Well this both a blessing and a curse. No longer will Bruins fans have the opportunity to cheer on a local hero. On the other hand, at least Shawn Thornton will finally be able to pursue his true calling in life...dragging pretty blond women to the top of the Empire State building.
Rumors online from Bob McKenize that Winnipeg may be looking to trade anyone, including Evander Kane. Thoughts? I would LOVE to see him on Pav's Wing. Big kid (6'2" 200lbs, 22 years old) isn't afraid to stick up for his teammates or himself, has speed, can create for himself and has a great shot.
I would give up Tatar, Ouellet, Almquist and a pick.
I'm only giving up Ouellet because I think the brass wants Sproul up in a bad way and with how well Bäckman played for the Griffs I think Ouellet is more expendable.
If Mantha makes the team I'd put him in Franzen's spot and put Franzen down on the 3rd line with Sheahan and Jurco.
A team in a year or two with Kane, Goose, Pulks and Mantha would be pretty nice. All guys who aren't afraid to shoot the puck. Just to put things into a little perspective Kane played 10 fewer games than Tatar did this year and still shot the puck 92 time more than Tatar.
If Winnipeg is willing to trade anyone, I'd rather have Wheeler. He's a MUCH better player than Kane, though I've got nothing against Kane either.
Also, I'd be reluctant to put too many eggs in Pulkkinen's basket. He's got a monster shot but he seems to be a one trick pony. I know you've got to give talent to get talent so I'm not going to shut down people's suggestions, but if it were humanly possible I'd MUCH rather trade Pulks than Tatar.
Forgot to say...unless you struggle with reading the English language where I was talking about 5 on 5 stats nothing else.
Here's my source, I know it's probably not as "accurate" as you'd like but it is the actual NHL website so it should do. If you still think Smith scored more even strength points than any defenseman on the team, I don't know what to tell you.
Finally, I notice that you keep ignoring the part of my point where I criticize Corsi stats because they're heavily skewed toward offense but I'll try again. If Corsi numbers truly tell which player is "better", then how do you explain Mike Green having a higher Corsi than Ryan Suter and David Booth having a higher Corsi than John Tavares?
The logic of using an offersheet is sound... if someone tries to punish you by overpaying a player don't match... take the draft picks and laugh at them for being cap strapped.
But the same can be said of the initial offer. If we sent an offer sheet for Subban and it was a really good deal, Montreal would match it. If it was a really bad deal, they'd give him to us on a really bad deal or they'd match it and then force us to overpay the same amount by raising the price of our RFAs (slightly) through offer sheets.
I don't know why I need to keep making this point. If the logic was so sound then people would do it. Since it rarely happens I'd say there's less utility in it then you're suggesting. Either that or almost every GM in the league (including our own) is a fool who doesn't see something so obvious. I'm not buying it.
Have the Flyers had a retaliatory offer sheet sent to a player? No, didn't think so.
Arm Chair GM
Well that's one in a row for you. The possibility is what stops it from happening. Surely I don't have to explain how deterrents work.
See I disagree if they offered them that low of money for 7 years and dekeyser for example was stupid enough to sign that we would be jumping for joy. Having him signed for that cheap....
If you don't understand the points I'm making then I don't know how to be more clear. GMs don't do offer sheets because then other GMs would do the same back to them. There's a reason why every armchair GM thinks it's a good idea and every real GM (aside from the aforementioned Holmgren) doesn't. If we offersheeted Subban, the next couple of years would get REALLY expensive in Detroit.
Difference we offer 8m to subban they actually have to think about it if they counter or not. They offer 8m to any of our RFA we just lol and say GOOD LUCK.
The real struggle would be if they offer say 4m 7 years to Tatar and Sheahan. Would we wanna match or not(if the player signs their offer of course).
8 million is only slightly more than what Subban will likely get. Probably about a half million dollars a year more than his market worth. If they offer sheeted Tatar and Dekeyser at 3.5 million and Sheahan at 2.5 million they'd be doing us just as much harm as we'd be doing them by offering Subban 8. Offer sheets are largely useless for this exact reason.
What we really need is a top end defenceman... Kronner is a solid #2, or a fantastic #3... What he isn't is a #1 d-man.
I know I'll get slammed for this BUT... I think the Wings should fire an offer sheet off to PK Subban. Max money, max years with as many poision pills as Montreal can swallow. If nothing else it will "cost" a division rival some cash.
Wouldn't they then have all the incentive in the world to do the same with Tatar, Dekeyser, and Sheahan? They could end up costing us just as much as we'd "cost" them and neither of the teams would have anything to show for it other than a player they were going to sign anyway. Which is why GMs (other than that monkey Paul Holmgren) don't ever do it.
I don't want Spezza on this team, but this plus minus talk is silly. You can't use his -26 this year against him and then fail to give him credit for his career +53. He's got a better career plus minus than Mike Richards, who was a finalist for the Selke Trophy.
Either it's a terrible stat and shouldn't be used at all, or it's a good enough stat which has to be used to validate a player just as much as it's used to denigrate them.
Personally, I don't think Spezza's a great defensive player. BUT, he's better than his -26 indicated this season, and he's probably worse than his career high +26 indicates as well.
Things happen? Every year 29 teams play the "what if" game. This isn't something new to Detroit, dude. There are over ten million fans wondering the same thing. What if Mantha becomes the next Corey Perry? What if Nyquist is the next Zach Parise? What if Smith becomes the next Dan Boyle? We can play this game all day long. The Rangers don't have a glorified star in the making anymore than the Red Wings do. Look at Pittsburgh... two top-tier stars in Malkin and Crosby, then what? A bunch of guys that got wiped out of the playoffs in a hurry. If you think this team is just going to roll over in two or three years, you're mistaken. I really hate negative fans who always worry about the worst. I'm not saying I'm not happy with how things ended this year, but this team has pieces in place to make it to the finals. It starts and ends with the goaltender. If Howard plays like a championship-caliber goalie, then he can eliminate some of the bounces that would automatically give the other team the upper hand. In the playoffs, winning is where opportunity meets preparation. You can line your team with a bunch of stars with some of the top defenders and some great two-way forwards, but you can still get bounced (see Chicago and Boston). This team was put in position to succeed and they will be put in position next year, too. You're not going to win the Cup thirty years in a row, so stop with the negativity.
Your entire point earlier was "what if Zetterberg and Ericsson played". You're playing the "what if" game too. I'm just being a little more realistic. Odds are against any of the kids being as good as Datsyuk or Zetterberg. Babcock and Holland have each said so explicitly. So resting our hopes on "the kids" is a recipe for failure. It would probably be a good idea to move SOME of them for established NHL talent while they've still got value. Otherwise we may find that five years from now we've got a bunch of decent talent and nothing to write home about.
The two teams in the Cup right now are full of star players that weren't drafted by either team. Mike and Brad Richards, Jeff Carter, Rick Nash, Martin St. Louis, Marian Gaborik, were all traded for and they're playing huge roles for their respective teams. They weren't acquired for peanuts. We've got HUGE amounts of young talent. Would it kill us to move SOME of it for established players?
I don't fault him for Suter-Parise. I believe he got about as close as he was going to be able to get. What I fault him for is pursuing 90% of the big names that surface in the rumor mill (Nash, Edler, Bouwmeester, Salo, Burns, et al.), getting close to pulling the trigger a few times, and then turning around and saying, "That's not how you do it in the cap era," and then turning again and signing Alfredsson and Weiss and trading for Legwand. To me, that screams picky, cushy. He wants the perfect deal to fall in his lap, or he needs to be put in an impossibly desperate situation where he pretty much has no choice. He doesn't want to "overpay." He wants it to be nice and clean and storybook-like. Safe. On his terms. As long as we can make the playoffs, there's no serious urgency - and even then, "Well, we can't make the playoffs every year. Parity. Retooling. Parity. Difficult. Half the league makes the playoffs. Blah blah blah. But we can give Jordin Tootoo way more than he's worth. Blah blah blah."
I've posted this a couple times in the past few weeks and I'll post it again:
Kenny's always talking about how it takes two to dance. You have to wonder if he's the one who's unwilling to dance, not all 29 of the other GMs and all the free agents he's courted. And you have to wonder if that would be because the asking prices are always astronomical and totally non-justifiable, or because there's some issue on his end.
I agree with all that. When I brought up Suter-Parise I wasn't lamenting the fact that we didn't get them, but rather that's the last time we were willing to make a serious push for first rate players. I'm actually glad we didn't get them because they would have put us in cap hell. But you're right, it's got to be from our end. I can't believe that in the last 5 years only two players were available that were both right for our team and also worth the money. Everyone else seems capable of making meaningful moves at free agency or the trade deadline and it doesn't seem to be hurting the chances of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc. Everybody acts like our only choices over the years have been "trade the future away" or "sign some has been who won't ask for too much". There's a middle ground, and probably more of one now than we've had in a long, long, time.
No, I hear you, we're on the same page. I just don't think signing Boyle is a bad idea. Ideal? No, not really. But certainly not a waste of a signing. He's still a top-four defenseman. He can move the puck as well as anyone on our blue line, he can put up points on par with Kronwall, he can QB the second PP unit. The only things he can't do are skate real fast, clear the crease with big burly physical might (which was never his game anyway), and play huge minutes through 82 + deep into the playoffs. But we wouldn't be expecting the Dan Boyle of old. We'd be expecting a high-class #4 whose shortcomings would be offset by DeKeyser, who's arguably our best defensive defenseman.
Saying that adding Dan Boyle to our second pairing wouldn't help us (I'm looking at you, Rich), I don't understand that. Kronwall-Smith/Ericsson and DeKeyser-Boyle is not a bad top four. And, again, if Boyle gets bumped down to the third pairing or gets injured, that's an opportunity for a kid. (We all know whichever players are slotted in as regulars this season, we're gonna have key injuries in our top four, and that will lead to great opportunity for a couple of Griffins.) Again, not ideal. But pretty damn ok, all things considered.
Well I'll say this. It would be a big gamble. I don't think we'd get the Dan Boyle of last year, nevermind the Dan Boyle of old. He put up 36 points last year on a team that's WAY more offensively capable than we are. In my opinion he's declining fast.
Don't get it twisted, I'd love to be wrong. But I'm skeptical that adding another old guy on the decline is going to improve us that much. A signing like that is just treading water, and one of these days we're all going to wake up and realize that while we were treading water we wasted the last 6, 7, 8, years of two of the best two-way forwards of their generation. Other than "trying" on Suter and Parise, there hasn't been a meaningful attempt to make this team elite since 2009. That's notf****** acceptable.
Eh, not necessarily. If it's Boyle for a couple years, maybe $7M each, that's not bad. Versus what you might have to pay for a top-four defenseman in his prime (free agent or trade acquisition). Or, we could get, say, Stralman (who I like), but that doesn't give us the point production and power play prowess we need from our top four, which Boyle would, in theory, give us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of trading for a Keith Yandle, if we can. Just saying.
That's exactly my point. Trading for a guy like Yandle makes us significantly better, no matter the price. Signing a guy like Boyle makes us a little better (maybe) but not enough. Given how far we are from being a competitive team, a little better isn't enough. Let the kids get the experience if you're not going to be competitive either way. And IF you want to be competitive, you've got to do something more substantial than Dan Boyle.
When you've got an entire core of guys in their prime and playing well, getting a "little better" can be a big help. For example, the additions of Oduya and Handzus for Chicago. We don't have a core it their prime. We've got kids who aren't ready yet, and old guys who can't get it done anymore. We've got two options A) spend the assets it takes to get competitive again, whatever it takes (within reason), or B) wait three more years and hope a couple of your young guys turn out to be good enough to make up for the lose in quality you'll get as your stars decline. And even then it's probably a wash.