Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 06:04 PM

#2652455 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on Today, 01:45 PM

I disagree with you.  Pulkinnen is not an NHL caliber player, unfortunately.  He's too one-dimensional and telegraphs his moves way too much.

Yet he has more goals than either Richards or Helm. 


It's funny because a year ago both were "untouchable" to some people around here.

No they weren't. Everyone has prospects they'd rather not trade, but that doesn't mean untouchable. Usually it's because those people think we have better trade options and/or the expected return isn't worth it.

#2651834 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 10 February 2016 - 01:03 PM

With Winnipeg re-signing Byfuglien, there is some talk about Trouba potentially being available. They have Byfuglien and Meyers locked up long term as their 1-2 punch on the right side. Trouba is an RFA at the end of this season, will be looking for a raise, and likely wants more than 3rd line minutes, so it's possible Cheveldayoff could try to move him now...


Holland should be all over this... I really have no idea how to gauge trades these days. Seems like some players are going for more than I would have expected, but more often than not, players are going for a lot less than I would have expected... Would Nyquist, Ouellet and a 1st get it done? Any way to get this done without including Mantha? I probably would if that were the sticking point, but I'd rather center the trade around Nyquist...


DeKeyser - Trouba as our top pair going forward...

Trouba is 3rd in ice time, and their top PKer. He may be too expensive for them, reportedly looking for $56M over 8 yrs, but I'm sure they'd be looking for someone who could fill his spot right away. Plus, with Buffy, Enstrom, and Stuart all over 30, they probably want some youth too, though they do have Morrissey in the system. 


Trouba for Hamonic makes almost too much sense. Similar players, Hamonic is still young and signed for 4 more years very cheap. Isles lose the cost-certainty, but get a younger player who may still take another step forward, and get rid of a player who's asked for a trade. 


But if they're confident Morrissey is close, and want to improve up front, your deal isn't bad. Maybe throw in Q to fill the short term hole.

#2651403 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 07 February 2016 - 06:10 PM


Larkin is good, he might be great in a couple years.  That doesn't change the fact that there are no good defense prospects in the system, just some guys who might be solid second pair guys some day.  Dekeyser is at best a decent #2/excellent 3rd pairing guy, not even close to elite.


Who else has had what the Wings have had in the last decade?  Chicago, LA, Boston, Pittsburgh have all been better by quite a bit.


The Wings are 2 points out of second place.  The Isles are also 2 points behind the Wings with 2 games in hand, knocking Detroit out of the playoffs entirely.  It goes back to the "good enough" mentality.


This team is not good.  It struggles to score.  There's no chemistry and little structure.  The defense is mediocre at best, the stars are aging, the support players aren't good enough, and Larkin and Mrazek are probably the only things keeping them from being well out of the playoffs right now.


Holland has lost whatever trust he built up with the Cups.  He's handed out terrible contracts, signed a string of duds in free agency, and has been paralyzed with fear of trading the next great player who comes out of nowhere, but then doesn't want to give the prospects a shot until he has no other choice.  There was zero need to sign Richards with Larkin, AA, and Mantha in the system, but he's so overcommitted to "over ripe,"  which used to be just a phrase meaning we have a lot of good vets, that he's incapable of trusting the very kids he refuses to trade.

The problems you site aren't problems that can be fixed by trading. At least not nearly as easily as you make it seem. 


I think you are so convinced that the rest of the league is beating down Kenny's door trying to give us their best players for our prospects that you can only explain the lack of trades on "fear". Even if you ignore the three prospects and three picks he's traded in the last two years, that's pure conjecture.


The only prospect that was credibly rumored to be untouchable in recent history was Smith. Maybe Mantha before last year. In hindsight you can say Smith was a mistake, but considering we were on the brink of losing most of our defense, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't have been trying to hang on to our top D prospect at the time. Nyquist and Tatar were both rumored to be in trade offers. Pulkkinen has never had the trade value some here think he does/did. Nor have any of our D prospects. Given who we have traded, I can't see why you'd think he'd be too shy about trading any of them.


There may not have been any need to sign Richards, but there was also no real need not to. I don't believe having AA or Mantha in his place changes where we are now. With Richards, we get a more or less guaranteed level of performance, plus we still have the option of bringing up AA or Mantha. 


I disagree that Holland has handed out terrible contracts or signed a string of duds. He hasn't been able to land the impact players people have wanted, and had to settle mostly for depth guys. I don't think that makes them duds. Just seems that way relative to what was hoped for. Weiss didn't work, but other than that most have done what could be reasonably expected. 


I also disagree that our support players aren't good enough. Very few teams have 4th-6th forwards as good as Tatar, Nyquist, and Abby. Bottom 6 hasn't been great this year, but it's a good group. Bottom 4 defensemen, whichever 4 we want to consider the bottom, is probably above average.


Our issues are at the top, not the middle or bottom.

#2651400 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 07 February 2016 - 04:45 PM


Based on scouting and the team's own projections.  I don't see "well, most guys drafted there don't make the NHL" as an excuse.  Holland is smart enough to know that it's extremely difficult to build a winner without high end players, they don't have those guys with the possible exception of Larkin, and he is doing nothing to address it.  Instead he hands out bad contracts, hoards his prospects, and won't let anyone leave unless they make it clear they want no part in staying.  I'm not satisfied with year after year of mediocrity, sliding into the playoffs and losing in the first round and saying"well, if this or this happened, I think we might have won that round, and after that you never know."  


Dave Dombrowski went overboard with trading and made some crap moves, but at least he was smart enough to realize that most prospects don't live up to their ceiling and moved them when the value was high to get established players in their prime.  Holland used to do that too.  Now he seems afraid that if he trades a guy like Pulkkinen he's trading away Finnish Hull like a bunch of fans say.


A couple years ago when arguing against the "everyone is untouchable" mentality, I suggested that if a guy like Jamie Benn or Tavares was available and it would cost Nyquist, Sproul, Pulk and a first then you have to do it, and I was told by several people "no way that's too much even for a guy like them.  Is there anyone who wouldn't do that deal now from the Wings perspective?


To win the Cup, you need two high end forwards and an elite defenseman, or the harder road with one elite forward, a high end defenseman, and an elite goalie.  The Wings might have one forward in Larkin, lesser possibilities in Mantha, AA, or Svechnikov, a guy who looks like he might be an elite goalie, and nobody close to that on defense.  That means at least one, and ideally two, trades need to be made.  Goalies are notoriously hard to predict, I've seen far too many have a ton of success early then fall back to earth to put too much faith in Mrazek yet.  Holland seems to be content to just sit on his hands, make some minor moves, and stand pat rather than take any risks anymore.  If you're not improving, you're going backwards, and the Wings aren't improving.

Nyquist and Tatar were never expected to be more than what they are. Jurco maybe had some high hopes when he was drafted, but has mostly been underwhelming from his first year in GR. Pulkkinen has played 60 games. 


You can say all you want that if we could trade prospects for proven stars we should do it. And you're right. But we can't. A couple years ago, Nyquist, Sproul, and Pulk wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to get Tavares. Not in the ballpark. Not even in the same state as the ballpark. By your logic, unless your drafting a "sure thing", you should trade all your picks every year for proven talent. But no one does that. Why? Because if you're trading potential for a guarantee, it takes a lot more potential.


The best you can do is something like Seguin. A guy who seems on the verge of being a star, but not quite there yet. But those deals are very rare. Maybe you can find a player on an expiring deal and hope to re-sign him. Maybe pay some potential to upgrade a roster player. But no matter what, if you're paying potential, your taking some risk. Not just risk that what you're giving up might turn out to be better than you thought, but risk that what you're getting might not be as good as you hoped. Taking risks can be fine, but they need to be appropriate. 


The reason we aren't improving isn't because Holland is too risk averse. Not too content or standing pat. Not bad contracts or hoarding prospects. It's because what we've been losing, to decline and retirement, is offsetting the improvements we've made. If you want to get rid of all the prospects and young players, but keep the declining players, you're going to get more of the same unless you get really lucky to find the next Seguin. And even if you do, you've eroded your secondary talent.


It's far too simplistic to say you need two elite forwards and a defenseman to win a Cup. For one, almost any team can say they have that, or at least borderline. You also need quality secondary players. Losing the latter in the hopes of finding the former is almost certain to fail. Maybe you do land that star, and if so finding the secondary players is easy by comparison. But it's much more likely that you fail to find a star, or a good enough star, or a star you can keep long enough to build the rest of the team.


Trying to build through the draft (without tanking) is itself a risk, but no moreso and no less likely to work than trying to build the core of a Cup team through trades. Certainly more difficult to draft a star without tanking, but drafting a star player or two or three doesn't make a Cup team either, and tanking doesn't even guarantee a star. The vast majority or rebuilds peak not far from where we are now.


We're not a mediocre team because our secondary players aren't stars. It's because our stars aren't stars. Our stars are also nearing the end of their careers. So change is inevitable, though maybe slower than some would like. If we're looking to take risks, it should be with players we are reasonably sure won't be part of our future. Maybe we decide that Pulk, Jurco, and Sproul won't fit in the future, but we're not going to get anything significant for them. That's the definition of the minor moves you're criticizing Holland for. If we also dump some salary we might get a decent rental who probably won't make much difference, and will keep us in a tight cap position. We can also be sure that Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Kronwall won't be part of our future. At least not much of it. Potentially looking at a much better return, and doesn't also require extra salary dumps. That's the risk we should be considering.

#2650442 Joakim Andesson on Waivers

Posted by Buppy on 29 January 2016 - 12:08 AM

I wish Tangradi would get a 10-game stretch on the Wings' 4th line. Let's see what a big body with some snarl can do on this team.

I'm guessing it would look a lot like his other 140+ games. 

#2650355 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 28 January 2016 - 03:50 AM

I agree that seems to be the way it's going.  But the guy who keeps doing all the winning (Bowman) seems to see it differently.  It's possible that's completely coincidental.  But every time he wins, tears down his team, builds again around the same core, and wins again, I become a little more skeptical of coincidence. 


Again, I don't want to say "let them all walk".  I'm saying that if you're WILLING to let them all walk, you may sign more favorable contracts.  And if they do walk, you just sign Lee Stempniak to a one year deal.  He'd be leading our team in points and second in goals right now BTW lol. 

I think you're mistaking necessity for philosophy. Bowman didn't have any choice but to get rid of players.Also, we're trying to do almost the exact opposite of what Chicago has done. Chicago has let some very good players go because they couldn't afford them. They've mostly replaced them with players who aren't as good because that's what they could afford, hoping that they'd be good enough. We want to get rid of players who aren't as good for players we think are very good, hoping they'll be better. Much harder to do.



I think that all of Q, E, Abby, Helm, would count as role players.  None of them are solidly top level guys.  Abby is maybe the closest, but even he has cooled demonstrably. 


And I disagree that trying to save .6 million is unimportant.  Overpaying four or five bottom end guys by .6 million could well be the difference between signing a mediocre, as opposed to a very good, top end guy (when the time is right).  You think Tampa wouldn't mind having a extra couple of million right now?  You could easily make the argument that the money they're overpaying for Filppula, Boyle, Coburn, and Carle would go a long way toward keeping Stamkos in town. 


Again, I'm not trying to disagree with you too much here because I think we're mostly on the same page.  But I think that the cap has created a situation where the number of guys competing for the contracts below 5 million dollars is growing, and you have to be careful who you're giving that money out to because that's where there are deals to be had. 

Unfortunately, you don't get the benefit of hindsight when choosing who to go after and how much to pay. Nor do we have the allure of recent Cup wins to attract free agents at bargain prices. And it's not like we haven't gone after big UFAs or been able to make good offers.


Like you said though, I don't want to disagree too much. I do think we need to cut some guys loose, and we more or less have to. But I don't like nitpicking at contracts, particularly ones that haven't happened yet. If we resign Q, Helm, and Miller it won't matter if they're a little overpaid, we won't have a roster spot to add anyone anyway. If we want to add anyone expensive, we have to shed some big salaries. Not because they're bad contracts, but simply because you can only have so many. And if we get rid of some big ones, it probably won't matter if we're overpaying a little here and there.

#2650241 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 26 January 2016 - 10:49 PM

It blows my mind that so many people are so eager to get rid of Ericsson, Smith and Quincey, as if there are three guys within the system or available via trade or free agency that can just step in and replace all three. It's not going to happen, nor should it. It's much more likely that all three return next season rather than none of them...

I'm leaning toward letting Quincey walk, and replacing him from within. I'd like to find a team that would trade for Ericsson, but it's likely not going to happen. Smith, I keep, but no one here is shocked about that... But seriously, Smith has been really good all season, and he will continue to be really good. Why would we trade a player that is finally evolving into the player we've all hoped he would? He's still prone to f*** ups, but so is every other defenseman in the league. The difference is, Smith's mistakes just get magnified to the nth degree by most around here because they're not willing to see that he's not the same defenseman he was two years ago...

So you want to get rid of two of the three, but mind-blown that some other people want to get rid of Smith as well?


Smith is playing well, but it's premature to say he's "finally evolving...". He's nowhere close to what he was hoped to be back when he was a top prospect. It was hoped and largely expected that's he'd be at least a borderline star. People thought he'd be a Calder candidate. Thought he'd be better than Brent Burns by now. Hoped he'd be a successor to Rafalski or another Kronwall. He's not even s***ty this-year-Kronwall much less Kronwall of the past. You can say those expectations were too high, and obviously they were, but you can't say he's evolving into what "we hoped" based on retroactively lowered expectations. Back in 2012 no one was looking at Smith and hoping one day he wouldn't suck. And that's the best you can really say about Smith right now.


Kindl was playing well early this year. Kindl played well back in 2013. The time for potential and evolution is past. If we're going to pin our hopes on potential, I'd rather it be a kid a few years younger and a couple million cheaper.

#2649935 And your NHL All-Star Division Captains are....

Posted by Buppy on 24 January 2016 - 09:34 PM


John Scott's looking for someone to throw down during the all star game.

Kane would be an entertaining matchup :)

#2647635 Miller Out With Lower Body Injury

Posted by Buppy on 12 January 2016 - 05:34 PM

Coincidence that the one game Miller was back, the PK was perfect?

It was two games, both perfect, and both against a pretty good PP...

#2646987 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 09 January 2016 - 05:03 PM

Not only does that offer not happen, it gets you laughed out of the room and probably fired for wasting people's time. Tampa doesn't give us Stamkos and Drouin for anything less than a package like Mantha/Larkin, Mrazek, Nyquist/Tatar, and multiple picks.

Here's a hint: If you would "do that deal in a second" that means the deal would never happen. We aren't the only team that wants to win, you know.

Did you even look at the proposed deal? It's essentially exactly what you suggest. Just with Sheahan instead of Mrazek. Considering TB has one of the best goalies in the league in his prime and one of the top goalie prospects in the league, I'd think TB would be more interested in Sheahan.


They'd probably want to ship Stamkos out west, so the chance of him coming here is about nil, but the proposed deal is a pretty good one. Maybe not the best they could get, but good.

#2646920 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

Posted by Buppy on 09 January 2016 - 12:50 AM


Oh, so now we're trading for Stamkos, Drouin, and a top end defenseman?


Great, so when we've traded away our entire team except Mrazek and Larkin, we've got a whole five players we can use to take us all the way. Good thing Yzerman has a soft spot for us and is willing to give us such a deal.  :glare:


Edit: In case I'm not making myself clear, do the math. We trade away Nyquist, Tatar, Smith, Q, E, Kindl, Helm, Howard, half a dozen prospects...all the "hot garbage" everybody loves to hate on here...and only get three people back, we're missing a few bodies. And even then nobody is going to give us their best player just because we unload a bunch of second-tier guys on them with questionable cap hits.


A few basic rules of thumb:


1) If you wouldn't immediately jump to do the deal the other way 'round, don't expect anyone to even pick up the phone to hear your offer. 


2) If someone is comfortable trading a player to your team, ask yourself: What do they know about this player, that I don't, that makes them willing to part with him? If a "highly rated prospect" is on the trade table in the first place, that should be seen as a red flag, not an opportunity.


Also, let's say someone does do a lopsided deal for us. We can't ice a half dozen Griffins to replace who we lose and expect them to keep up. I'm not saying don't make a move - there aren't nearly enough trades in the NHL today for my taste - but let's stop this mad talk about us assembling one super-line by trading away half the rest of the team. It's stupid, and disrespectful to the team we have now.

I think you're misreading a bit. Some people were listing players they would be willing to trade, not saying that every player on the list should be traded, much less all for Stamkos and Drouin. 

#2646864 Goalie Battle

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2016 - 06:05 PM


You and me bro...I've been saying it for 3 years.  I am used to getting dumped on though, but I like when things work in my favor.  Hudler, Franzen, Howard. Three guys that I have been piled on piled on for the last however many years.  But, in the end, all is right. Hudler, gone, Franzen, gone (99%) and Howard pushed out of his starting job, probably soon to be gone.  Now I just got to get rid of Helm! :lol:  Although if Sheahan gets dealt, the I will be the first to admit it, we need to keep Helm for the time being, just don't give him more than $3.5M PLEASE!!!

But we can all agree ( I think we can ) that Mrazek has won the "goalie battle."

That's the fun thing about hockey. No matter how wrong you are about a player, if you just keeping saying it long enough you'll become right.


Larkin is awful and doesn't belong anywhere near the NHL.

#2646803 Wings Need on D and Glaring Inconsistencies

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2016 - 12:57 PM

Niklas Kronwall.
10 mil a season for 8 years would have brought both Suter and Parise here to Detroit. We gave the 20 mil to Howard, Weiss, Ericsson, Tootoo, Samuelsson, and Cleary instead.
DeKeyser chose us. He's not a hit for Holland. Alfedsson, Green, and Richards were let go by other teams. That's the kind of UFA Kenny can land - a player who was good 4 years ago. And Kenny likes to pay them for their past accomplishments instead of current value.
Helm + Nyquist + Ouellet.

Holland is a coattail rider.

Devellano, Bowman, Andersson, and Nill are the brains. Holland got super lucky to have those 4 guys around him. Bowman and Nill are gone now, Devellano has gone senile, and Andersson is a small fish in a big, saturated pond now instead of the only fish in an uncharted pond. That's why Holland has looked so lost over the last 5 years and Dallas and Chicago are enjoying success.

Actually, the year Suter and Parise were signed we were giving Howard, Ericsson, Tootoo, and Sammy $10.4 million combined. Weiss wasn't signed until the next year. Regardless, having those two at $7.5 per until they're 40 would've been tough enough. $10 would be even moreso, and you can't even say for sure that would have been enough.


And seriously, Nyquist equivalent to Eriksson? He's barely close right now. When that trade was made Nyquist was still a prospect. 40 games played, 4 goals, 13 points. Another 2g, 5p in 18 playoff games.


That and the Kronwall thing prove just how irrational you're being. 

#2646733 Wings Need on D and Glaring Inconsistencies

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2016 - 03:25 AM

And Nashville cant just trade Seth Jones to get a #1C. And Minnesota cant just pick up Suter and parise for nothing as UFA's. And New York cant just land Yandle for prospects. And Washington cant just pick up Niskanen. And Dallas cant just land a fututecentl for an old winger and pick up another #2C who recently was a #1C for prospects. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR KEN HOLLAND. He is garbage. Holland is picking up everyone elses trash and paying them for past accomplishments. He has no idea what he's doing.

I want to argue with you, but I suspect it would be useless. I get a real anti-Franzen-style-irrationality feel about your opinion of Holland. Like he's your Drew Miller of management.

#2645853 Wings Need on D and Glaring Inconsistencies

Posted by Buppy on 03 January 2016 - 04:10 AM

In my opinion, there's still a lot of work to be done on quality of competition metrics. It's widely considered that over a significant period of time, competition will balance out. Looking at stats like CF% of competition seems to confirm that, since the range is pretty narrow. But I don't think it's comprehensive enough. If better players are playing against better players, you'd expect it to negatively impact the stats of both.


For instance, Kronwall and Smith have a similar level of competition based off the common measurements. But I looked at some matchups on war-on-ice (all games this year against, Boston, Buffalo, and Carolina). In those games, Kronwall spent about 35% of his ice time against players with 20+ points, 27% against players between 11-19 points, and 38% against players with under 10. Smith was 24% against the top scorers, 25% against the middle, and 50 against the bottom. Seems to be much more significant than suggested by the usual QoC metrics.


However, no matter how you look at it, Kronwall has not been particularly good so far this year.