Sprsquirt7

Draper and Homer needs to go. Old and soft.

Drapers usefulness is getting limited but he can still play well enough for a 4th line role.  Holmstrom had 25 goals last year and to say he needs to go because he's soft is just ridiculous.

How did sakic have better numbers?

Yzerman 692G 1063A 1755P
Sakic 625G 1016A 1641P

Yzerman has more stanley cups as well.

I'm suprised its in Sakic's favor.  But its not that huge a difference between the players, they are both class acts and 2 of the best ever.

HAHA ok Pronger may be one of the most hated players ever but he is so damn entertaining and he has some actual wit. The minors comment is great. Although Burrish will probably find a place somewhere.

Byfuglien had only like 34 points in the regular season. He was a team worst -11 in the regular season. He was tied for a team worst -4 in the postseason. Byfuglien had an offensive outburst in the postseason which is why I understand the current trend to like him. He is not worth 3m. He hasn't shown that he can continually produce and do it consistently. I honestly don't see him fitting in with the Red Wings because of his semi liability in the defensive zone. He will fit in somewhere and be a major contributor but it will have to be on a certain team in which defense isn't a major priority, ie not the red wings.

I don't know of a replacement for Byfuglien but I'd rather have someone like Asham. That guy played exactly how I would want someone in a Wings jersey to play and he has a nice scoring touch for being a "grinder". For the price especially Asham > Byfuglien in my mind.

edit: my answer was no if you didn't get it from the post lol

Im just curious but since babcock and holland seem to be expecting a lot out of Hudler why so many are putting him on the third line. With his offensive potential, I would better assume he is on the 1a or 1b line.

I have faith in the team and will always cheer my heart out until they are officially out... I still believe no matter how dim the light may be.  Not everyone will share how i feel.

One thing about this whole put your best shooters first and go down the line until you get to the weakest is that there is the assumption that the goalies are going to let goals in. Even the very best players in the shootout are at 50%. Most other shooters are far below that and the good shooters are right around 30%. Assume that you throw your top 3 players for the shoot out out there. And the other team throws out 1 top guy and 2 good guys. You each score one goal, who appears to be the better coach going down the line, or who is in a better position to win. You've used your top 3 while he's only used 1 of his top 3. Granted this is a hypothetical but realistically i've seen plenty of shootouts go past that 3rd round even if they have put out their best players for the shootout.

I believe we had a shootout earlier this year in which Babcock held off using Fillpula until round 7. He used him as a reaction to their player scoring. Filp tied the shootout up and a couple rounds later miller scored the game winner. Filp would be considered one of his better shootout players but was used strategically, not mindlessly. And i know the argument already "well if he played him a round earlier they wouldn't have had to even go that far". The thing is you can't compare a no pressure shot vs a pressure shot and how that affects a players ability to score.