Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:40 PM

#2235891 Can Conner reasonably be sent down?

Posted by Buppy on 14 December 2011 - 10:55 AM

We currently have an open spot, so we won't have to send anyone down until Eaves gets back.

Conner has looked good so far, but so did Emmy in his first few games. Right now, I'd have him above Emmy, but that could change in the weeks before Eaves is ready, or we could have more injuries.

It's too early and the sample size is too small to make long term plans with Conner. I think he's earned a spot in the lineup for now. Assuming he keeps it up, I think Emmy, Miller and Homer will rotate with Mursak once he comes back.

#2233115 Realignment decided - 4 Conferences

Posted by Buppy on 05 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

Eastern conferences have a 7% better chance of making the playoffs? EFF THAT BS.

It's not random selection, so it's not really 7% better chance. Larger pool size just means a better chance of the larger conference having more good teams. It's about as likely that the 5th-place team in one of the 7-team conferences will be better than the 4th in one of the 8-team.

I'm kind of torn. I liked divisional playoffs and the rivalries created, and I like playing the first two rounds close to home (or at least no further than Dallas/Winnipeg). But this method creates such a large chance of someone getting screwed.

Much better if they just went with the 4 conference winners + 12 wildcards.

#2232417 Filppula is "too nice".

Posted by Buppy on 03 December 2011 - 10:24 PM

I just don't see the appeal of trading flip. Hes a homegrown wing, with great defensive responsibilities and puts up good points. I just don't know what you'd expect to get in return that would be better than what flip offers, whether hes having a good season or average season. Hes the kind of playmaker that makes his linemates better, just like dats and Z, but not quite at their level. For his salary, I think it would be foolish to trade him - especially given the red wings success.

The appeal is that he's a valuable asset who could be used to bring back someone who fits the team needs better. I don't want to see him traded (and I doubt he will be, as someone would have to make Kenny a pretty sweet offer), but if we could use him to get Parise (without adding too much more) it would be foolish NOT to.

Though unless he's part of a package to add another star-caliber player, it would be pretty foolish the way he's played so far this year.

#2228847 Jiri Hudler Appreciation Thread

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2011 - 09:16 PM


Ah yes. react sooner. Such poor judgment of Hudler to not react quicker than immediately. And such slow reaction speed, in that he didn't make it to the puck that he would have had to be skating towards before the faceoff to stop from exiting the zone. Or the fact that Richards was going full speed, and was within a couple feet of Hudler, by the time Hudler had a chance to react. As for defensive positioning; take a look at the replay and watch how Hudler forces Richards to go around him. The simple fact that Richards was going full speed while Hudler was standing still when the play started pretty much defined the result. Hudler had no chance because he wasn't expecting Cleary to hand the Kings a nice breakout pass, and therefore didn't position himself in "Cleary prevent" formation.

Surprising that you haven't blamed Zetterberg for not winning the faceoff cleanly enough. With you it's always everyone except Hudler.

Cleary was battling for the puck after the faceoff, and swept it back to the D, like he's supposed to. Obviously not perfect, but he was still doing his job.

Kronwall hung back to cover the late man, as he's supposed to in that situation. You could argue they should have switched roles, but from their actions it's obvious neither played felt that was the correct play.

Howie stayed with the shooter, did not over-commit to anything, as a goalie should. He just couldn't react quickly enough.

The fact is that goal was the result of Richards being a lot faster than Hudler. They both started moving when the puck dropped, and as you say Hudler started backing up almost immediately. It's not like Richards was shot out of a cannon or started sprinting up ice three seconds before the faceoff. Hudler was at a disadvantage because he needed to turn around, but he still had two steps on Richards at their blue line, and Richards was past him by ours. And if you want to say that Hudler had no chance due to the disadvantage, then the correct play by Hudler there would be to step into Richards and take him out or at least hold him up enough to ensure Kronwall gets possession. Most likely an interference penalty, but 4v4 is better than giving up a breakaway opportunity.

Not saying it was terrible by Hudler. Mostly it was a good effort from Richards to take advantage of a slower player playing a position he isn't accustomed to.

#2228605 Eaves = Doghouse?

Posted by Buppy on 21 November 2011 - 10:15 PM

He's been a "Healthy Scratch" A LOT over the last 2 seasons. There's got to be something more to him not getting the playing time that other guys get. His approach to the game must be inconsistent to the approach of other Red Wings that work their ass off (Lidstrom, Helm, Datsyuk, etc.). I was just wondering if anyone knew the scoop.

The only "something more" is that he isn't as good as most of our forwards. Emmerton is a center, Miller's playing great, Bruno has to play some time... Everyone else is better, or at least offers more potential even if they haven't been great so far. Same goes for previous years, most of our forwards have been better leaving Eaves to rotate in and out when we're healthy.

We have to scratch two forwards every game right now. Patty just needs to make the most of his opportunities or wait for injuries or someone like Miller or Emmy to start playing poorly.

#2228290 Do They Deserve It?

Posted by Buppy on 21 November 2011 - 02:29 AM

Would anyone be UNhappy if the Red Wings replaced Holmstrom and Bertuzzi with Selanne and Parise?

Anaheim and New Jersey, I suspect.

#2227200 Make this team better

Posted by Buppy on 18 November 2011 - 04:45 PM

The way for us to be better is for Datsyuk and Zetterberg to play better. 5g/18p in 17 games is just not near good enough. Double those stats and we're probably 12-5 or 13-4, at or near the top of the league.

Juggling role players would do nothing. Adding a sniper would help, but if Pav and Hank continue to struggle it won't be enough, especially if we gave up Flip or Franzen considering they have been our best forwards this year. Defensemen, team defense, and goalie have all been good. Bottom 6 has been good. We could use more from Cleary/Huds/Homer, but that's a minor issue and likely corrected by Pav and Hank improving.

Stars are supposed to make the supporting cast better, not the other way around. The only thing we really need is for our stars to be stars.

#2225422 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Buppy on 14 November 2011 - 11:18 PM

To the bold, that's why it's a "charging" penalty. If it were anyone other than a goalie that's not even a penalty.

To the underlined, this is made up. You have no basis for concluding he wanted to injure Miller. Try and use this logic to prove someone's intent in a court and see how well that logic holds up. Also, to note, Miller did not just leave the game when the hit happened. He played another 26 minutes of ice time, surely was evaluated at the first intermission, and cleared to keep playing, until leaving after the 2nd. Lucic is not a weak hitter and if this guy wanted to injure Miller with a hit he would have certainly done plenty of damage. Miller's injuries came from the fall, not the hit -- somehow, he was capable enough to swing his stick at Lucic in response, and he's damn lucky he didn't connect or that would have got him a suspension.

It is not reasonable to just say someone had an intent to injure.. prove the intent. Hitting Miller is not proof of an intent to injure without making synonymous hitting someone with intending to injure. An intent t injure is not an intent to hit, it's an intent to injure someone. Seriously, it's hard to fathom what the difficulty in discerning the two is. The only proof here is that it's a charging penalty.

You realize there is a provision in the charging rule allowing for supplementary discipline, right? You keep saying it was a charging penalty as if that means it shouldn't have been a suspension.

You're right that you can't prove intent. However, you can infer intent by looking at the actions and the likely result. A hard hit on someone in a vulnerable position is reasonbly likely to cause injury, therefore it is reasonable to infer that intentionally hitting (hard) a vulnerable player is intent to injure.

Regardless of what you or others think of the rule, the fact is goalies are not fair game. That means we can reasonably assume Miller did not feel (and should not have had) any need to protect himself from a hit. In my opinion, because goalies have that protection and therefore do not expect to be hit like that, goalies should always be considered vulnerable. So in my opinion, any hard, intentional hit on a goalie should be considered intent to injure and warrant a suspension.

I understand that it is subjective and not everyone will subscribe to the same logic. However, remember that a lack of 'proof' of intent is not proof of no intent. Also remember that this is a hockey league, not a court of law. We're not talking about sending someone to jail. We don't need to meet so strict a burden of proof.

This was a chance for the league to prove they are willing to suspend a star player (besides Pronger) as well as deter future actions they obviously do not want to see in game (goalies getting hit). In my opnion, Shanny missed on this one.

#2225363 The 2012 Off-Season

Posted by Buppy on 14 November 2011 - 05:01 PM

We're for sure going to hae to give up a lot to get those two guys. They arent going to come as ufas for free. Look at what happened with ehrhoff and wiz. Its gonna take guys like franzen and cleary or some young guys as well as a our first rounder to make that happen.

Wiz's rights went for a 7th rounder, Ehrhoff's for a 4th. Why would you think it would take a 1st plus players? Or do you mean as a deadline deal?

i think it's safe to say that it'd be very surprising if smith and nyquist weren't on the team at the start of next season. anything can happen of course, but it would be surprising if they started off in gr again.

They are still exempt and we'll have the cap space to add alternatives. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they both end up staying another year. If they play like stars the whole year in GR and/or they get called up here and make an impact it'd be a different story, but I'll wait until after that happens before I pencil them in to next year's roster.

#2225076 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Buppy on 13 November 2011 - 12:02 PM

Miller is one of my favourite goalies here but f*** it, I like what Lucic did. Goalies get enough protection in the crease and around it. They don't deserve to go for a skate that far up the ice and expect to be protected as they aren't protecting the net at that point (otherwise the argument is the goalie being anywhere on the ice is considered protecting the net), they're playing the puck as any other skater. Lucic doing that, while infuriating him, lets him know that next time the puck is that far up the ice, Miller is taking a risk by going for a skate so far up the ice, and he just might think twice. I don't think goalie interference applies to that, even less do I think it's charging the goaltender. Lucic is finishing a hit on a player skating far away from his net to play the puck and not playing goal.

The reaction by Miller and Ruff is over the top.

While I agree that a goalie that far out of the crease should be fair game, the fact is, according to the rules of the game today, they are not. Therefore, Miller had no reason to expect he would be hit like that and no reason to protect himself from it. Lucic very certainly knows that rule, and so knew Miller was in a vulnerable position. Seems like a clear attempt to injure to me, and if it was my call Lucic would be sitting for a few games. I'd also suspend Miller for the attempted slash.

#2220676 Own success is our downfall

Posted by Buppy on 31 October 2011 - 10:06 PM

exactly, we are outshooting teams but not burying the biscuit enough to win games.one of two excusess,1) their goalie played on his head, so our guys aint working them out, but is funny how many times we do outshot teams
altogether and only win by the odd goal or lose. when was the last time we got owned on the shot count and won the game?
2)lack of a genuine sniper is costing us games that we should be winning.a fact that should have been addressed by
Kenny before now.

...what i wanted to imply in the org topic was that being so successful is slowly going to catch up with us if we dont make some sort of moves, standing pat will bite us in the butt eventually. There is no need for a complete overhaul by any means, as stated its only 9 games in and we have a winning record to date. I am all for getting some of our younger prospects in and giving them a feel of the big league thou instead of getting in players on 1 to 2 year deals as a stop gap not only would it help the rookies learn, but would also have left more $'s in the bank to make a move come the FA window.

I have to disagree about 'needing' a sniper. Yes, the offense has been stagnant the past few games, and the PP has sucked most of the season. But in the first five games we scored 18 goals, putting us near the top of the league. Last season we were 2nd in the league in GF, only 1 goal less than Vancouver (and that with Datsyuk missing time, and Mule, Huds, and Flip having sub-par seasons). It is far more likely that the first five games are much more indicative of our offensive capabilities than are the last four. Acquiring a good sniper would certainly be great, so long as we don't have to give up too much to do so, but it's not really needed. We have 3-5 guys capable of 30+ goals, plus another handful capable of 20+, and several defensemen that can generate offense. We could easily end up leading the league in goals this year.

I think you expect far too much from Kenny. Since the lockout we are the highest scoring team in the league. And that's with a down year following the loss of Steve and Shanny, and the injury plague in 09-10. Kenny has done a fantastic job, not just in helping us stay a contender every year, but doing so without mortgaging the future. Despite the lack of any top picks in recent memory; we are still a contender this year, AND we are in excellent position in regards the to salary cap, AND we actually have a pretty solid prospect pool.

Of course our roll won't last forever. It may even end sooner rather than later. But to say the organization should have done a better job, or even could have (without both the ability to see the future and employ mind-control on other GMs) is pretty ridiculous.

#2220207 Brunnstrom on waivers

Posted by Buppy on 30 October 2011 - 11:14 AM

This isn't true is it? Brunnstrom still has to clear re-entry waivers.

He does not have to clear re-entry waivers due to his two-way contract. Re-entry waivers are only for players making over a $105,000 in the AHL.

#2216121 Hudler?

Posted by Buppy on 18 October 2011 - 01:19 AM

You've written a lot of words here, but really haven't said much.

You have to read them in order.

#2216117 Hudler?

Posted by Buppy on 18 October 2011 - 12:36 AM

The Hudler for picks argument was always dumb.
The chance of Hudler producing well at the drop of a hat was always greater than the chance of getting an equally good player in the 4th round... not to mention the fact we'd have to wait 4 years to test that player on NHL ice.

"Dumb" depends on the situation. Trading him right now for anything other than a better top-6 forward wouldn't make much sense, sure. But after another 30-ish games if we need to open a roster spot for Mursak, who knows. Maybe Hudler will have 40 points and look like an all-star, maybe he'll have 10 and be a healthy scratch half the time.

We don't yet know how Hudler will perform. We don't know how guys like Emmerton, Brunnstrom, Miller, Eaves, etc. will perform. We don't know what our team needs will be, or if we'll need to open a roster spot. Speculating that Hudler might be a good trade candidate in 2 1/2 months is no more "dumb" than speculating that he'll still be a top-6 forward at that point.

#2211238 Brendan Smith suspended for 5 games

Posted by Buppy on 01 October 2011 - 11:51 AM

... blah blah blah.

Addendum: Shanahan explains, that his (Ben Smith) head position did not significantly change. I would like to point out that his head position did change in relation to his left shoulder, which was the target. His head was protected by his left shoulder until he dropped it back and opened his body allowing the natural and pre-chosen trajectory to follow into his head instead of his shoulder. He still put himself into a vulnerable position by moving his shoulders.

I think you (and a lot of others) need to watch the video again. When Ben toe drags, his left shoulder moves forward relative to his head.

Brendan took a bad line to the hit. The suspension does seem a bit harsh, but hopefully he'll learn from it. Not just to avoid penalties/suspensions or to avoid hurting people but to be a better player. A few people pointed out that the hit was just a couple inches from being a good shoulder to shoulder check. But it was also a couple inches the other way from blowing by him altogether and leaving Ben with a clear break on goal. Brendan actually had to lean in a bit to make contact.