Little thing I've noticed:
Both sides of this argument have made and continue to make valid points regarding the pros and cons of having an enforcer in the lineup, but the pro-enforcer folks seem to concede the valid points that are brought up during the debate, whereas the anti-enforcer folks rarely concede anything.
Brad May was a valuable piece of this team while he was needed, and when we got our regular players back from injury, he was no longer needed. Not because of his style of play, but because we had too many players under contract and we needed space. IIRC, May was brought in towards the end of training camp without much realistic expectation of making the regular lineup, and only got a contract after Franzen went down with what appeared to be a season-ending injury. I'm grateful for his contributions when he was in the lineup, I'm glad he wasn't claimed when he was sent down, and I firmly believe he will get some playing time in the playoffs, especially if we have another deep run, but he is a role player and nothing more.
How many fighting majors have the Red Wings had this season aside from May? I can name a few, Ericsson had one against the Ducks and I think against the Sharks, Janik had a couple during his brief stint (which he lost if memory serves), Eaves vs. Versteeg which was a great fight, Abdelkader fought Corey Fairy, and I think Cleary had a fight too. Does fighting have its place in hockey? Absolutely. Does having an enforcer directly correlate with fewer injuries and/or star players being roughed up? Debatable. Are having a tough team and having a skilled team mutually exclusive? No, and that is where I think most of the partisan debaters are mistaken. You can be tough and not fight, and and you can be European and not be a wuss.
Newbury's first shift this year was the greatest Red Wings shift of all time.