Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 07:39 PM
****-

#2503522 Legwand to Detroit for Eaves, Jarnkrok + cond 3rd/2nd

Posted by Buppy on 30 March 2014 - 02:51 PM

 

I get what you are trying to say I really do but you know desperate times are calling for desperate actions and once desperation is getting the best out of you...rational thinking takes a backseat. Holland himself said their goal was trying to get defensive help or do nothing but then further injuries happened and Wings had to change their plans.

 

It is what is now but I will say this, I PRAY Jarnkrok becomes a star so a mistake like that won't happen twice.

Yeah, it was a desperate situation. Fighting for a playoff spot, Weiss having a setback, losing Datsyuk and Helm (and uncertain if any of the three would be back healthy this year), plus Zetterberg already out for the year, plus Franzen just coming back, and it was our last chance to add anything. 

 

And you are suggesting that the "logical" thought in that situation is play yet another kid with no NHL experience (and not exactly lighting up the AHL) rather than a proven performer who had 40 points already this year.

 

The desperation likely contributed to the overpayment. Good job by Poile to recognize he had us in a bad spot and take advantage. However, given how well Sheahan has done, as well as Glendening looking like a quality 4th-liner, and all the other good looking prospects we have, I'd say we could afford it. Jarnkrok had one more year of waiver exemption. We have Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss, Helm, Sheahan, Andersson, and Glendening as center options for 3+ years. Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkkinen, and maybe Mantha in the same time frame as Jarnkrok. Then add several 4th line/reserve options. There wasn't much of an opportunity here for him. Even had we kept him it would have cost someone else an opportunity. 

 

Regardless of whether Jarnkrok becomes a top line player, or even a bona fide star, making the trade was a solid decision. And good decisions are as important as results. You shouldn't judge everything based on hindsight and speculation. We'll never know if we could have done the trade without including Jarnkrok so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is we had an immediate need and more "future potential" than we have spots for. You trade from strength to address a weakness, and that's exactly what we did. How it works out is also important, of course, but just not the only important factor.




#2502750 Perspective

Posted by Buppy on 29 March 2014 - 12:05 AM

...

 

Maybe, just maybe, the days of roster overbuilding and prospect overripening are gone, and proud veterans aren't waived because the team can't find a trade partner, and energetic young players are expected to learn how to play the NHL game at the AHL level.  If the performances of Nyquist, Tatar, Andersson, Lashoff, and DeKeyser didn't prove that last year, throw in Jurco, Sheahan, Glendening, and the cups of coffee this year, and the evidence is pretty strong... give the kids a chance.

At the risk of going too far off-topic, I think we need to keep this "kid" thing in perspective. It's not like these kids are fresh-from-the-draft teenagers. They're 22, 23, 24; most with multiple years in the minors to mature. If the evidence of anything is pretty strong, it's that "over-ripening" works.

 

And it's not like we've ever been particularly averse to giving young players an opportunity, even when they've had a year or more left of waiver exemption. There's a fair-sized list going back to the 90s when we were just getting good, through Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Fischer in the early 2000s, then Filppula and Hudler, followed by Helm, and you could even count Brunner last year. The only thing noteworthy about the current youth injection is the number of good prospects we've accumulated in recent years. And while that quantity is definitely a good thing, it also means there just isn't room to give all the kids a chance. 




#2502538 Gustav Nyquist Appreciation Thread

Posted by Buppy on 28 March 2014 - 12:45 AM

53 goals and 90 asssits in 137 games isn't just a playmaker either. That's a good all-around player who spent a lot of time with the puck. He had 371 shots in GR, virtually identical to his shots per game this year.




#2498613 Is the Real Brendan Smith Finally Starting the Show Up?

Posted by Buppy on 21 March 2014 - 10:35 AM

 

Yep, he played so great with Kronwall that Babs split them up 8 minutes into the first period and only once, sporadically, in the second period allowed them to play together again.  And, as I've said, he was fourth on the team in time on ice as well. 

 

So I guess my question is, if he was playing so good with Kronwall as everyone says, why was he demoted from the top pair and why didn't he get more ice time?

 

Babs probably just has it out for him huh?  He'd rather give the ice time to an "undeserving" Quincey because he's purposely trying to ruin the season?  Maybe it's Gary Bettman's fault? 

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you and all the other Smith apologists are seeing what you want to see, and making excuses for a guy you want to succeed. 

He wasn't demoted. 18 of his 27 shifts were with Kronwall, including one in OT. PPs/PKs looks like the main reason they were separated at times.




#2493984 Question: 2 scoring line/2 checkers or 3 scoring/1 checker?

Posted by Buppy on 10 March 2014 - 02:34 AM

Fortunately, players come in more than two varieties so it's not really an either/or scenario. You want some good scorers (your Datsyuks and Zetterbergs), some secondary scorers (Franzen, Nyquist, Tatar), some complimentary players (basically someone cheap, not necessarily good on their own, but able to play alongside skilled guys and provide decent production - Bert, Cleary, Homer types, in better seasons, Abby), some two-way guys (secondary/tertiary scorer that also provides good defense - Flip, Weiss, possibly Helm, Sheahan), and finish off with some solid checkers (cheap guy, solid defense/PK ability and/or high energy/physicality - Miller, Glenny, Andy). Then try to piece it all together to get a balanced attack with all four lines able to chip in some offense.

 

Something like:

Good/secondary scorer - Good scorer - Complimentary guy

Secondary scorer - Good scorer - Complimentary guy

Secondary scorer - Two-way guy - Checker

Secondary/Checker - Two-way guy - Checker

 

Obviously can be shuffled around based on exact personnel and their positions, and player chemistry, and some players might fit in multiple categories. Basically, I think if a team has Cup aspirations they need to get at least decent production from the third line, and occasional production from the 4th. A team like Pittsburgh is going to struggle more often than not in the playoffs, and most teams that try to build that way aren't going to have players as good as Crosby and Malkin, especially trying to build through trades and UFAs.

 

With Pav and Hank healthy, I think we have the "good scorers" covered, but of course the more the merrier and one more would sure be nice due to injury concerns. Secondary scoring is our biggest strength, along with checkers. Complimentary guys, mostly Bert and Abby this year, could use improvement. Alfie and/or Legwand could fit in those spots if they came cheap enough. Our two-ways are maybe a little weak, but mostly just from injuries.

 

To afford it all, the checkers and complimentary guys should be pretty cheap and you need a few others on bargain deals (easiest with young players on 1st or 2nd contracts), with the rest ranging from mid-level to high.

 

Reality complicates all of that. Getting the right guys isn't easy. Sometimes they're just not available, and even if they are someone else might get them first. Then you have to fit them all under the cap and hope they all gel with each other and your coaching staff and philosophy.




#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

2004/05-lockout

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.
 
"24.5
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.