Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 07:13 PM

#2493316 If Kronwall isn't a #1

Posted by Buppy on 08 March 2014 - 09:33 PM

Kronwall was better all-around than Rafi, just wasn't a better partner for Nick. And the list of defensemen that weren't as good as Lidstrom back then included everyone, with only a very few even being debatable.


If Lidstrom is your standard for a #1 defenseman, I think you'll spend the rest of your life disappointed.

#2486905 2014 draft thoughts.

Posted by Buppy on 26 February 2014 - 04:11 PM

Buppy we are thin. very thin. I have already moved up most of the guys ready. tatar, nyquist, Callahan, Pulk, Jurco, Andersson-forgot him earlier, and Sheahan. That is just about everyone off of the Griffins. mantha, AA, Nastisauk need at least a year more of seasoning. Then they will be up. The rest of the guys we own the rights to are either: 1. not producing, or 2. several years away. Many are still playing college hockey, junior hockey, or yet to be drafted. Couple over in Europe. 3. This doesn't allow for any guys to fail. Which of course several will. Not everyone makes it. Some get hurt. That is why more depth is needed. Be it via draft, trades or UFA. We need more F's. Stars would be great, but just depth would be a major help right now.

So if I decide to ignore half our defensive prospects, does that make us thin there? Or are you the only one who's allowed to decide which prospects count?

#2486756 Injury Updates

Posted by Buppy on 26 February 2014 - 04:00 AM

Buppy, now whop is cherry picking? have you ever read anything about Weiss's career? he is always hurt. basically every season he is hurt. Just in case you haven't followed, here are the highlights:

2002/02-His first full season. Plays 77 games-has a broken toe

2003/04-plauys 50 games-broken leg and sprained knee


2005/06-plays 41 games-major wrist injury

2006/07-plays in 74 games-knee and shoulder injuries

2007/08-plays in 74 games-shoulder injuries again

2008/09-plays 78 games-groin injury-best season to date

2009/10-plays 80 games and is largely healthy all year

2010/11-plays 76 games-only minor injuries but numbers drop-49 points

2011/12-playus 80 games-no major injuries

2012/13-plays 17 games-major wrist injury

2013/14-played 26 games-hernia surgey, missed 32 games so far


Now I ask you, who is Weiss? is it more likely he is the guy that gets hurt in 6 of his 11 seasons or the guy that remains healthy for 5 of the 11 seasons? He is also 31 soon-in April. We signed a guy to a long term deal for good money that 1. can't stay healthy overall and 2. His best days are already behind him. That means 1 thing: Bad deal.

74 or more games in 7 out of 10 years prior to signing here. He also played in the AHL during the lockout. 80 games. 8 out of 11. 62 and 64 (out of 68) games his first two years in the OHL. 53 total games 01-02, not sure how many he might have missed from injury, since he was on the Florida roster for part of the year then went back to junior, but I'll still say he could have played 68. He's played 72 out of 73 playoff games his teams have played. All told that's 988 out of 1140 possible games. ~87%, 10 of 13 years being better than that, and one more year being unsure but maybe lower.


Typically, around half the league misses 8 or more games every year. In 11-12, there were around 8300 man-games lost to injury (out of 44280). Almost 19%. Average of about 13 games lost for each of the 620 regular roster players. Injuries happen, and happen to most players at some point. Minor injuries happen to most players every year.


But even if you do assume he will miss time, you should still assume he would put up decent numbers...since he has done exactly that over his career. The least we should expect is 14-15 goals, 40-ish points. Maybe not great for almost $5M, but his recent history does suggest he should be better than that, at least in the short term.


If you don't like Weiss, fine, just say that. Stop acting like there's some statistical evidence that proves he was going to suffer a major injury this season, or will in the future, or that his production would decline dramatically.

#2486752 Trade deadline fast approaching - who should we target?

Posted by Buppy on 26 February 2014 - 12:18 AM

Love Callahan if available, would be a great fit.

Meh, if he's really looking for a deal in the 7yr/$6.5-7M range, I want no part of him.


This was how I felt last year, but then we made the playoffs and took off. So while the chance to make the playoffs hasn't completely evaporated, the brass should do all they can to upgrade the team even though we all know they won't.

That depends on what you mean by "do all they can" and "upgrade the team".


If you mean upgrade for this year, there's a hell of a lot that could be done that would be incredibly stupid from an organizational standpoint. If you mean upgrading the organization as a whole, upgrading for the future without sacrificing this year or upgrading this year without sacrificing the future (or both), that "all they can" list is likely to be pretty short.


Sounds to me like you just want to see something happen so you have some news to get excited about. But easing fan boredom is a poor excuse for making a trade.


I just don't see why we would make a move now. Our season is crap and going to get worse. Unless we are getting Crosby for Quincey, there isn't a good fit atm. Deadline deals are very expensive. More than off season deals. Why pay the higher prices now, when we need several pieces. better off waiting until summer. let the kids come up and play and see what they can do.

I would agree (though not necessarily with "crap and going to get worse" part), and it would seem Holland does too. However, not all deadline deals are expensive and/or rentals. Something like the Stuart deal would make sense; a veteran defensive defenseman wouldn't likely cost a lot. Most teams looking for defenseman at the deadline tend to focus on puck-movers.


A scorer probably isn't likely, since the demand is usually so high. But there's a lot of teams with little cap space, so who knows.

#2486207 Ok a way way too early look at the 2015 draft......

Posted by Buppy on 22 February 2014 - 12:19 PM

A top 6 full of 20 goal scorers is great? Isn't that your complaint about our current top 6? But at least yours is big.


If we tank a little we should grab Khalil Mack. Not the biggest guy at 6'3", 248 and maybe doesn't have quite the explosive speed off the corner that Clowney has, but he doesn't have Clowney's character issues either. He'd be unblockable in the NHL. :)

#2484921 Trade deadline fast approaching - who should we target?

Posted by Buppy on 18 February 2014 - 04:32 PM

IMO don't see any of them being available.

Zidlicky and Pitkanen could be available and would be decently inexpensive rentals, unless they do well we could always re-sign them too. Both move the puck well, which I believe is what we need

Isn't Pitkanen out for the season? Or did something change?


Zidlicky would be a good fit, and workable under the cap if we move Quincey. I'd have to think NJ would want help up front though, they're too close to being in a playoff spot to really be considered a seller. We don't really have a lot to spare, especially if Hank is going to miss much time.

#2484750 Trade deadline fast approaching - who should we target?

Posted by Buppy on 17 February 2014 - 03:17 PM

One guy that I believe could be available and gotten for mid tier prospects and picks is steve ott. I think Ott would be a great fit on this team, especially if Z is out for a long period of time. I don't think we would have to leverage the farm to get him either. I think it would cost us something like andersson, pulkinenen (terrible spelling), almquist and middle of the road picks.

WAY too much to give up for Ott. At most I'd go Andy plus one pick or prospect (and not a top one either). Also, how do we shoehorn in another $2M+ in cap?

#2484239 10 ton elephant in the room.

Posted by Buppy on 15 February 2014 - 12:34 PM

Would you settle for a box?  There may is or and may is not be a dead cat in it.


Sorry.  Nerd break.


Sorry, had to correct your nerdness.

#2483405 NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics (Mod Post #99)

Posted by Buppy on 11 February 2014 - 10:11 PM

I get that the checks are written regardless, its a figure of speech. If I own a winter season snow removal company up in Prince Albert, Canada and give you your by-weekly pay check for the two weeks you are gone just for you to come back tired, unmotivated and potentially injured and you as a business owner think this is ok then something is wrong with you. I don't care if you make up the time you missed by working more around the two weeks.


What the hell does it being a free country have to do with anything? If I employ you for the whole "season" and pay you a ridiculous amount of money to entertain for my business then I can definitely control what you do. That is what has happened, the owners have got so fed up they got their way.


Get this, If I pay you 5 million dollars to work for 3/4 of a year you are my property.


I am all for the NHL participating in the Winter Olympics. It has been huge for advertising the NHL internationally and has been a blast to watch . I am telling you the main reasons why they have for now pulled out of the Olympics. Its fact

If I'm paying for a season, and getting a season, I really don't care about the exact disbursements. Like I said, there could possibly be an issue with trades (or injuries) and whether or not the percentage of payments made equals the percentage of service received, but that should be a rare case. If it were an issue, just make sure the paychecks are scheduled roughly in accordance to games played, and not have a pay period during the break.


I was kind of being a smartass with the "free country" thing, and didn't mean to spark a political debate. My point was just that it really isn't much of a risk. It's hockey, not a Russian Roulette tournament. The likelihood of injury is small. I don't think it's reasonable for the league to prohibit participation. By all means, make the players bear the liability if they do get injured, but don't say they can't play.


For the "property" thing, there are no words to describe how wrong that is. So I will invent one now... Negoggliotic.


I have a few thoughts. Players exchange certain abilities like choosing where they play and limiting their leisure activities in exchange for obscene amounts of money. All those limits are part of the CBA. They're all agreed to....

So far as I found, this is all the CBA has to say on the Olympics.
The NHL and the NHLPA shall continue to work together to jointly create and exploit
other international projects and initiatives involving NHL Players other than International
Hockey Games, including games, series, events or contests (e.g., the World Cup of Hockey,
European Champions' League, Victoria Cup Competition, Olympic participation, etc.)."
Sure, if the players agree to not play, the whole thing is moot. But from all being said so far, it sure sounds like the league will be making the decision on its own.

#2483308 NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics (Mod Post #99)

Posted by Buppy on 11 February 2014 - 03:58 AM

Again the issue is that I wright you a pay check for the two weeks while you go play an intense energy packed tournament which is most likely in some other country that has very different accommodations. You being the player return back to work tired, potentially lacking some motivation. You may also return to work with an injury that you acquired during the tournament. If so I pay to fix your injury and I pay you to sit and watch while you recover from your injuries. If you as an owner would not be pissed right off about that then there are bigger issues.

You are correct each team plays 41 home and away games regardless of it being an Olympic year. The issue is not that they play less games. The issues are that the League is taking a two week break. In many ways this break in the season does hurt the product of the NHL. It can make people "clock out" and become less interested. Say the race for a playoff spot or your team just being on a roll. It can hurt a teams chemistry. If my hockey team is on a roll and playing well the last thing I want is a two week break that has some players go to a tournament and has some players go  on a tropical vacation.  Olympic hockey has a ton of positives, but who the hell in North America is going to watch a game on a weekday at 6 am? I don't know how to make all of this more clear.


edit- The NHL is all about expansion. The NHL is trying to grow the product (the game of hockey)

  A 15 team league would for sure not be more profitable. It  would probably be the worst thing that has ever happened to the NHL, screwing up a ton of forward progress that has been made.

The checks get written regardless. Doesn't really matter when or what the player is doing at the time. Might be a minor complaint if the break causes there to be an extra pay period prior to the trade deadline (but no games to offset it), but I'm not sure if that's the case.


The injury thing should should be a non-issue. I assume we still consider this a free country, and we are generally opposed to the notion of letting our employers dictate what risks we are allowed to take in our private lives. While I might agree with the notion of owners requiring the players bear some of the liability if they were to get injured (though I'm pretty sure they already have insurance for that), I don't think there's any justification to stop them from playing. Injuries, much less serious ones, aren't really that common. It's not an unreasonable risk.


As for the loss of interest/profits from the break; do you have any data to support that? 2010 saw record revenues, and I think 2006 did as well and that was right after the lockout year. Not sure about 98 or 02, but I know in general revenues have been skyrocketting for about 20 years now.


It's disruptive and a pain in the ass from a scheduling standpoint. Big deal. It's once every four years.


This is nothing but a power play from the owners and league, because they think of the players as property. They think any minor concern they might be able to think of matters more than anything the players might want. I'd like to say it will eventually come back on them, but it probably wont. Lockout #4 will come, the owners will win again, and by the next year no one will care.

#2482613 'Detroit's Dark Horse Potential'

Posted by Buppy on 08 February 2014 - 06:47 PM


The problem is that Kronner, E and DD are NOT fine. It's not like those guys are reliable night in, night out and the other 3 are costing us. Kronwall has gone through a couple weeks of terrible play recently, E was just about the worst defender against Florida and apart from his first game back, has been shaky since his injury, and DD has shown enough times that he's still a rookie since coming back too. What's more Quincey has actually been pretty good over a few games. 

Every time I see JoesufP or Dabura bemoan the lack of a top defender after a goal against in a GDT, I wonder "how is this magical defender that we can't afford going to be able to be on the ice at the right time to fill in for whichever of our 6 defenders is going to decide to turd it up on any given night?"

They are fine. All defensemen make mistakes. All defensemen get scored on. All defensemen have occasional bad games.


Statistically, our top 3 measure up fairly well compared to the top 3 on the better defensive teams (.9 GA/G on average for the top 3 in average ice time from LA, StL, Bos, and Pit vs ours at .96 GA/G). The 4 and 5 spots, Quincey and Smith, are a significantly bigger difference (.66 vs our .97). Our bottom could use some help too (.53 vs .66).


Adding a top defenseman, especially if it was someone good enough to move Kronwall to the second unit, would certainly help tremendously. Pushing Q to the 3rd pair, with less exposure to top forwards, probably helps that unit as well.


Of course, needing a top defender (especially since we need a guy who's good at both ends) doesn't mean we have the ability to acquire one, or fit one under the cap. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't be very good if we somehow did.

#2481624 Vets over the Kids?, not any more eh Babs.

Posted by Buppy on 06 February 2014 - 02:26 AM

...I was so down on Riley after the DUI last year that I didn't think he deserved to pull on a Wings sweater - but god has he changed my mind to the point where I am the biggest Sheahan fanboy out there.

So basically... It's ok to drive drunk if you're good at hockey? :tounge2:

#2480583 Trade deadline fast approaching - who should we target?

Posted by Buppy on 03 February 2014 - 12:30 PM

We don't have the cap space to just add. Tatar and Nyquist make too little money to trade them for an upgrade at forward. The only trade that might work is packaging one of them along with one of Quincey or Kindl for an upgrade on defense. (Well, we could do the same package for a forward, but then we might have to rely on Almquist/Marchenko/Ouellet down the stretch. Also not sure anyone looking to improve their D would be interested in Quincey or Kindl.)

#2479005 Trade deadline fast approaching - who should we target?

Posted by Buppy on 30 January 2014 - 04:36 PM


No need for the reality check. I think we all understand it isn't Vanek-or-bust. I don't think he's a power forward. I don't think he plays a two-way game. I don't think he isn't mostly past his prime. I'd want him because he'd fill a hole. That hole is a big-bodied, right-handed, first-line scoring winger good for around 30 goals.


Jurco's gonna be that guy for us. (I'm the one who wants him on our first line this season.) But he's not quite there yet. In the meantime, Alfredsson will be gone, Franzen will be well on his way to 40, and Datsyuk and Zetterberg won't be getting any younger, healthier, faster, better. On top of that, Weiss is currently a question mark, and neither Nyquist nor Tatar is necessarily going to be a 30-goal scorer in the NHL. Beyond Jurco, we have Jarnkrok and Pulkkinen on the farm. Jarnkrok has a long way to go before he's an elite two-way center in the NHL, and Pulkkinen is a tiny sniper who may or may not pan out. Mantha is a long, long way off, no matter how promising he is. Frk has struggled mightily.


All of which is to say: Signing Thomas Vanek? We could do worse.


I get that he's looking to get paid. That's no secret. I get that it'll be an overpayment, because that's how these things work. That's also no secret. But we should have a lot of money coming off the books this summer. That might also include Alfredsson. And maybe Gustavsson. And maybe Kindl. And maybe a bottom-six forward. So it's not like one big signing is going to wreck us. And it's not like we'd have to give up Jurco. Vanek and Jurco aren't mutually exclusive. We could have both.

I'd be all for pursuing Vanek as a UFA, but trading for him this year is hardly feasible. Somehow I doubt they'd take Bert, Sammy, & Cleary for him, and anything else creates another hole and/or makes an already bad cap situation far worse. All for someone who may not stick around after this season.


And for the people dreaming about Faulk... I can't see why Carolina would even entertain the thought of trading him for anything less than eye-popping overpayment, except maybe straight up for Marc Staal.

#2470279 Helm has sore groin...

Posted by Buppy on 02 January 2014 - 07:30 PM


You're over the cap with no extra defenseman... what did you do with Lashoff, anyway?  And Samuelsson?

Nah, he's fine. Even with Lash. Just needs to arrange an accident for Sammy sometime before Weiss comes back. :)


Kidding aside, if we ever do get healthy, we'll likely waive Eaves and then Miller if needed.