Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Online Last Active Today, 01:56 PM

#2684981 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 22 August 2016 - 07:09 PM

I assume you just don't know that much about Winnipeg. Like the Wings, they are kind of loaded with mid-level forwards: Wheeler, Scheifele, Little, Perreault, Ehlers, Stafford. Obviously Laine will be in the mix. Most seem to expect Kyle Connor to make the team and some think he may be better than Larkin. Just signed Matthias. Dano looked ok for them last year. Burmistrov will probably never amount to much, but he's still only 24 so I doubt they've completely given up on him. 


I'd say it's hardly a lock that Sheahan or Pulk would even make their top-9, much less top-6. Plus they (like pretty much everyone) are already going to be struggling with the question of whom to protect. Then you include Smith, and either they resign him and have to protect him, or they risk losing him as an UFA.


The Jets offense wasn't very good, but neither was their defense. Even losing Ladd, the potential impact of Laine and Connor plus continued development of Ehlers (and maybe a little more from Scheifele even) gives reason for some optimism there. On defense, Morrissey is the only good prospect they have. Getting rid of Trouba for anything other than a direct replacement doesn't make much sense. Maybe for a real upgrade at forward or a top pick + prospect that wouldn't need protection.


Really nothing about that trade makes any sense for the Jets. The only way it would is if they get completely desperate with being unable to resign Trouba, and just go for the highest bid. But you already admit that wouldn't likely be us. 


The Anaheim deal is a bit better, if you presume they are still looking for help at forward. I'm not sure they still are, but they do have a lot of good young D. Not so sure Nyquist + Holmstrom would get Fowler (E and Bieksa is more or less a wash), with Nyquist coming off a down year and with a longish-term contract. Also not sure Fowler is even good enough to be worth Nyquist.

#2684787 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 13 August 2016 - 05:59 PM

Jurco is where he is because of mismanagement, not because of lack of skill. He is expected to play differently because he's on the 4th line playing with scrubs. Jurco's issue has nothing to do with physical ability and everything to do with mental stability, aka confidence. Anyway, this has been argued to death, so that's it for me...

Not lack of skill in the sense that he couldn't potentially be better, or do more if given more of an opportunity. But it is lack of skill in the sense that he's just not better than the guys who have played above him. Helm and Sheahan are both better offensively than Jurco, as well as better all-around. Everyone else that's played above him is far better offensively.


He went from being a highly skilled goal scorer to playing safe dump it in never take a chance defense only hockey. Do you really believe the coaches aren't telling him to do that?

I'm saying that hasn't happened at all.


For one, he went from being a decent-but-hardly-exceptional highly skilled goal scorer in the QMJHL, to a mediocre scorer in the AHL for a year, then a pretty good scorer in the AHL the next year, to a mediocre scorer in the NHL. Funny to see you of all people talking about junior scoring as if it translates to the NHL.


He may get stuck playing with defensive players sometimes, but he's not used in the same way at all. He wasn't given near the same defensive responsibility that Glendening, Miller, and Andersson got.


And though I've said this often enough to doubt that anyone will pay attention, he spent a lot of time this season playing with players at least as or more skilled than he is.


207 combined minutes with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, and Larkin. 262 combined minutes with Richards, Helm, Sheahan, Pulkkinen, and AA. 272 combined with Andersson, Miller, and Glendening. Close to two thirds of his total ice time with at least one somewhat skilled player. 

#2684780 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 13 August 2016 - 03:55 PM

BS. No one is trying to turn Jurco into a grinder. He's played where he's played because all the spots that would be a better fit for his skills have been filled by better players. That's it.


He's not even expected to play any differently. He (and everyone) is expected to compete defensively no matter where they are in the lineup. He (and everyone) is expected to compete offensively. He doesn't play against top competition, and his deployment isn't especially defensive. He doesn't kill penalties. The only thing different about him playing on the 4th line is that he has less pressure to produce.


He's a spare part as a player, and he's used as such.

#2684757 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 12 August 2016 - 11:17 PM

How is it way off?? Take a look at the top 9 roster going into 2015/16.


Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Abdelkader, Nyquist, Tatar, Richards, Franzen, Sheahan, Helm.


If all those players played and Franzen and Datsyuk weren't injured who exactly would Larkin have replaced on the top 9? I'd honestly like to know your opinion on that. This is not speculation on my part, I'm just going based off of what the roster was heading into training camp and who was eligible to be sent down. We had 9 roster players none of which were eligible to be sent down. In fact Larkin didn't only secure a spot with 1 roster spot but there were actually two by the time Franzen got injured. 


I really can't think of one player on that top 9 list that would have been scratched in favor of Larkin. Maybe Sheahan? Big maybe though because he's one of our few big bodies forwards. Maybe Helm? But Helm is the versatile one who kills penalties. 


Hell I haven't even listed Pulkinen or Jurco! Our beloved 13th and 14th forwards. Also didn't list Ferraro, Glendog or Miller but that's just because they're bottom 3. And then there was also Andersson. 

Well, considering Larkin was ahead of Nyquist, Tatar, Richards, Franzen, and Sheahan from day one (Helm was out the first handful of games) it's not too hard to imagine that he could have displaced one of them. Most likely one of Sheahan or Helm getting bumped to a checking line, with Ferraro or Andersson being waived (as they eventually were anyway). 


But that's pretty pointless speculation. Yeah, maybe Larkin wasn't so good that he would have gotten a roster spot in any possible situation, but he most definitely did earn his spot.


Many of the reasons you give for suggesting that Larkin was given some special opportunity could also apply to AA/Mantha this year. Could apply to pretty much any team any year. There's always someone who leaves, or is on the way out, and injuries happen. From the estimates given, it seems probable that Pulk won't be ready right away. Z is still aging. Vanek's only on a one-year deal.


But more to the point, there is always a spot available for a good enough player. If we had Ovechkin instead of Mantha there wouldn't be any question. If AA comes to camp and looks dominant, scores 8g and 14p in 5 pre-season games, generates HQ scoring chances every shift, is engaged and effective defensively...he'll make the team, even if it means waiving someone we don't really want to lose.


Now, if he looks just "good" in a handful of mostly meaningless games, no, we probably won't risk losing someone. Wouldn't be worth it, given that injuries are inevitable and he'll get his shot sooner or later. 

#2684425 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 04 August 2016 - 07:04 PM

Disregarding the incredibly unlikely scenario where we get two good defensemen, I'd still argue that even getting one is a bad idea right now. Adding any one of Shattenkirk, Trouba, or Fowler doesn't make our defense good. Better? Yes. But still middle of the road. But any trade to do so would require one of our better offensive pieces. That would likely make an offense which could well be "good" a lot more mediocre. And personally I'd rather have a good offense and a mediocre defense than be mediocre at both. We've got to figure out a way to be good at something lest we fall into the trap of being good at nothing. All in the name of "balance" which is a fairly overrated concept to begin with.

But upgrading a defenseman doesn't necessarily only upgrade the defense. Shattenkirk scored more points, and only a few less goals, than Nyquist last year. Add to that having options like AA, Mantha, Jurco, and Pulkkinen all likely to be underused or not on the roster at all...


Of course, when bringing in new players, there's always questions as to how well everything will come together and how well any individual will perform, but I don't think it'd be any more of a question than what we already have. It'd be one thing if our offense had been good last year, but it wasn't. It's already something we need to try to fix. 

#2684314 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 01 August 2016 - 03:09 PM

We're all aware that trades for top players are rare, but they do happen. Just about every year (sometime multiple times a year) a big name is traded, sometimes for more than he's worth, sometimes for less, some are known to be on the trading block, some aren't... Big name players do get traded, just never to the Wings. I don't know the trade history for every team, but I would bet most (except Detroit) have been in a trade involving a top player in the last 10+ years...

"Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players." How would this be considered trading "just for sake" of trading? We've had a hole on our defense for the past 4 seasons. The only way to fill that hole in such a short time is to make a trade. That's trading out of necessity, not just for the sake of making a trade...

Serious question, is there a team that has been in more desperate need to acquire a top pairing defenseman in the past 4 years? I don't think there has been. There are a couple that may be close, including New Jersey, but they just traded away their future number one for Hall...

There are 29 other teams in the league, all of which I would argue have a better, in some cases, two or three better defensemen than our current number one. There are also quite a few teams that are absolutely stacked with defensemen and are starving for offense. We have a surplus of forwards, and a need for defensemen. You think because a trade hasn't been made, that there must not be a fit. Like I said, I don't buy that.

And yes, this debate is going in circles, with no way to tell who's right or wrong, so let's just end it there. I think there are trades to be made that would bring in a legit number one defenseman. You don't...

Sorry, not going to give you the last word just because you say I should.


You're the one bringing up how few trades Holland has made, as if it's evidence. I'm saying that the majority of trades are not "big" ones, and the reason Holland hasn't made a lot of trades could be very different than the reason he hasn't made the one big one he's said he wants to make. If Holland trades for Trouba tomorrow, he'll still have the lowest number of total trades.


I would say that every team that does not currently have a Norris candidate is in a situation pretty similar to ours. Moreover, we have finished in the top half of the league every year, so I would assert that at least half the league has as much or more of a "desperate need" to acquire something big. Yet most of them haven't.


You say there's quite a few teams stacked with D but starving for offense. Then why haven't there been more big trades? Are we the only team in the league with forwards we could part with? 


But I don't want to endlessly debate hypotheticals. I've already said that, hypothetically, the possibility for a trade exists. What I don't like is that you don't seem willing to accept that trading for a top defenseman is not entirely under Holland's control. You're reasoning that because big trades have happened before, they must always be available to every team and every situation. You're wrong.


And you have no logic for Holland's motivations. You're just making an assumption, then drawing a conclusion based on it without even considering the possibility that the assumption could be wrong. It may look like I'm doing the same, but it's actually just the opposite. I'm looking at what's actually happened (or hasn't, in this case), then using logic to derive an assumption.


I think the logic for why I believe Holland would want to add a top D, and be willing to part with some good assets to get one, and why some teams may not be interested in the assets we have are all pretty self-evident, but I'd be happy to explain my reasoning if you want. 


So what is your supporting logic? I know you think he's just unwilling to give up whatever, but why, in your mind, is he unwilling? What is his motivation in your theory?

#2684305 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 01 August 2016 - 11:59 AM

What exactly am I stretching??? You're saying that because a trade hasn't been made, there just isn't a trade out there worth making. I'm saying that's bulls***. There's always trades out there to improve your team. Good GM's find and make those trades, for whatever reason Holland hasn't been able to that.


No, just because Hamilton was traded for picks, it doesn't necessarily mean that another team would be willing to trade a defenseman of his caliber for picks. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't either. You think just because Holland hasn't done it, that such a trade is not available to be made? I believe because it's been done before (a year ago), it could potentially be done again. It's just a matter of finding it...


I realize you're talking about why Boston wouldn't trade with us, and I'm not suggesting they would have, but not a single team I have mentioned as possible trading partners is a divisional rival. So why wouldn't Winnipeg, Anaheim, St. Louis, Colorado, Arizona, Carolina or Columbus want to trade with us?


A trade needs to make sense for both teams? The other team would actually have to want what we have to offer? What a concept... Come on man, stop trying to dumb down the conversation...


"I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal". Yes, some may be available if the right deal fell in his lap. If Cheveldayoff called and said he's shopping Trouba, and he wants some of those pieces, then maybe he'd be willing to move some. Of course, that's not going to happen. Has Holland called Cheveldayoff, offering those pieces for Trouba? We'll never know for certain, but I have my doubts...


Do you honestly think it's a coincidence that Holland trades WAY less than any other team? It's not. I'm not suggesting we should blow up the team, but there is a middle ground... 

I think we're going in circles. "Trades to improve your team" is one thing. A trade for a top D is very different, and much more rare. Most trades around the league are minor. Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players. Agree or not it does explain why we've made so few trades.


My point about Boston is that every situation is unique, and you can't infer anything from any trade. And maybe I am stating the obvious in saying teams have to want what we have, but you don't seem willing to accept the possibility that some team out there might not. Maybe Wpg and Ana want a player and not just picks, but they don't want the players we have to offer. Or whatever, I'm not going to try to speculate reasons for every hypothetical scenario.


I'm saying there are a lot fewer real trade opportunities than there are potential ones, and it makes far more sense to think we just haven't found a good match than it does to think Holland just isn't doing anything or willing to give up anything. 


And look at it from a different perspective. You think Wpg, Ana, StL, Col, etc. would all want what we're willing to offer, and you think all of them have a D they're willing to trade. Why wouldn't they have called Holland? Aren't they trying to improve their teams? Isn't that the whole reason they're willing to trade those D? Holland has said several times over the last several years that we'd like to add a top D, so even if you think Holland isn't taking any initiative it still seems likely that at least some teams would have contacted him. So again that puts us at "Holland must not be willing to give up anything". And I just can't believe that's true.


Quote from Doug Armstrong:

“Maybe my asking price is too high, or maybe I value him higher than other people,” Armstrong told reporters Friday, via the Post-Dispatch. “But I haven’t been anywhere close to what I think is representative of the value of Kevin Shattenkirk.”


There are rumors that several teams have talked to StL about Shattenkirk, including the Wings. But he hasn't been traded. Same goes for many other rumored-to-be-available defensemen. There are reasons for that and it can't all be Holland.


Now, maybe there's some price that Wpg would accept for Trouba, for example, that you would think is fair but Kenny thinks is too high. But you have to admit that maybe there isn't. And maybe the same is true in each of the few cases where some team has what we're looking for.

#2684296 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 31 July 2016 - 10:31 PM

I don't understand why you would think Holland is willing to move top players / prospects / picks in a trade to acquire an impact player. And I'm not talking about a past their prime rental at the deadline, I'm talking about a top end player that can help us this year and in the future... He hasn't. He doesn't. What makes you think he would?

No, we won't be able to keep them all, and unless he's able to pull something off, we will lose one of Ouellet or Sproul and possibly Frk...

Why are other teams' *picks* more valuable than ours? Again, the Hamilton trade was just picks... Calgary is the only team capable of pulling off that sort of trade?

"We don't have the assets" is flat out wrong...

Really? I think you're stretching a little trying to be flippant.


Yes, Hamilton was traded for picks. That doesn't mean that every (or any even) other team out there is willing to trade a top defenseman for picks now. Even if one was, doesn't mean they would want to trade with us, especially right now. Our *picks* may not be worth any less than anyone else's *picks*, but the 15th overall pick in that draft could easily be valued differently than our uncertain-position-1st-rounder in next years draft. A team like Boston could easily see more value in sending a good player to a team outside the conference than to a division rival. 


Every deal, every team, every player, every prospect, every situation is unique. I'm not saying "We don't have the assets." as some absolute. The value of what we could potentially offer, to the extent that we can make an objective valuation, is enough to potentially make a deal. More than one even. But that doesn't matter. It's not the National Hypothetical League.


What matters is that there has to be a specific situation where a team is willing to move a player we think is or will be what we want AND that team has to want whatever it is we are willing to offer AND want it more than any other offer they get AND it has to work for both teams in terms of the cap AND we have to actually find that deal.


Only the last part and half the cap fit part are things Holland has any control over. I think history proves pretty well that the first part is uncommon to say the least. Second and third is pure speculation. But in the absence of any kind of rationale for why Holland would be intent on keeping all of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, AA, Svech, our higher picks, and whatever else, I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal. 

#2684271 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 31 July 2016 - 11:59 AM

Maybe top "tier" wasn't the correct wording, but I don't just mean the elite of the elite. I didn't expect us to land Subban, and I don't expect us to go after Doughty or Pietrangelo either. However, I do think there are high end impact defensemen that could be had for the right price, even if we have to slightly overpay...

Any of the names that have already been thrown out there, including Trouba, Barrie, Shattenkirk, etc. could be had with a decent enough package. I also think there are a number of top defense prospects that could be made available if the price is right, including Theodore, Werenski, Sanheim, etc. And no, I don't believe every team would start and end a conversation with Larkin. Top players / prospects can and do get traded for much less...

It doesn't even need to be a blockbuster trade. I'd be okay seeing Holland do anything proactive in a trade. Why not trade Ouellet plus for a pick or another decent prospect with years remaining? New Jersey is just one team that is looking for defense help, there could be a fit there. Carolina are starving for offense and we have a log jam of forwards. Why not trade one of our many forwards (plus prospects / pick(s) for one of the Canes many young defensemen? Nyquist / Tatar / Jurco / Pulkkinen / Sheahan for Murphy / Pesce / Slavin / Fleury / Carrick...

And how many Trouba/Barrie/Shattenkirk-level defensemen have been traded in the last 5 years? I'm not just talking Norris candidates, and I don't think Holland is either. Top-pair, or even potential top-pair, defensemen just don't get traded very often. 


Our trade assets right now are Nyquist/Tatar (maybe both), Smith, and a handful of OK prospects. Hardly anything we should think the rest of the league would be kicking down our door to get. Hockey players aren't currency. They don't have a real value. They're worth whatever the team we're trying to trade with thinks they're worth. It isn't far-fetched at all to think that maybe the few teams who might be offering what we want don't think that what we have to offer is that valuable.


And this started with me responding to you saying Holland needs to make an impact trade for a top-pair D. If you want to think smaller than that, I already said I think we should and most likely could do more in that area. But I understand why Holland doesn't want to use our limited assets in deals that probably aren't going to make much difference.

#2684266 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 31 July 2016 - 01:16 AM

I think the fact that you don't think that package even gets a conversation started with Bergevin is "hysterically ridiculous"... But that's beside the point. You don't think there's a deal out there to be made involving a top pair defenseman? I 100% do.

I think Holland is great at many things when it comes to managing a team. Making trades in the cap era, unfortunately is not one of them. I do think we have the assets to acquire a dozen different top tier defensemen. Holland's just not willing to put the pieces in place to get a deal done. That's my opinion.

Maybe you're definition of top-tier is just a lot different than mine, because I would highly doubt there are a dozen available. I don't think there's been that many traded in the last 5 years. 


Excuses. There are trades to be made that would improve the team. It doesn't have to be for a Subban. Anything that makes the team better will do. Considering Holland has made half the trades anyone else has the last several years than NJ and even fewer than the average team has, and the fact that the team has been slipping for the last 5 years while Holland has kept doing the same thing that doesn't work anymore, something needs to change. Either Holland needs to find a way to be more active and be willing to move roster players, or they need to make a change at GM.

Not making excuses. Holland has made it pretty clear that he's not looking for those kinds of trades. I think I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with him on that. Just saying I believe him when he says what he's looking for isn't out there.

#2675279 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 06 May 2016 - 04:28 PM

Disagree. We are getting worse because we are drafting worse. Go back a page and look at all the top 20 Dmen taken after the 1st round. Guys that we could have taken in the 1st etc.... Look at all the euros we have drafted that haven't even panned out at the AHL level.

Yes I agree with you on the building through the draft should not mean we are 100% drafted players. In fact we have too many guys on our team that we drafted overall. 12-15 draftee's should be the max. The balance then picked up via trade/UFA which is becoming tougher overall. But just because something is tough doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it.


So wait, your original argument was that we were relying too much on the draft, now you're saying that we didn't make the right picks, but then in the next paragraph you go back to drafting too much.


I don't think you even have any clue what it is you want to say.

#2675261 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 06 May 2016 - 11:49 AM

Yes we have increased our % of players that we drafted, and our record has gotten worse. Yes those things are related. As for your list why didn't you list every player we drafted? The only players that matter are in fact the ones on the team. Ok one can make a case for those traded away to bring in other assets. But how many of those assets are here? How many of our former players are even average NHL players? Very few. You yourself call Andersson a non-NHL talent.

You are correct about the 1st round picks. That does hurt us now after helping us in the past. Which is why I said the next 5 drafts are important to see how well we draft.

It is possible-not likely but possible than come next fall we will have a grand total of 4 players on the team from the 2001-2010 drafts: Abby, Sheahan, Mrazek, and 1 of tatar/nyquist/pulk. If Ericsson was bought out, and we make trades with Howard, Smith, and 2 of the 3 forwards, that is all that is left. Depending on the moves we could be a better team however.

Building through the draft doesn't mean every player on the roster. It doesn't even necessarily mean most of the team. It mostly means the top players. It is far easier to get top end players through the draft than by trade or UFA. In the entire lockout era there have been only a small handful of the type of top players we need who have moved teams. We're not worse because we've been drafting too much. We've gotten worse because the players we need aren't available. 

#2675015 Calder finalists

Posted by Buppy on 03 May 2016 - 04:46 PM

Eichel had only 8 more points than McDavid, in 36 more games. I don't think it takes any ifs and assumptions to say that McDavid was the better player. If he wins it I wouldn't like it, but I think he deserved the nomination.


I also think Gost should win. Phenomenal performance for a rookie defenseman.

#2674874 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 02 May 2016 - 11:37 AM


You're missing my point. Trades with imbalanced cap hits only happen when the team taking on the larger cap hit is getting something worthwhile from the other categories - picks or the better hockey talent. I suppose it is possible that we give up a hefty amount of picks to make the deal go through, but a Nyquist+Jurco+Sproul/Ouelett for Fowler trade just isn't happening. Fowler is the best player in that trade, so Anaheim would be taking on a larger cap hit and worse players. There is no part of that deal that makes sense for them.


Unless you can tell me with a straight face that you would trade Fowler (A top pairing D-Man scoring at .41 points/game who is only 24) for Nyquist (A second or third line winger barely getting above .5 points/game and will be 27 next season), then don't tell me it can happen the other way. Other teams exist for the purpose of beating us, not giving us their best players and relieving us of our dead weight. 




And no team is going to do us the favor of taking on Datsyuk's cap hit without asking for something in return. What that probably means is taking on some bad contract whose value is less than Datsyuk's but which would still impact our cap. No GM in their right mind would help us out in that way without taking a pound of flesh as payment - just because we're Detroit doesn't mean we get special favors. 

The rumors that one of the Ducks young defensemen might be available came out when they were struggling to score early in the year. It was rumored they wanted to pick up a scoring winger. They have several good young D they might use to get one. Nyquist is one of the top young wingers in the league, regardless of what you may think. He's not elite, but neither is Fowler. Now, the Ducks did find their scoring touch in the 2nd half, so maybe they're no longer interested in a trade like that. And even if they are, Lindholm or Vatanen would be moved first I'm sure. But in the context of the rumors, it does make some sense.


And in the Datsyuk trade, he was giving up Pulkkinen as incentive. You may not think anything of him, whatever. If a team is looking to add cap to reach the floor, it shouldn't take much of an incentive. It wouldn't be doing us a favor. Datsyuk's cap hit would be something they actually want, since it would save them real money. 

#2674668 Alexander Radulov: Wings on short-list of desired teams

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2016 - 03:57 PM

As long as youre not paying him obscene money you don't need him to have a career year. 20+ goals and 50 points is reasonable and would make him the best winger on our team. I'd offer him 4.5 million for three years, if he doesn't take it then oh well. If he does, great.

You don't think he'd produce as much as Datsyuk did this season? I'm saying the 49 points that Datsyuk gave us. 


9 years ago he scored 26 goals and 58 points, and on a team that scored more than the Wings. No, I don't think 50 points is at all reasonable, and I'd say 40 would even be a stretch. He's never been any better than any of our current scorers, and I don't see any reason to believe he would be now. I wouldn't offer him even $1.5 for one year. Rather give some kids a chance.