Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:50 PM

#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.

#2244484 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 12 January 2012 - 03:51 AM

Ill give it a try since youre trying to act like anyone who likes tough hockey cant use rational.

First of all, there are a few (not a tonne) that think that adding a fighter would really hinder the team. I'm here nor there, not really a fan of bringing in a Colton Orr 3 minute a night player personally, I wont speak for the ones that are. There are also a large amount that are ridiculously attached to the current team for whatever reason and think that a team that has went out second round 2 years in a row now doesnt need any changes. In the playoffs both years Miller and Eaves never ramped it up, they simply arent warriors out there like we've had in the past.

There are also a lot of people who may not think that it would really hurt to add a Tim Jackman/Matt Martin/Prust/Clarkson or whoever but they also say it would have no real impact and thats where I think they are wrong. Some people simply dont see it as a real part of the game with a real impact, I would say anyone who has played at an even somewhat high level would disagree (Babcock for example). Whereas guys like me, argue with people who say Drew Miller has as much impact on a game as these guys, which I simply think isnt true, a lot of people will read a stat sheet and see 5 or 6 more points and say that hes the best option out there.

Detroit has never been the toughest team when they were winning, but they were always the most balanced which this team lacks right now. Back in the late 90s, they never had the most fights but always had the personnel that when the going got tough, they could handle that area of the game pretty easily, even if they werent fighting they were playing a much more physical brand of hockey. Despite what Kipwinger will say, back then Maltby was a pretty physical guy and a premiere pest in the league, Mccarty was always tough, Kocur could handle anyone and the top 6 had Shanny. That team could handle brawls like they had with the Avs and still score goals. They could step up for their team and take on those situations and coming out ahead afterwards.

Even in 2008, a third line of Drake Draper Cleary is pretty physical (Drake was a machine in the playoffs) and rookie Helm with no responsibility except to run around full tilt and smash guys. Having balance is what matters, the wings can score goals now but can they wear down a defense? I sure dont think so, do they have a guy willing to spark the team with a big hit or fight consistently every night because he has a mean streak? Nope. All Detroits cup teams had a couple guys like that, this team is lacking. Those cup winning teams would never let their goalie do the fighting for themselves, unless it was against Roy. This team now had Howard donig it every other night it seemed. When a goalie is putting together a Vezina like season, there is no way he should be getting hit, its called team chemistry. If your goalie jumps a guy, you drop your mitts grab the guy and pound him, even if you were the one that pushed him into the goalie and know the goalie was in the wrong? WHy? Because hes your goalie and you stick up for him

This team doesnt do that, guys like Miller skate around show a glimpse of skill every now and then, same with Eaves but do nothing that great. They "PK", meanwhile our PK isnt that great. I'm sick of seeing a dead team have noone that can spark it when the skill isnt working, I'm sick of seeing Howard fight his own battles and I'm sick of having Commodore being the only one who will go to the aid of a teammate.

Hopefully something like Moen for Miller at the deadline can happen and at least itll be a step in the right direction

I notice you didn't actually admit we were soft in 08, nor that we can win now. You got the histrionics covered though.

"Large amount ridiculously attached to the current team"? Name them. I'll bet most just don't see any need to change, but wouldn't object. Most have particular players they like, and others they would like to move. Some might think it would cost too much to trade for someone, and so don't think it would be worth it. Some may not like the same players as you. I'll bet you can't find many at all that would actually be unwilling to change our current roster. "Dead team"? Commodore the "only one who will go to the aid of a teammate"?

Appeal to authority. Several appeals to emotion. Hasty generalization. You got the fallacies covered pretty well too.

Miller and Eaves haven't stepped it up, so they aren't "warriors"? They may not be the grind line of '02, but they're as effective as Draper/Maltby were in 08. Remember, didn't doesn't mean couldn't. Some of us have confidence that Miller and Eaves are capable of filling the same role.

You give a pretty colorful (but exaggerated) description of what we lack, but no evidence that it's actually needed. Just "we've lost two years in a row and we don't want to lose again do we". So when we lost 3 years in a row (twice in the 2nd round to the same team) with our supposedly tough teams, what did we do? We swapped the likes of Lapointe and Verbeek for Hull and Robitaille. Were we too tough? That wouldn't make sense since we also won back to back cups with a similar roster. You think maybe teams can lose in the playoffs for reasons other than toughness? Like when an almost identical 03 team got swept in the 1st round.

Helm had 28 hits in 18 games in 08. Last year he had 28 hits in 11. He scored more last year too.

When Jimmy got hit by Hansen, Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Hudler all got involved in the ensuing scrum. When Ozzie got bumped by Sykora in 08, it was Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen. No one really fought either time, though Pittsburgh escalated things a little further than Vancouver did.

I'd like to see some stats on how often Howard gets run or bumped, compared to goalies on our past teams and around the league. I haven't noticed anything unusual. The comments from Howard are not actual evidence that he takes more contact than he should or otherwise would.

It may be fun to reminisce about the glory days of the Grind Line or Shanny or the Brawl, but "remebering fondly" is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between toughness and winning Cups.

I was going to go on, but this is pointless. I'm tired and my rambling is probably already incoherent.

#2244480 Study done on fighting in hockey

Posted by Buppy on 12 January 2012 - 01:39 AM

There's a table which distinguishes home-team v away-team statistics, and there's about a 50% chance of shooting more over the next three minutes compared to the rest of the game after a fight (ie "momentum") for both teams.

I think you're missing the point. The study is just on the effects of "a fight" in the game. A fight invloves both teams. There's no distinction made between who wins the fight or who starts the fight.

According to the data, 39% of the time, either both teams increase, stay flat, or decrease. The net effect gives no (or marginal) advantage to either team. The other 61%, one team increases relative to the other, but it doesn't truly specify which team. This means that while being involved in a fight can sometimes help, it can also hurt you at other times.

The 3rd table suggests that if a team with high momentum is involved in a fight, their momentum tends to decrease, while a team with low momentum tends to increase. So you need to limit your fighting to only those instances where your team has low momentum, and your oppenent is high in order to gain the maximum benefit.

However, that "maximum" according to this study is worth about .2 goals, or 1/30th of a win.

Now let's put that in some perspective. I'll assume we are only interested in instances where this hypothetical fight actually changes the outcome of a game from a loss to a win. I doubt anyone really cares about shifting momentum in a game we would win regardless. So at the basic level, you'd need 30 such situations (games where you are well behind in momentum and will lose the game) to equal one win. (That also means you lose the other 29.)

But that isn't really accurate, because it doesn't take into account the situation in the game already. If you're already down by three goals by the time you realize you need to shift momentum, you'll likely need a lot more than 30 fights to get enough impact to overcome the defecit. To what order of magnitude is a guess, but let's just say double. So maybe a fight can turn a loss into a win 1 in 60.

But even that isn't really accurate. What the study fails to address is the fact that momentum changes over the course of a game regardless of fights. It is very often cyclical, in that teams will have a burst of high momentum, then drop while the other team has its burst. To actually calculate the effect of the fight, you need to compare these results to the expected rate of change if the fight had not occurred. Let's say that cuts the efficacy of the fight in half. Now you're turning a loss into a win 1 in 120. Coincidentally, 120 is the number of regular-season losses the Wings have had total since we won the Cup in 08.

So assuming that in every one of those losses there was some point where we had low momentum and the other team was high, and we were very careful in picking our spots for our fights, we could have one more win over the last 3 1/2 seasons. Wow.

Or to make it all more simple, we'll just stick with the conclusion from the study:

Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games...

#2244348 Study done on fighting in hockey

Posted by Buppy on 11 January 2012 - 03:11 PM

I think it adequately shows what those of us who don't care about fighting have been saying all along:

CONCLUSION: Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games, but it can often increase short-term momentum (i.e. the RATE at which they are getting shots) for one or both teams. Statistically speaking, if fights happen randomly it will take about 60 fights to equal one win, but if their timing is managed by the coach it could take as few as 30 fights to equal one win. PowerScout has uncovered many other factors that can provide a much greater contribution to winning than fighting, such as having a good penalty killing unit.

In short, fighting doesn't amount to much.

Furthermore, since a fight, by definition, involves both teams, the momentum factors also affect both teams. Which would logically suggest that if 30 fights equals one win, that same 30 fights also equals one loss. I suppose, if your team only fights when they're playing poorly, it might be more of a benefit. So I guess the best strategy is to employ a couple of those spot-picking ******* that all the fight fans seem to hate so much.

#2243718 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 03:50 AM

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.


No one's saying they have no effect. But there's a wide gap between useless and essential.

Downey wasn't sent down in 08, he was replaced by Mccarty in the lineup who would still scrap but was a bit better skater, not to mention a real feel good story for the team to eat up. So I guess an enforcer was playing when games mattered.

As for the "myth" about winning with a grittier bottom 6.... its pretty obvious that when the wings played in 08 they had their grittiest bottom 6 that could wear other teams down. Drake Draper Cleary was the third line, Helm Mccarty Hudler the fourth line. 5 of the wings bottom 6 that year were very gritty players. The next year playing with a very skilled Sammy Flip Hudler third line, the wings fell short.

McCarty was playing due to injuries to Kopecky, Maltby, Franzen, and Homer. When we were healthy, McCarty was in the pressbox watching our 4th line of Hudler-Helm-Maltby. Yeah, that line was tough.

I'm not saying fighting=chamionships. I'm not saying the Cup is ours if we get a guy like Moen. There are so many other factors that play into a teams success than just grit. Although I will say we've got to be able to physically combat our opponent in a long playoff series. We played decent against Anaheim in 2007, but they just seemed to out-muscle us to loose pucks a lot of the time. We need to be able to physically keep up with those kind of teams. Regardless of what the role players do, the snipers need to play consistently. The defense needs to be able to play consistently. The penalty kill needs to be able to get a few kills if it comes down to that. There needs to be balance. You can't have a team full of goons alone and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a team that fails to effectively kill penalties and expect to win a Cup. You need a team that has a balance of finesse, grit (winning puck battles down low, separate man from puck, block shots, just play physically as a team), defensive prowess, and a solid goaltender. Your role players have to show up occasionally on the score sheet. Take a look at a few role players for Boston last year in the playoffs:

Chris Kelly-13 points in 25 games
Dan Paille-6 points in 25 games
Gregory Campbell-4 points in 25 games

In addition to the skilled guys putting up offensive numbers:

David Krejci-23 points in 25 games
Patrice Bergeron-20 points in 23 games
Brad Marchand-19 points in 25 games
Nathan Horton-17 points in 21 games

These guys have to show up to win a Championship. Hell, Drake put up 4 points in the '08 postseason. Not a lot, but contributions from the role players are key.

I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd be ecstatic if we won the Cup this year with the roster we have right now. I just don't see it happening, based on the last few early playoff exits with virtually the same roster. And again, the Cup isn't automatically ours if we find a Moen, there needs to be a healthy balance of what I listed above to be a Cup contender.

You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners.

You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles...

Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything.

You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team.

The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams.

Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway.

Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd.

And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is.

If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

#2243715 If you could pick any six players, from any era...

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 01:56 AM

I agree that players from the current era are better than those from previous eras. Following that same logic, and since I have a time machine, I'd pick all players from the future. I assume it would be:

C - Gordevio "The Rocket" Bosetzkysitorr (Amalgam of genetic material from all the best players of all time. Plus, he's actually a rocket.)
LW - Hockey-Bot 9007XL (Self-explanatory)
RW - Walrus-Man (Not Ponda Baba. An actual cross between a walrus and a human. Self-explanatory.)
D - Twiki (Yeah, the robot from Buck Rogers. Turns out he's awesome. Go figure.)
D - Lidstrom (In 10 more years, he develops into a really good player)
G - A Black Hole (Scoring took a dramatic down-turn [to zero] in the 31st century when the UHL decided to allow celestial objects to play.)

#2243374 Marchand Suspended 5 games

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 11:54 PM

Cheap shot in my opinion. Doesn't look like Salo is even looking to throw a big hit, much less a dirty one.

This is why discipline has to come from the league. You can't just assume someone is going to throw a dirty hit, and use that assumption to justify a dirty preemptive strike. Vigilante justice never works, and only causes more injuries and injuries to innocent people.

Marchand absolutely should be suspended. If I remember correctly, he has a history of going for the knees too. 2-5 games I'd say, depending on his repeat status.

#2242997 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 09:04 PM

Sigh....I'll bite.

There isn't anybody saying fights=championships. In 2002, we had guys like McCarty, Maltby, and Draper who were all physical and defensively responsible, while chipping in offensively. Shanahan was gritty and offensively skilled as well. All were physical, as in getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Finishing all of their checks. These guys won puck battles down low. They all drove the net. At the same time, Yzerman, Fedorov, and the finesse guys played on a consistent basis. There was a healthy balance of finesse and grit.

In 2008, Drake, Maltby, and even Helm and McCarty were the ones winning puck battles down low. Driving to the net. Getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Blocking shots. These kind of grinders are needed, IMO to get through gruesome playoff series. Again, our finesse guys played consistent. Again, there was a healthy combination of finesse and grit.

I'm not giving credit to Dallas Drake for our championship in 2008, but guys like him help us physically compete with other teams in long playoff series.

Many will say "Oh well we were one game away from the Conference championship series with a really soft team". I didn't realize that was good enough around here. There is room for improvement on this team.

Well, I think this is exactly about some people trying to correlate fighting to winning. Of course, there isn't one, so the enforcer slappies have to duck behind vagueness like "grit". They insinuate that there's some special, intangible "toughness" that can't be measured or specified in any way, but is possesed by all Cup winners, and lacking everywhere else. Anything contradictory is dismissed as "not what I mean by toughness".

In 08 our forward with the most hits in the playoffs was Datsyuk. In the regular season we were 25th in the league in hits. 13th in hits/game in the playoffs. 1st in playoff hits was New Jersey, then Anaheim, who both lost in the 1st round. In 02, we were 26th in the regular season and again 13th in the playoffs. So far this year we are 24th, ahead of Boston, Chicago, and San Jose. Last year we were 19th, ahead of both Boston and Vancouver. Columbus, Dallas, and Carolina were all in the top 5 in hits last year and missed the playoffs.

Abby is a gritty, physical player. Gets in on the forecheck, finishes his checks. Defensively responsible, wins battles down low, drives the net, etc. He is a lot like Drake, except for the near mythical proportions Drake has taken on since the Cup win. Helm and Cleary are still Helm and Cleary. Miller and Eaves also play hard, battle down low and in the corners, play good defense, etc. Emmerton and Conner aren't very physical, but Hudler was also in our bottom 6 in 8. McCarty played mostly in place of Maltby, then in place of Cleary when he moved up to take Mule's place. Not much of a net gain in physicality, especially considering he only played about 6 minutes a night.

In the 08 regular season we had Draper, Drake, Maltby, Kopecky, Sammuelsson, and Downey. This year we have Helm, Abby, Bert, Miller, Eaves, and Emmerton. In 08, those guys combined for 397 games and 538 hits. This year, our 6 have 246 hits in 188 games. Using last years numbers (but this year for Emmerton), it's also 397 games, and 632 hits.

There is no correlation between toughness and winning. We were soft in 08, were soft now. We can still win. Of course, it would be great if we could be just as good while also being tougher. It would be great if we could be just as good, and everyone was also a better goal scorer. Or just as good and 15% faster.

Sure, there are players that are as good as some of our players who can also fight or are more physical. No one is suggesting that we should avoid those players. I for one am not even saying those players are that hard to find. I would even like someone physical for the top 6 (I think our bottom 6 is fine).

What I have a problem with is the veiled (or sometimes open) insinuation that replacing someone like Miller with a similar player who can fight is what will put us over the top. It's silly.

#2242697 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 04:42 PM

People are so funny. Toughness is relative, and the Wings have been one of the softest teams in the league for all of our recent Cups. The way some people talk about the Cup years now, you'd think we led the league in majors, as opposed to being last or close like we really were. I'm sure if we win the Cup this year, in a few years we'll see folks reminiscing about the toughness of Bert, E, and Abby.

So we haven't won a Cup without an enforcer. How many times have we (or any other team) actually had a season without one?

How about this. In 98, we beat Washington in the Finals. Washington was last in the league in majors, we were next to last. In 02, we beat Carolina. We were last, Carolina was next to last. In 08 we were last, Pittsburgh was 10th. (I don't have the stats for 97, but I'm pretty sure we were near the bottom.)

There is no correlation at all between toughness or fighting and playoff success. Some tough teams win, some soft teams win.

#2241684 Wings to host NHL Winter Classic within next 2 years

Posted by Buppy on 04 January 2012 - 10:51 PM

Ford Field. First ever outdoor game played indoors. Now that would be something different.

#2241481 Season-Long Lines Thread

Posted by Buppy on 04 January 2012 - 02:47 AM

the problem is that we only have one big guy that can do anything with the puck (mule). so one of the top two lines is going to be without. nyquist, who's faster, could be swapped with hudler.

being strong and strong with the pick are two different things. i think bert's awful doing anything with the puck. he kills a top 2 line. and what offensive instincts?? - constantly going offsides?

that or swap eaves out for emmerton.

i think he'd benefit more from a guy that can participate with the puck in nyquist.

i think conner got reassigned to gr today.

you must've not seen him play.

Try watching Bert with some objectivity. Same with Nyquist and Smith.

#2240655 Gorges wins lottery !

Posted by Buppy on 02 January 2012 - 02:07 AM

good catch on the hits.

as far as "pretty similar", maybe in some stats...but as far as contract value, not at all. gorges is considered by many habs fans as their best defensive defenseman. they are mostly all excited about this signing. he's considered a leader and a shutdown defenseman. some of them would even like gorges to be considered for the captaincy.

ericsson, on the other hand, is brutal defensively and has done almost nothing to show that he is worth that contract. nearly all wings fans thought the contract was ridiculous.

comparing these two players is something that would be done by someone that has only watched one of them play.

Yeah, yeah. Only Wings fans can overrate their players. And Wings fans never underrate our players. Wings fans are idiots, except when we hate Ericsson...then we somehow know more than Kenny and Babs. I know your schtick.

Habs fans may love Gorges, but they haven't had Lidstrom on their team for the last two decades making all their other defensemen look like crap in comparison. They don't have Stuart, Kronwall, or White. Their best defenseman has missed the better part of the last three seasons.

Ericsson is in only his 3rd full season, and he is far better than most fans here give him credit for. He's not as physical as he should be for his size, and he doesn't have great poise with the puck which can result in turnovers when he's pressured. He won't block shots and he doesn't have a great grasp of when he should and shouldn't jump in on offense. But he's pretty sound positionally, strong along the boards, a pretty good skater, makes a good pass when he has time, and if he can figure out how to use his shot he could be a solid point producer. He has the kind of size you have to pay a premium for.

Gorges doesn't have ideal size, or any particular talent on offense. He plays a simple, solid game. He's an excellent shot-blocker, but he's nothing special overall. He's not even Brad Stuart. He's more important to his team, so it justifies the salary more. Marketwise though, if E is over paid, so is Gorges.