great

[C-TownWing 0]

If we give this any thought - the player is either Filppula or Kronwall ($2.5-3.5m).

Brodeur has a no trade clause, so I do not give that any credibility whatsoever.

Lehtonen is making $3m this year and is an RFA at the end of the season - Wings could afford this.

Backstrom is $3.1m and an impending UFA - wings could afford.

Rolosan is a $3.667m cap hit and impnding UFA - affordable.

Toskala is $4m and signed through 2010 -- Too expensive (but still affordable) and very little flexibility. I can't see the wings taking this one on.

A couple key problems:

1) We are stuck with Osgood until 2011, for better or worse... unless he is traded. Because his contract went into affect after the age of 35, even if he retires or is sent down to the minors, his salary is still on the books. Luckily, his $1.4m cap hit is not bad for a backup. But you have to carry 3 goaltenders, send Conklin down (and he would most likely be claimed) or trade Conklin as well.

2) Niklas Kronwall or Filppula, both young and playoff proven, signed long term to good contracts -- traded for a rental? Plus picks or prospects? There is no way and Detroit is completey hosed in that deal.... unless those picks and prospects are coming from the other team. The only player worth that is Brodeur, who is signed until 2012 at $5.2m per year. But in order to afford that, ignoring the tiny probability NJ would want to trade Brodeur, or that Brodeur would waive his NTC, is to trade both Kronwall and Filppula. Though I suppose it might also work, cap-wise, if you trade Filppula and Lilja or Kronwall and Samuelsson (or Hudler) -- but that is not exactly exciting from a Devils point of view.

Great post.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that we're probably going to have to dump salary in light of the Hossa/Franzen/Hudler situation, Filppula and Kronwall are the two names that come up for this most frequently due to cap number and lack of NTC, and making a one-sided trade for a contract that comes off the books 7/1 is the most realistic way to make that happen. I'd love Lehtonen or Backstrom as a rental if it solidifies our goaltending and helps us clear cap space for next year.

Only problem as far as I'm concerned is point #1, we'd almost have to carry 3 Gs in that case.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Oh great

Don't worry. Your opinion doesn't have any value.

[the_winged_wheel 3]

what about Mike Smith

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Can any new goalie walk into any dressing room, suit up and play stellar game after game? Or do they need time to "work" into the system?

Huet did. Roloson did. Mason did. Ellis did. Luongo did. Bryzgalov did.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

what about Mike Smith

TB won't trade him. He'd have great stats if TB wasn't a bad team. Hes been one of their best players, and was the centerpiece in the Richards deal. Hes also cheap. It would hurt them more than help them to trade him.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Don't worry. Your opinion doesn't have any value.

And yours does? Get a clue, french-fry.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

And yours does? Get a clue, french-fry.

Saying that the Wings have the best offense in the NHL and the 19th "best" goals against average are facts - those which Sandman were referring to. Thats not opinion.

Maybe you would like one of my clues? I have many.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Saying that the Wings have the best offense in the NHL and the 19th "best" goals against average are facts - those which Sandman were referring to. Thats not opinion.

Maybe you would like one of my clues? I have many.

Everyone's opinion has value. Your "clues" and personality have no value.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Everyone's opinion has value.

Then he ought to express them instead of clipping the whole essay to post an emoticon.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Then he ought to express them instead of clipping the whole essay to post an emoticon.

Thank you. Precisely my point. I have no problem respecting a well-formulated opinion. Otherwise, it only induces petty flame wars. Wears me out.

[wingsdiehard13 33]

3. We are going to lose at least one forward next season regardless of whether we win 1 or 16 playoff games.

Now, let me reiterate, we are going to lose a forward in 4 months time regardless of which forwards are re-signed and regardless of our playoff performance.

I think the idea that we should wait to trade a forward in the off-season because it would "hurt our depth up front" is bunk. Its counter-intuitive when our offense is ridiculously good without an extra forward and our goaltending is an issue. Would you prefer a 2nd round pick and a prospect in July because we traded Hudler or Filppula or would you prefer a better chance at a Stanley Cup?

As a sidenote or two, to round out the argument, with the LTIR we've accumulated, we could add Backstrom's pro-rated salary regardless of whether we shed 3M in cap space or 1M in cap space.

For space sake, I cut out the main points.

Great post. Whether we lose a forward or draft picks it would be a good move.

[VM1138 1,921]

Brodeur is the only one on that list worth getting, and there's no way in hell we ever would.

Besides, do teams who trade goalies 2/3 through the season generally do well in the playoffs?

Our goaltending situation may not be great, but enough with thinking any other goalie in the league would be an upgrade. I said it before and I'll say it again, there are only maybe 3 goalies in the league worth taking a risk on. Otherwise it's best to stand pat with what you have in net.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Brodeur is the only one on that list worth getting, and there's no way in hell we ever would.

Besides, do teams who trade goalies 2/3 through the season generally do well in the playoffs?

Our goaltending situation may not be great, but enough with thinking any other goalie in the league would be an upgrade. I said it before and I'll say it again, there are only maybe 3 goalies in the league worth taking a risk on. Otherwise it's best to stand pat with what you have in net.

Huet was one of Washington's best players in the playoffs, and Roloson's name has been mentioned ad nauseum. But the bigger anomaly is this: teams who need to add a goaltender at the deadline almost always have holes elsewhere as well, or in general are not considered elite teams to begin with. The Red Wings are. To that, I ask

When was the last time the starter for a Top 3 NHL team was statistically the worst?

At any rate, if the "risk" is that we'd be losing a forward, the numbers posted by plenty of members here have shown that we're losing one forward - if not, two - anyways. If the "risk" is that we'd be losing potential assets (say, a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick for Filppula), then I'd suggest the bigger risk is wasting likely our best chance at the cup that we're going to have for at least the next few years. As I've posted elsewhere, next year brings essentially the same goaltending, the same defense, and weaker offense. The following year Lidstom may retire, and the likelihood that we'll be able to "replace" him is nil, as the salary cap is going down considerably, with presumptive estimates in the 40s. Not only are we likely to lose Lidstrom, but others as well.

If you want to talk risk, then I say the bigger risk is where we are now - standing a few weeks from the deadline with potentially the strongest team we'll have for a few years, and the weakest goaltending we've had in more.

Edited February 16, 2009 by YoungGuns1340

[VM1138 1,921]

I see your point. I guess if Ozzie doesn't get it together we'll just grab a goalie for the rest of this year, hopefully with some playoff experience, who lets in less than 3 goals a game. I really don't think it will help though, unless we get someone like Brodeur.

Of course, I never would have expected we'd get Hasek, Hossa, and Stuart, while not the great player like those two, was still one that had 0% chance of re-signing and Holland wrangled it.

If there was anyone in the league who could snag Brodeur and make it work, it'd be Holland.

Still don't think it would happen, but it is sort of in Holland's track record...

Ah, wishful dreaming.

[kylee 727]

id love for YoungGun's post to be legit, to think the Wild really would trade Backstrom to our team. Minny needs offense, that's no secret, but what would the Wings have to offer them in order to give up a very desirable young goalie?

one of Franzen/Filppula/Hudler? Two of them maybe? Id imagine Minnesota would want more than just one player for Backstrom.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

I see your point. I guess if Ozzie doesn't get it together we'll just grab a goalie for the rest of this year, hopefully with some playoff experience, who lets in less than 3 goals a game. I really don't think it will help though, unless we get someone like Brodeur.

Of course, I never would have expected we'd get Hasek, Hossa, and Stuart, while not the great player like those two, was still one that had 0% chance of re-signing and Holland wrangled it.

If there was anyone in the league who could snag Brodeur and make it work, it'd be Holland.

Still don't think it would happen, but it is sort of in Holland's track record...

Ah, wishful dreaming.

We might as well send Lidstrom the other way if we're talking Brodeur.

At any rate, at this point in the game, I'm not just saying the Wings should go out and get any goaltender possible. What I'm saying is they should take a long hard look at Backstrom - he's the only realistically available goaltender who is a clear-cut upgrade.

Backstrom ranks 3rd among in starters in save percentage (not including Craig Anderson), and he ranks 5th in GAA, with Fernandez and Hiller (technically back-ups) being 2 of the guys ahead of him. He also faces 26.5 shots a game. Osgood, on the other hand, faces, on average, 23.5 shots a game.

Just to give you an idea, if Backstrom had played the 31 games that Ozzie had, and had faced the 729 shots Ozzie did in that time, with Backstrom's save percentage of .926 (thats with 1248 shots against, mind you), versus Osgood's save percentage of .879, Backstrom would've statistically let in 54 goals fewer than Osgood over those 31 games. Now, I'm not saying he WOULD let in that many goals fewer, but what if he lets in just 15 goals fewer than Ozzie. With how many 1 goal games we win/lose, how many more points would we have? How many fewer goals would we need to put forth the effort to score?

And, in the spirit of hypothesis, I wonder why it is that Val Filppula saw 4:40 on the PP (more than Datsyuk's 4:08) when we played the Wild - well over 2 minutes more than he has on average with the Wings down Franzen and Holmstrom the past 2 weeks.

Edited February 16, 2009 by YoungGuns1340

[redwing_sparty 0]

backstrom would be nice. i would go ballistic if the wings took toskola. i can;t stand him and i don't see how that would be any sort of upgrade. toskola has limited playoff exp and i dont see how would he be better than conks?

Maybe he would play better on a better team where he knew he had a shot to win, but do u really want to risk money on that? not me. he lets in way too many soft goals.

[kylee 727]

backstrom would be nice. i would go ballistic if the wings took toskola. i can;t stand him and i don't see how that would be any sort of upgrade. toskola has limited playoff exp and i dont see how would he be better than conks?

Maybe he would play better on a better team where he knew he had a shot to win, but do u really want to risk money on that? not me. he lets in way too many soft goals.

for the sake of argument, Toskala and Backstrom have about the same playoff experience.

Why go after Backstrom? He might tank it in the same way Conklin or Toskala would.

[miller76 463]

I am not totally off the Osgood bandwagon yet, but I am getting there.

I am curious to see if Craig Andersons name keeps popping up here near the deadline.