Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 12:10 PM
****-

#2027843 Penguins sign Arron Asham

Posted by Buppy on 20 August 2010 - 07:11 PM

That makes no sense. It should be the other way around.

I'm actually starting to believe that Asham must have turned the Wings down, because Holland wouldn't actually be so stupid as to sign only enforcers, but not guys who can do more than just fight.

I think it's more a case of us having enough (too many even) 4th liners already. We DO prioritize skill over everything else, but we also usually keep a spot reserved for a tough guy. This year, all those spots were filled already.

Nothing to get upset about. We have a solid 4th line, maybe one of the best in the league. Asham wouldn't have made us any better.


#2027601 Hawks sign Fernando Pisani, $500k

Posted by Buppy on 19 August 2010 - 10:43 PM

I love how you conveinatly leave out Miller's 14 game stint with Tampa in which he recorded NO points and was a -3. Makes you wonder how much playing on a good team with a better record influences/motivates a player, huh? In addition, despite all of Pisani's injuries and inferior linemates his stats prorated would be mearly 3 points less of Miller's total production. When you factor in ice time and linemates, Pisani would almost have certainly surpassed Miller's production.

Couple that with the fact that Pisani's goals agaisnt average per 60 min of pk time was FAR BELOW that of both Miller's and Eave's, despite being on a DRASTICALLY worse team, and it becomes harder and harder to argue that Miller outplayed him enough to warrent that much more money last year.

You are looking at simply the stat line, instead of situational statistics such as quality of oppositsiton faced (hint... Pisani was the highest on the Oilers), and quality of linemates + Ice time. I suggest you dig deeper into the stats before you throw out ones that our clearly unfair to compare.

Pisani averaged more ice time than both Miller and Eaves. And while Edmonton was certainly terrible, neither Eaves nor Miller were playing with particularly great linemates all the time. May, Maltby, Draper, Helm, Abby, Williams, Leino...not that much different from Horcoff, O'Sullivan, Moreau, Gagner, etc. Miller may have played a bit with the likes of Flip and Cleary, but you're acting like he spent the year on the top line with Pav and Hank or something.

And I'm not sure what kind of math you're doing, but Pisani was on the ice for 10 PPGA in 91:42 (~6.5/60 min). Eaves was 13 in 147:54 (5.3), Miller was 7 in 120:31 (3.6).

Pisani is 33, hasn't played more than 56 games in the past three seasons. He had one decent season and a great playoff, and has been going downhill ever since.

Miller is 26, coming off his first full season in the NHL, and makes only $150k more.

Eaves is also 26, just had somewhat of a bounce-back season after two down years, and makes only $250k more.

Not saying Pisani is terrible, or that it isn't a good signing. He's fine for a 4th line role. But I'd much rather have the younger guys without potentially problematic diseases, even if they do make a little more money.


#2027154 The single biggest scapegoat of the Red Wings in the last 20+ years...

Posted by Buppy on 18 August 2010 - 03:53 PM

As unfair as it is teams play differently in front of different goalies. Goalies instill confidence in players and maybe Hasek gave the team the ability to go out and produce offensively while when Cujo was in net they had to play a more defensive style. Whether that's true or not I don't know - Im speculating. But it's similar to this past season. When Osgood was in net and letting in goals the D would have to tighten up. WHen Howard was in net and making the saves he should the Wings could go out and do what they had to in the offensive zone.

It's not always about quantity of saves - it's more about quality sometims.

Equally ridiculous.

Like Eva said, you can't really blame the way the team plays on the goalie, especially in Cujo's case when he played very well. We were putting up 30-35+ shots a game, allowing ~20-30. Those aren't numbers suggesting the team was in a defensive shell. Likewise, a goalie that needs to be protected doesn't post a .935 save percentage.

6 goals on 171 shots in 4 games against Anaheim.

3 goals (shutout twice) on 127 shots in 4 losses to Calgary. In the last two games against Calgary, Cujo made 63 of 65 saves.

Blaming Jospeh at all for those losses is retarded.


#2026844 Byfuglien jinxed?

Posted by Buppy on 17 August 2010 - 05:09 PM

Stalberg on the 2nd line... Posted Image

Wishful thinking. Kopy will be on the 2nd line...


#2026759 Hitting and Winning

Posted by Buppy on 17 August 2010 - 01:47 PM

Hitting is not the same as grit. Note that Philadelphia, which is a gritty team to the point of some here saying they were goonish, ranked 14th in hits.

Sure hitting has something to do with the other, but when people are wanting the Wings to be gritty, I don't think that means they're just wanting them to run around and hit guys more. If you look through any of the grit threads most of the talk isn't about hitting.

That blog is bad statistical analysis used to prove an idea the author already seemed to have in mind. If you asked anyone is there a direct correlation between hits and points, I think most people would say no.

He mentions some anomalies, but doesn't explain situations like with LA who was 2nd in hits and 27th in points in 2009, then only dropped three places to 5th in hits but jumped all the way up to 9th in points. There's too many other variables outside his oversimplified premise for it to mean anything.

I think 'other variables' was the premise.

It's not really a point that needed to be made, since as you said most people already know that hitting does not mean winning.

There may be a vocal crowd that preaches hitting an aggressiveness, but I think it's meant more in a 'play harder' way then a 'that's the key to victory' way, if you get my meaning. People also complain about turnovers, slowness, dumb penalties, missing open shots, etc. I'm sure if you asked people in Columbus what kind of players they'd want to add, more skill would be a priority. That doesn't mean they shouldn't expect their current players to play harder, finish their checks, clear the crease, etc... All in all, a pretty dumb article.


#2025070 games to go to

Posted by Buppy on 11 August 2010 - 02:25 AM

Game five of the Finals, for the celebration afterward. :ninja:


#2023353 NHL itinerary for the "Shanahan Summit"

Posted by Buppy on 06 August 2010 - 04:42 PM

Hybrid icing rule, ref off the ice, goal verification line, line change zone...all could be good.

What would be the point of changing the blue line though?

The rest are stupid.


#2023045 Why sign a sixth Dman?

Posted by Buppy on 06 August 2010 - 05:31 AM

False.

His defense has dropped significantly and his play with and without the puck in the defensive zone is abysmal. He is probably our 4th best defenseman with regards to overall ability. He is overrated by too many people.

His one on one defense hasn't really ever been great, and has fallen off since the lockout took away his New Jersey-style grabbing, but he's generally sound positionally, skates and moves the puck well, and usually makes good decisions. He blocks shots, clogs passing and shooting lanes, has a pretty good stick, and can usually at least force people to the outside.

He's a bit turnover prone and a little too old/small/weak to handle a fast/strong forward by himself. He's not a shutdown defender (even though he's used as one), but he's much better than abysmal. Much better than you give him credit for.


#2022609 This team's still missing one thing..

Posted by Buppy on 04 August 2010 - 11:46 PM

We allowed 65 3rd period goals last year (6th best in the league, NJ was best with 58). Record when leading after the 2nd period was 28-2-4. Not a stellar win%, but our poor OT/SO record (11-14) probably contributed a bit to that.

Our team defense was very good last year. Maybe didn't seem like it without the offense we're used to having, but this year should help with that. Also, the possession game is a big key to our defense, and that should improve this year as well. I wouldn't say anything is missing.

Of course, you never pass up a chance to improve, and Pronger would be an improvement over Rafi, but he also has 6 more years (after this one) on his stupid contract. We do not want to be saddled with that.


#2022053 Mike Modano signs with Detroit

Posted by Buppy on 03 August 2010 - 03:21 PM

According to which team does Modano still have it? To Dallas he is done with nothing left but Detorit there is still one more good year in him. Same situation but different name in Maltby. On one team he is done on another team he might provide something.

Modano's free love ran out in Dallas, as it seems Maltby's in Detroit. If Dallas is getting called out on how it treated Modano during this offseason then Detroit should get called out as well. People turn a blind eye depending on the name of a player. For Detroit to ask...well really demand that Maltby have shoulder surgery and possible end his career while on the IR then not have the decency to at least make him an offer is a slap in the face to Maltby.

Detroit pretty much tossing Maltby aside and forgetting about him is OK...but Modano getting tossed aside from Dallas is a no no. Which is it.. OK to walk away from a player that a GM thinks is done or be respectful and give him that 1 more year? That one more year to give him a chance to go out the way they want to.

Ridiculous comparison.

One, it's not the name of the player, but their ability. Dallas surely doesn't think Modano is 'done'. (Or if they do, they're stupid) He scored 30 points in 59 games. They just decided to go in a different direction. Not sure anyone knows what direction that is, since they still apparently have an open forward spot and plenty of cap space, but...

Maltby, who has only twice in his career put up over 30 points (and never .5 ppg), hasn't scored more than 11 points in a season since the lockout. His last three years combined didn't match what Modano did last year. Given the two seasons prior to his last contract, the 3 year deal he got then was pretty generous, and that should have been more than sufficient for him to go out his own way. Sucks that all the injuries put us in such a bad spot last year, but well, s*** happens.

We can't just keep throwing contracts at players who have borderline NHLers for 5 straight seasons just because they've been here a long time. We have been more than loyal to Kirk, and as much as he might want to stay, he really has no right to any hard feelings.

Modano is not only still a pretty good player (better than half the Stars current roster), he was also a leader and face of the Stars/North Stars franchise for 20 years. They aren't up against the cap, nor have a roster full of superior talent. They basically replaced him with Adam Burish. He and his fans are perfectly justified in being a bit upset.


#2021640 It's Official: Turco to Hawks

Posted by Buppy on 02 August 2010 - 05:14 PM

I have to question this move.

It would have been tough, but Chicago could have fit Niemi in under the cap. This move makes it a little easier this year, but I'm not sure that it really improves their team (it could make them worse, if Turco continues to degrade). Apparently, there were some concerns about the future, since Niemi was awarded a one year deal and would have become UFA after this year. But I don't see how giving a one year deal to a 35 year old helps that situation.

Niemi had a very good rookie season, and overall his playoff performance was decent. With the bonus overage being just a one year thing, Chicago's cap situation next summer would be much better. With Seabrook and Brouwer the only other important FAs, keeping Niemi then wouldn't have been too hard.

Now they have to find another goalie next summer, and who knows what will be available. I think they're taking a big risk here for a pretty minor gain.


#2018336 Hawks trade Reasoner to Panthers for Jeff Taffe

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2010 - 11:56 PM

No, I don't dislike them;

They're for the most part equal contributors offensively at this point, but Cleary is very injury prone and Flip somewhat.

Bolland is also the best defensive player of the three.

Bolland has had his own injury issues, but if I have to choose one or the other, I'm picking the healthy young guy right?


One serious injury in five NA seasons and Flip is 'somewhat injury prone'?

If anything, I'd be worried about Bolland's herniated disk that required surgical repair, since that's the kind of injury that could bother a player for their entire career. He's only two years younger than Flip too. Again, I have to ask, are you really referring to Dave Bolland? From Chicago?

It's like saying 'Man, I really wish Flip had a slightly higher cap hit' since they're pretty equal players.


#2017610 Loophole

Posted by Buppy on 21 July 2010 - 02:07 AM

No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?

Now you are duplicitous. By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.


Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try to clarify.

I don't want to argue semantics, so I think we can agree that industry and business entity are similar enough terms. Both of us I think, were referring to the fact that the NHL and its member franchises generate significant revenue, and generally operate in a businesslike manner, having employees, customers, products, et al.

I inferred that your comment on the NHL industry was a counter to my own assertion of the fact that we're talking about a game. The intent seemingly to suggest that the salary cap restricts the ability of the Wings to operate as a business. But you followed that up with an example only of how the cap restricts the Wings in respect to the sporting competition.

I then took each aspect of NHL/team operation separately to try to illustrate that the cap is not really a socialist policy in respect to either aspect. I then commented later in the post that you can't totally separate the two. In case you missed it: "...you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'.

I contend that the cap is a 'competition' rule, in that it's sole restriction is on the amount of money that can be spent on player salaries. The salary cap places no limits on what the Wings can do otherwise to promote, increase the value of, or generate revenue from, their product. Nor does it restrict any other ways in which Illitch or the Wings organization can spend their profits. And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective, that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL. Therefore, I conclude that there is nothing 'socialist' about it. It is simply a rule, very much like all the others, governing the manner in which teams are to compete in the NHL.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition.

The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league.


#2017567 NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract

Posted by Buppy on 20 July 2010 - 10:26 PM

Wasn't a huge fan of this deal, but It bothers me that the league is invalidating this deal by a subjective standard and has not made clear what they see this standard as. Of course the deal violates the so-called "spirit" of the cap, but I don't see how you could say it does so anymore than any of the other deals. If the NHL has a problem with these deals, it should wait for the next cba.


Well, that's just it. The Kovy deal was worse in every way than any of the others. Longer, took him to a later age, more 'garbage' years, less money in those years, greater cap reduction as a result...like someone said in another discussion: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

A line has apparently been drawn, and it's somewhere between Luongo's deal and Kovy's. Or maybe Hossa's and Kovy's since goalies often have separate standards. Probably should have done it sooner, even with Lecavalier (I think he was the first to get a deal like this), but better late than never.


#2017355 Loophole

Posted by Buppy on 20 July 2010 - 03:24 PM

Yet, you cry for more regulation, not less. You want to close even more aspects of the market, not open them. Who are you to tell NJ how to spend their money? What's it to you if they sign him until he's 34, 44, or 54? (In retrospect, Illitch could have saved quite a bit of money with a long term Chelios deal and put that money somewhere else!)

If that's a risk NJ is willing to take, then who are you to ask for more impedance on their sovereignty as a business entity?

NJ has had a great franchise for many years, and cannot reap the fruits of their own labor, the rewards they deserve for their hard work. Instead, they have to give their hard earned money to ill concieved, unorganized franchises in rediculous southern markets, and are only allowed to spend what a governning body has centrally planned they can spend.

Yet, this doesn't satisfy you. You want to impose more rules on business owners and how they can go about acguiring their assests.

Central planning and overegulation. I repeat; Spoken like a true Socialist.


What a ridiculous post.

It is hardly socialist to expect NJ to comly with the rules that all teams have agreed to operate under.

But even further, I question the assertion that the cap itself is socialist.

Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations. The cap is no more socialist than practice restrictions, PED regulations, roster limits, rink standards, scheduling rules, game length, player aquisition, or any of the myriad rules governing play and operation of the competing teams. It is simply a rule governing the resources that can be spent on players.

While an argument could be made that the cap (and moreso, revenue sharing) is socialist in the business aspect of the NHL, it is not a limit on how much money or profit a team can make. Furthermore, an argument could be made that belonging to the league (as opposed to operating independently) provides more benefit to any single team than any single team provides to the league, so operating under league rules is a small price to pay for membership. And also that increased parity in the league, and the associated rise in popularity, allows a well-managed team operating under a cap to do just as well or even better financially than one without a cap. The fact that league revenues are at all-time highs, and that the Wings'revenues have increased by over $30 million from 03-04 to 08-09 (and I think that's even after revenue sharing) makes that a pretty strong argument.

I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams. I would prefer a soft cap with a tax system to replace revenue sharing. But I have to admit that the cap is by all appearances good for the league.

There is nothing enforcably wrong with what Lamo did. Like J.T. says, he totally followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law. And until the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same, a GM would be irresponsible to not do the same because the bold GMs will and the conservative GMs will be left behind.
http://habsloyalist....ter-of-law.html


Two things here. One, you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not. If there was an unwritten agreement (probably not) or (more likely) a predetermined plan to somehow dispose of Kovy before the contract is fulfilled in its entirety, then he has in fact broken the letter of the law, which strictly forbids both actions.

Also this: 26.3 (a) from the CBA

No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement

Is a rather neat way of saying that violating the 'spirit of the law' is, in itself, against the rules.