Suter is still under contract. Kenny can't say anything about him, or even hint too overtly, or it would be tampering.
Hey at least there are some folks willing to explain why they think I am in the wrong! Thank you guys!
Hey, Holland is gonna do what he is gonna do...Sure Suter may hate Detroit and will take less NOT to come here, that is fine too. I just don't see why everyone is getting excited over these guys who couldn't make it in the NHL before, didn't we learn our lesson's with Leino and Brunnstrom? I guess he could pan out to be a nice #6 or #7, I just don't hear no talk from Holland about being interested in Suter, he sure talks about guys over in Europe enough, you would think that he would say something...Hey, hopefully he signs everyone he wants to and turns this team back right...
- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: Buppy
BuppyMember Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:28 AM
- Group Silver Booster
- Active Posts 2,454
- Profile Views 7,727
- Member Title Hall-of-Famer
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by Buppy on 23 May 2012 - 09:54 PM
Posted by Buppy on 22 May 2012 - 08:18 PM
4 seasons actually. Iwasn't a member here at that time, but other boards were certainly full of the same negativity.
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't six years pass between the Cups in 2002 and 2008? ...
But that just means it's time for Kenny to prove them wrong again.
Posted by Buppy on 19 May 2012 - 06:50 PM
Even starting from a blank slate, there's only going to be so many options. If you're trying to conform to some rigid price and experience structure, you're limiting your options too far. Your approach would only work in a hypothetical world where a good option that fit your model was always available.
A general outline is fine, provided you're willing to be flexible when appropriate. Yours just goes way too far.
A young skill-player or two
A young grinder or two
A young defenseman or two
A handful of seasoned veterans
All the above on cheap contracts, allowing exceptions for exceptional players.
The rest of the roster in their 'prime' give or take a year or two. As many as possible below market value, limited long-term deals.
Strong two-way centers, at least 3, but 4-5 if possible (as long as said players can adjust to the wing), a few snipers, a few playmakers. As many versatile players as possible. Lots of speed. A few high-energy guys, very good on defense, and physical. One of them a center with very good faceoff skills. 3-4 defenseman who can score but aren't liabilities on defense. A couple physical stay-at-home guys. A good goalie.
Age/experience/cap hits to be determined by availablility, priority of need, and future options.
- number9 likes this
Posted by Buppy on 19 May 2012 - 11:05 AM
That's the thing...you make a thread titled "LA Kings as a model", then suggest the exact same changes that everyone else (including yourself in other threads) already suggested, despite the fact that those changes don't do anything at all to make the Wings more like the Kings. Why even mention the Kings?
You're getting carried away. And so are a lot of the rest of you.
1) I'm not saying that they are THE nhl's model franchise, or that we SHOULD re-build our team in their image...I'm simply saying, "Hey, look, that's the best team in hockey right now, they are playing this game very differently than us, is there anything we can learn from watching them?"
2) How does adding Parise, adding Suter, and replacing Eaves and Miller (essentially) with two bigger power forwards signify the abandonment of our style of hockey?? That's all I'm suggesting that we do here. I think it'd make us a better team. And I don't think that Holland or Babcock would disagree in the least.
Should the Wings ty to improve for next year? Of course. But the Kings have nothing to do with that.
- Frozen-Man likes this
Posted by Buppy on 18 May 2012 - 11:37 PM
Secondly, why should the Wings want to jump on the Kings bandwagon? That's something fans do, not exceptional hockey franchises. When the Kings or Rangers go a decade as a legit contender every year, then maybe we could consider them models. But not after one good year.
The Kings haven't found some secret formula for victory. There is no such thing. They're just playing very well.
This reminds of Fes from "That 70's Show" trying to grasp the Rock-Paper-Scissors concept. You need to understand that isn't one thing that beats everything. The way the Kings play isn't new. The way they are built isn't innovative. Everything they are doing has been tried before; has failed before. Nothing always works. Not one single "formula" in all of sporting history, any sport, always works. Closest to that in recent hockey history is the Wings. I have seen nothing in recent years to suggest that the puck-possession system, when executed well, is not as good or better than any other style.
Maybe our players are no longer good enough to execute our system, but until I see something to suggest the system is untenable, I'll stay on the Wings' bus and trust Kenny to tweak the roster.
Posted by Buppy on 16 May 2012 - 11:31 PM
We are no more than "playing well" away from being a serious contender. For most of the season we were near the top of the standings, near the top in GF and GA. That wasn't a fluke or luck. We have issues, as every single team in the league does every single season. It is not possible to put together a team that is too good to lose. By far the most important factor in the playoffs is just playing well. Of course you need talent, and we already have that. Build of the roster or style of play means very little. Whatever you do, you have to do well. Better than your opponent does whatever they do.
All good points around.
A little off topic, but we weren't a Zach Parise away from being serious Cup contenders.
Even if we get Parise, that doesn't solve our lack of size problem nor does it COMPLETELY solve our lack of sniper problem (if you ax me, Parise isn't a "pure sniper"). Though that point becomes moot if Franzen settles back in to his "2nd scorer" role that he had in 08 and 09 behind Hank and Hossa. He played well back then....
I have a feeling that the idiot GMs in the NHL are gonna drive up the price of free-agents like they did last year (James Wizniewski "Detroit doesn't pay market value"). Then we will be in a tough spot: Parise cannot make more than Pav....at least i don't think he can.
We could add Parise, Suter, Gaustad, Moen, bring Nick and Helm back, trade Franzen for Perry, trade Miller for Dustin Brown, add whatever goon and a couple big bruising defensemen for the third pair, and whatever else everyone says we "need"...and if we don't play well, we'll still likely lose in the first round.
Of course, we should still try to get better, both in raw talent and versatility of style. But we don't need a complete overhaul, and the season won't be over if we miss out on all the prize free agents.
- Byorski likes this
Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2012 - 10:16 PM
T-31st, T-34th, Injured but pace would have put him around 25th-35th, T-16th, T-42nd.
Is this sarcasm?
That's where Franzen has been in goal scoring the past five years. That is top line goal scoring. Perhaps you are equating the term to "elite-in-the-league-sniper". It's not the same thing. He is definitely the former, and definitely not the latter.
Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2012 - 09:40 PM
29 goals IS a pretty big deal, considering that only 35 players in the entire league managed to score that many. Only 10 players scored more than 35. Parise, whom everyone seems to consider the messiah, scored 31. Virtually identical goals/game. Franzen is a top-line sniper.
I think it points more to a lack of goalscorers on our team that we think 29 goals is a big deal.
You may have a point, but whether he is playing in the role of top-line sniper with the elite playmaker feeding him the puck, or 3rd line big-body with the hands to score some goals, he still has to put the effort in!!!!!! His production isn't the problem. His role isn't the problem. His complete lack of effort, lack of accountablity and lack of shame is.
You can't say his production is fine, but then criticize him for lacking effort. If more effort doesn't equate to more production then it's a little pointless to ***** about it. If you believe his production should be higher, what are you basing that on? A few anomolous hot streaks/games? Since breaking out, he's consistently produced at a 30-ish goal level. He has his hot and cold streaks like every other scorer. The only basis for thinking he should be anything more is if you only look at a few peaks and base your expectations off that. It doesn't make any sense.
Zetterberg going from 4 straight 30+ goal seasons (including seasons scoring 39 and 43) to now scoring in the low 20s the past few years (hmm... every year since he signed his long-term deal...), and Datsyuk dropping to a ~22 goal pace after 7 straight years in the 27-33 range has a lot more to do with the 'lack of top-6 goal scoring' we seem to all be so worried about, than does Franzen not being a top-10 sniper, regardless of effort level.
Posted by Buppy on 29 April 2012 - 09:05 PM
Sorry, are you trying to use Hossa to show that people do not unreasonably scapegoat players when we lose?
I know you are trying to defend Franzen, but do you honestly believe what you turned his post into?
Because if you do, then let me remind you of something. Wings were pretty much ONE goalpost away from a back to back Stanley Cup win in 2009. I'd say they did pretty damn good that playoff....yet, to this day, hardly NOBODY forgives Hossa for not scoring 50 goals in the playoffs...despite having 6 goals amongst 15 points (only 8 behind Franzen that playoff BTW)
Man I wish Holland had chosen Hossa over Franzen that off season.....oh well. Now noone will take his God awful contract and in 3-4 years when he his only scoring 15-20 points per season, the only way out will be to buy him out...
We had a good playoff that year, but we did lose. Certainly once we went up 3-2 in the finals we expected to win, and the dissapointment was every bit as bad (or worse to some) than the losses since. Hossa did have a decent playoff (though below expectations), and people still use him (and Stuart) as scapegoats. That is exactly the type of thing I'm suggesting is happening to Franzen now.
And you really wish we had Hossa instead? An extra $1.3M cap hit, and a year longer...for fewer goals? How many points did Hossa score in the Blackhawk's first-round loss?
Franzen is a 30-goal scorer at a 30-goal scorer price (less actually, but fair when considering term, and especially considering we had to re-sign him at a high-value point). Sure he's 'soft', and plays too much on the perimeter. Just not nearly to the extent some people suggest. Expectations are too high, based pretty much solely on a few anomolies (Colorado series, 5 goal game...). But whatever, I'm not going to get into some big, pointless debate with people who are looking for someone to hate. You'll get over it or you wont. At least he's a player who matters, rather than the typical LGW 4th-liner/3rd-pairing/backup goalie whipping boy.
Posted by Buppy on 27 April 2012 - 11:43 PM
Posted by Buppy on 29 February 2012 - 05:16 AM
As a rule, prospects are less valuable when they are a few years away from the NHL. Then consider that most of our prospects are high-risk/high-reward type players and the value drops even more. Smith and Nyquist are probably the only two who would bring a return in line with their potential. Sheahan is probably a safe bet to be at least a 3rd/4th line checker. Andersson likely no more than 12/13 forward in the NHL so his value is very low anyway. The rest could end up anywhere from star to bust.
-Probably hang up the phone within 10 seconds unless they wow me right away in terms of offers for Smith and Nyquist.
-Probably give only %10 of my full attention for offers about Jarnkrok and Jurco.
-Probably give only %40-%50 of my full attention in regards to offers for Mrazek, Sheahan, Tatar and Ouellet.
-And I'd be open to see what's out there for Pulkkinen and Andersson.
So from our prespective, why give up a potential star for a 4th-liner? Or from the other team, why give up a known commodity for a potential bust? It would be one thing to include a prospect or two in a package for a star, but not for the type of role-players that were moved at the deadline.
Seems some people just wanted something to happen just for the sake of something happening (not necessarily you, just a general comment), so people see the lack of a move in the worst possible light. They hear a comment like Holland wasn't interested in moving prospects and assume it means every prospect, as if teams were lighting up Holland's phone offering quality roster players for Willie Coetzee and Kenny was just hanging up.
- Frozen-Man likes this
Posted by Buppy on 29 February 2012 - 04:05 AM
I thought about interjecting some rationality, but decided it would be pointless. Those who want to hate Franzen will do so regardless. They'll overstate his flaws, downplay or outright dismiss his strengths. Once he goes on another hot streak you'll all go back to jerking off to his picture while burning Ericsson in effigy.
Goal and assist tonight. On pace for 30+ goals, and career highs in assists and points. Yeah, such awful depreciation.
Posted by Buppy on 10 February 2012 - 01:20 AM
Have to disagree here. I think he should play, and while I suppose it's a nice gesture to the TB organization, I think it's a little insulting to Wings fans. It's an alumni game; not like he'd be dressing for the WC itself.
I have to disagree. I would say if Stevie has any class, which he clearly does, he will steer clear from it.
Did anyone realistically think he was going to come back and play for the alumni game? Granted it would be absolutely everything we wanted, but it just doesn't make sense. He is literally the #1 guy in the front office for another organization, he is all business, especially in the middle of the season, why would it be legit for him in his position to do something like that? Believe me, if Stevie is throwing on the Winged Wheel again, I would be the first one to be there, but it just doesn't make any sense, and to me it is a class move by the classiest act this sport has ever seen.
The WC and all the festivities will be an epic event regardless. If he bows out it will dim the luster of the alumni game a little, but it isn't going to hurt the Wings or help the Bolts at all. No decent person in the TB organization or their fanbase would hold it against him if he plays. Whether he plays or not, he's still a former Red Wing. And I can't imagine he'd be so busy that he can't take a day off during the holidays to have some fun and give the multitude of adoring Wing fans a little treat. No good reason not to play, IMO.
- Hockeymom1960 likes this
Posted by Buppy on 05 February 2012 - 03:59 AM
Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty.
I fixed it for you since you seemed to be watching some other incident. His entire body snapped back because it was a crushing body shot. I understand why the call was made too, and that is what worries me.
But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal.
You're right, we can't predict the exact future of how this will play out. We can only go by what we see happenning in the present. That call was horrendous. What slippery slope are you talking about? They threw the guy out for a perfectly clean bodycheck at center ice. You say they may get better, I say the trend is to call anything that appears to impact a player hard in the upper part of the body.
I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen.
Refs, for all the criticism they take, do make the correct call far more often than not. Logic suggests that this rule will be no different. Being a new rule, and one that may yet still be tweaked further, you should expect something of a learning curve. Refs will gain a better understanding of what should and shouldn't be called. Players will adapt to the rule. (Take a look at some of Kronwall's recent hits...turns his back almost completely. I suspect he does it to avoid getting his shoulder into someone's chin.) The bad and borderline calls should go down (though they're already pretty low).
Believe it or not, we are still learning new things about head injuries and how to diagnose them. "Shaking off the cobwebs" used to be the accepted method of dealing with all but the most severe injuries. Now we know that that isn't adequate.
Unfortunatly, with any bodycheck comes the inherent risk of sustaining a concussion. Fostering a culture of hypersensitivity of hard checking because of the off chance that a player will sustain one is dumb. No one is arguing against those obvious elbows up, 10 step stupid ass moves that people like Matt Cooke do. If the league were serious about concussion problems they should look at hard shelled equipment, no touch icing etc... Not start ordering the whistle when someone takes a hit that looks bad because they failed to keep their head up.
What inherent risks haven't been known? That participating in ice hockey can lead to concussions? That's the whole reason you sign a liability waver anytime you play any sport. You are acknowledging and accepting the possibility your participation in it could cause bodily harm, even death.
The acknowledged existence of risk does not negate the responsibility of minimizing those risks. Goalies used to play without masks, now play stops dead if a goalie loses his. Player safety always has to be a concern. The league IS going to look at icing, and equipment, boards/glass, etc. They are also looking at how to minimize head contact.
You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked".
So what? Because hitting(especially the open-ice variety)is an integral part of the game of hockey. It is a unique skill that I enjoy watching. Most times it occurs because of the very fact a player gets caught with their head down. Inherent risk. Not sure where you are going with the NASCAR reference. I can only assume it was to try to hold yourself up as somehow superior to me in your fandom. Whatever.....I like all aspects of the game of hockey, solid checks being one of them.
Back on your high horse again here I see. What evidence pray-tell is there that any of what I have posted could give you the impression I wanted to see Oliver get injured? Dude made a bad decision and paid the price. I feel bad for the kid, but it's an unfortunate part of hockey that if you skate across the middle with your head down you run the risk of getting rocked.
It's a balance of risk or reward. North-South hits where a player may/maynot have his head down and gets clocked err on the side of the hitter I say. Not blow the whistle and give a penalty if their is a hard check followed by a head jerking and a yard sale on the ice. You're correct in players will try to push the rules. How long until they figure out that turning their back or dropping their head at the last second will result in a penalty for the opposition?
The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting.
But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them.
If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.
- dobbles likes this