Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:59 PM

#2298395 Johan Franzen wants to 'have more fun'

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2012 - 10:16 PM

Is this sarcasm?

T-31st, T-34th, Injured but pace would have put him around 25th-35th, T-16th, T-42nd.

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.

#2298385 Johan Franzen wants to 'have more fun'

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2012 - 09:40 PM

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.

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.

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.

#2298095 Johan Franzen wants to 'have more fun'

Posted by Buppy on 29 April 2012 - 09:05 PM

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...

Sorry, are you trying to use Hossa to show that people do not unreasonably scapegoat players when we lose?

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.

#2297769 Johan Franzen wants to 'have more fun'

Posted by Buppy on 27 April 2012 - 11:43 PM

...Honestly, if his scoring didn't improve a single point, but he checked, and skated, and WORKED consistently, the team won, folks would get off his back, but he doesn't they didn't, so now people need a scapegoat. ...


#2277087 Why is Cleary still on the team?

Posted by Buppy on 03 April 2012 - 02:18 AM


Damn me :ranting:


#2265063 Post-TDT: Red Wings stand pat, no additions

Posted by Buppy on 29 February 2012 - 05:16 AM

1. Smith
2. Nyquist
3. Jarnkrok
4. Mrazek
5. Sheahan
6. Tatar
7. Jurco
8. Pulkkinen
9. Andersson
10. Ouellet

-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.

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.

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.

#2265061 Johan Franzen Depreciation

Posted by Buppy on 29 February 2012 - 04:05 AM

Good to see one of our top players become the whipping boy. All the years of idiots bitching about scrubs of marginal impact was getting stale.

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.

#2254531 Red Wings Alumni lineup

Posted by Buppy on 10 February 2012 - 01:20 AM

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.

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.

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.

#2252783 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 05 February 2012 - 03:59 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.


#2252072 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 04 February 2012 - 04:08 PM

Not sure how you see Ramage's shoulder going into the Oliver's face, looks clearly to be hitting him in the shoulder on all the replays. Major point of impact is low causing the guy's stick to snap like a twig. Ramage doesn't leave his feet at all or charge leading up to the hit in any way. The check couldn't have been any cleaner. When I saw Ramage getting a penalty I was shaking my head in disbelief. Then, after a 5 minute discussion by the officials, they tossed him. It was absolutely jaw dropping.

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemask. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the head. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.

...Like Newfy commented, hockey used to be a contact sport. Anyone that played hockey from Bantam level on needed to learn that if you come through the neutral zone with your head down like Oliver did you had a good chance of getting flattened. These type of calls you feel are "questionable" are on the rise. The more calls made like this, the more players will pull up from making a body check to avoid a possible penalty, and the more players with feel comfortable skating through the middle with their heads down. The sport of hockey, just like anything in life, adapts to the constructs of the environment it is in.

Hockey is always changing. It's never the same as we "knew it". Apparently it is changing for the better in your opinion, which is cool. I like how someone like Kronwall plays and don't want to have to worry if every big check he makes will end up in a suspension along with a 5 on 5 scrum. Personally I enjoy a nice solid body check as part of the game and don't think it should be legislated out of the sport. How many of these "bad calls" would we have seen 10 years ago? Buppy said he would have given the hitter a pass. No s***, because it was clearly a horrible call. One that no ref would have even contemplated anytime before 2 years ago. That is the entire point.......

There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.

I get where you're coming from Harold, but I think you're comparing a bit of apples to oranges here.

(Apples)Clutching, grabbing, and hooking are considered universaly to be undesirable aspects in a hockey game. Dats shouldn't have to fight through hooks, and neither should have Gretzky. To call that tighter opens up the game making it better. You're right that the players did adapt and we see less of that god-awful clutching & grabbing now because of the rules being enforced.

(Oranges)Bodychecks on the other hand are a desirable aspect of the game(IMHO). No one wants to see someone get injured obviously, but the game of hockey comes with inherent risks. Concussions being one of them. When calls like this are even in the refs conciousness because of the current climate, it is going to cause that same adaptation we saw with clutching & grabbing occur with hitting.

I think the game should err on the side of no call in these instances. Kronner's type of hits I see as OK. He is always North-South and isn't taking 10 steps(Pronger) before laying into someone. If they don't want to get hit they need to keep their head up(I'm looking at you Havlat). Making the call of feet being on ice before or after contact being made is way to difficult in game speed for refs to determine so shouldn't be a factor IMO. Again, err on the side of the hitter.

No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.

A good arm tackle used to be considered "defense". Used to be fine (sometimes still is) to rub a guy out along the boards after he chips the puck past you. Used to be fine to try to take a guys head off if he didn't see you coming.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless. Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.

Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.

#2252005 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 04 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days...

Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was.

Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.

#2250472 Who Could be Dealt at the Deadline?

Posted by Buppy on 28 January 2012 - 03:31 PM

To Detroit:


To Anaheim:


As dreams go, that's a pretty good one.

Regarding the topic, while a lot can change in a month, I'm not expecting much. Seems like too many teams are too close, and there won't be many big names moving. Maybe we send out a pick or two for a minor tweak, but I don't think there will be enough action for us to find a deal that fits.

We don't have anyone we would want to move. Hank is really the only one not performing up to standards. Maybe Cleary a little, but he's been ok for the role he's been in. Helm and Abby aren't doing it on offense, but I'd be shocked if either were moved. Miller/Emmy/Eaves/Mursak might go if we add another 4th liner, but more to give them an opportunity to play that they won't have here. Our good prospects I think we want to keep, unless we're adding a good, young, top-6 forward. Our lesser prospects wouldn't bring much in return, but someone like Andersson could maybe be moved instead of a late pick.

Bert and Homer aren't going anywhere (nor Pavs obvisouly). With Mule's contract, I don't think we could get an equitable return. If we moved Hudler, we'd need a top-6 scorer in return. I think the only teams interested in Hudler would be teams hurting for offense, and so they wouldn't want to part with another scorer. Flip is probably the only forward we could get enough of a return on to be worth it, but it seems no one (fans or management) wants to consider that.

On defense, it's not worth moving Stuie unless we're getting someone similar in return. It would seem only the the Ducks or Kings (if they even want him back) would be options. Beauchemin seemed like a good potential deal before he was re-signed. Greene might be alright, but he's kind of slow. But I don't see Stuie moving. Kindl could certainly be moved, maybe package him with a pick for someone like Gleason, though I think the team would be fine keeping him.

I think our team could use help on faceoffs, depth scoring, shot-blocking defensemen, physicality (especially in the top-6. I worry about the ability of Flip-Hank-Huds to produce in the playoffs) and backup goalie.

A gritty, top-6 caliber forward like Ruutu, Morrow, Erik Cole (not crazy about his contract though), or (unrealistic probably) Dustin Brown would likely be in our price range, and let us move Hudler, Flip, or Bert down to help depth scoring. Backup goalie and a shot-blocking upgrade to Kindl/Commie wouldn't be expensive either. A good faceoff man (Jarrett Stoll?) seems like it would be doable.


E-Mark Stuart?

Probably more movement than we're likely to see, but I like that lineuup.

#2246864 Alfie and Chara named ASG Captains

Posted by Buppy on 18 January 2012 - 03:26 PM

They'll do captains again:


I'd guess Alfie and Chara, assuming they get in.

What do I win?
  • Ram likes this

#2246319 Top teams are looking to deal

Posted by Buppy on 17 January 2012 - 10:53 AM

What people want is for us to give up a s*** player for a exceptional one, and no team is going to make a trade for that. I would hope that Holland would NOT trade our future away. We have cap space, but what we don't have right now are prospects in the system that are exceptional players. I don't see the next Dats and Z in the system. I don't see the next Lids in the system either. I see good players, but no one who is going to light it up. When Z and Dats are gone, what are the Wings going to do if they traded away their future today?

Just something to think about. We have far too many people who believe that trading our future away right now is the way to go. We need to be more careful especially in the salary cap era.

If we were adding a player like Parise or Ryan, they would be our future (Parise would be a risk, but we have the capability of re-signing him). It would be well worth giving up a couple of our top forward prospects for someone like that. We'd likely have to give up Flip or Mule, which may look bad right now, but probably benefits us in the long run.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we trade all our top prospects and all our picks for a rental. Giving up one or two for a player that can help us both now and in the future is not trading away the future.

#2245979 Top teams are looking to deal

Posted by Buppy on 16 January 2012 - 11:17 AM

I'd be surprised and disappointed if we don't at least explore the option of adding something, but not terribly upset if we can't work anything out.

Our good trade assets are pretty much Flip, Nyquist, and picks. Maybe another top forward prospect if we're adding a young star forward. Or Stuart, Kindl, or Smith if we're adding a young star defenseman. Enough to make a good offer, but maybe not enough to match what other buyers are willing to spend.