Were reallyy not that far ahead.
And Boston's getting back in the swing of things after an abysmal start.
It was good to see us get a win vs st. Louis, because they've been dominant lately.
But they also went through around ten games where they lost seven or eight this season.
Nashville's been pretty consistent this year.
So I'm looking forward to seeing how we play against them.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the win last night. It was a good win against a good team. I'd like to see more of that. Because for a while we weren't doing that at all. I'm just a little sick of people explaining away marginal performances (i.e. losing in the shootout to Toronto, Colorado, Buffalo, Florida, etc.) by saying "well if it weren't for the shootout we'd be better". No we wouldn't. We'd MAYBE have more points, but it doesn't mean we'd be better. The fact that you're consistently going to overtime against bad teams is proof enough that you're not "better". I'm also sick of the "well we're only three points out of first" argument. At one point, a year ago, we were leading our division. By the end of the season we barely squeaked into the playoffs and got humiliated in the first round. And all you've got to do is compare the teams we played in the last two months, with the teams we play in the next two months to see just how little our record currently means.
The only way for this team to prove it's good, or a contender, or whatever, is to consistently beat good teams. That's it. And if you don't consistently beat good teams, or do lose to bad ones consistently, then getting rid of the shootout record or counting up points won't make a bit of difference.
It's a little bit like the Carolina Panthers in football. Sure they made the playoffs, but what does that mean? They had a losing record entering the playoffs. Anybody with a brain knew that they weren't good just because they made the playoffs.
Like I said, hopefully last night was the start of something good. A turn around. We sure looked really good. But I've got to see that kind of effort, consistently, before I think this team is going to make any noise from here on out.
I agree Kip, but there is ONE Leaf that I would love to have... Cody Franson. I think he is the one bright spot on that loser team...
There are a few of their players I think are good. But I've got to be "all in" on this. So I'm calling it. No Toronto losers. None. Even the ones I like. They'll leave their loser germs on the equipment in the training room and before you know it all our guys will have loser. Next thing you know we'll be extending crappy defensemen to 7 million dollar deals and blaming everything on our top line wingers.
I don't want anybody from Toronto. They're tarnished with "loser". I don't want our players catching the loser bug too. I'm sick of losers. I'd rather keep our guys. Our veterans are winners. Our kids are winners. The only guys who aren't winners are Weiss, Quincey, and the fourth line...and see how that's working out for them lol.
No, we are not a contender this year in my opinion. Box out our forwards and forecheck the heck out of our D and most teams take us out in the first or maybe second round. I'm enjoying watching the kids get better and my veteran favs this year so I'm not a hater or anything. I, like most here just think we need some ingredients to really contend. The equivalents of Mac, Shanny and Lids would do it in my opinion.
Oh, is that all? Just a power forward and two hall of famers? Lol.
I'm just kidding with you. I agree. We're a decent team, but we're not a contender. I've said elsewhere, we don't beat good teams and we're only .500 against crappy teams lately. Our offense is not existent most nights, and our blue line defense well but does nothing else well.
Like krsmith17 said in another thread, I think we could be a contender in the next couple of years but a couple solid acquisitions. But not this year.
It was, however, impossible to keep Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Filppula, Cleary, Homer, Draper, Maltby, AND Hossa, and the defense and goalies, and ice a full roster.
Right, Holland didn't want to replace all his mid-tier guys with unknown guys or depth players like Bowman did with Versteeg, Byfuglien, Niemi, and Ladd. I get why Holland let Hossa go. My problem is that since 2010, the narrative has become "Holland chose Franzen over Hossa". Which is bulls***. Holland chose to keep this core team from the 2009 Cup run intact, rather than blow it up just to keep Hossa. When you put it that way, it seems a little bit more reasonable. Which was my point all along.
Also, people realize Hossa's cap hit was 7.45 million in 2009 right? By signing him to the exact same money he made in Chicago we would have gained around 2.3 million against the cap compared to the year before. Or, in other words, his cap hit is less now (for Chicago) than it was the year we had him. So even if nothing changed from 2009 accept his contract, he still would have been more affordable re-signed than he was the year we actually had him on the books. And that's with no other changes. Add to that the fact that we lost Hudler, Sammy, Kopecky, Conklin, and didn't need to sign all of Bertuzzi, Williams, Eaves, May, Miller, and Leino, and there was plenty of money.
You're a bit off here. There was no money for Sammy or Hudler that year. We were over the cap the entire year, only getting by on LTIR. We eventually had to dump Leino, demote May, and force Maltby on to IR just to bring Franzen and Lilja off IR. It would have been difficult to keep Hossa instead of Franzen, much less keep both. Both would have meant losing Flip for sure, plus some.
Realistically, the choice was Hossa or Franzen. Mistake? Perhaps, though I doubt having Hossa would have made any significant difference.
I agree it wouldn't have made a difference if we'd kept him.
We had 5.3 million dollars wrapped up in guys we signed (or claimed) after Hossa left (Bertuzzi, Williams, Miller, May, Eaves, Leino). And that's 5.3 without making a single trade. Move a player with a moderate salary out, and there's more money. I agree it was tight. But I don't agree that it was one or the other. It was one or the other ONLY if we didn't want to move out salary to retain Hossa...which clearly Holland didn't. Lots of teams clear salary to retain stars. Holland didn't. Likely because he didn't think Hossa was that important, and not because (as a result of Franzen's signing) there was absolutely no money available.
Again, they brought on the equivalent of Hossa's current contract AFTER he was signed by Chicago.
Also, last year also showed that Ken Holland clearly doesn't mind going into a season over the cap if he sees fit. He had no problem waiving guys like Tootoo, Samuelsson, and Eaves a year ago to get cap compliant. So he clearly A) knows it can be done, and B) will do it. I don't buy, for one second, that he REALLY wanted to retain Hossa, but just couldn't make the cap work. Especially considering they offered him a contract valued 1.1 million dollars less than what he makes now. You really don't think Holland couldn't have found 1.1 million if he'd really wanted to?
Please enlighten me as to Holland's history of player movement?
We all know he's not the type to swing big trades involving players currently on the roster - not in the last several years.
You going off the premise that there was a whole list of moves Holland could've made with roster players in order to sign Hossa - something I do not agree with given Holland's history.
I've always seen it as 'black & white'...It was one guy, or the other, and chances of signing both were zero.
Firstly, you can Google Holland's personnel moves. I see no need to list every trade, or signing, or player he let walk for another, just because you feel like being difficult.
Secondly, the fact that you've always seen something one way doesn't mean other options weren't available. It also might explain why, despite the fact that I've listed multiple alternative scenarios, you refuse to think anything else was possible. You don't believe it was possible because you've never believed it possible, despite the fact that there's at least a handful of other possible scenarios. The fact that you think its black and white is the cause of your consternation, not the effect. Because accepting that there were alternatives to what happened, and it happened anyway, either makes Holland dumb or else means he just didn't want Hossa that bad. Neither of which are as simplistic "it was either or". It wasn't. I've now told you several ways in which it could be both. Some of which didn't involve trades. If you still insist it wasn't possible, its because you're being obtuse. Not because you've got a firm grasp of the situation.
Was Holland even known for swinging trades in order to free up cap space to sign 'hi-end' players after the work stoppage in 2004/2005?
Lets be honest - the chances of Holland transforming into a Burke type GM, and start 'wheeling & dealing' is very unlikely.
What's that got to do with Franzen? If there's a strong incentive to keep someone, you make it happen. Now, aside the fact that Hossa may not have wanted to stay here at all (which isn't a stretch considering our coach is a dick), I do believe there were some (minor) mistakes that were made surrounding the choice to let Hossa walk. Here are a few mistakes Holland (and management) made that might have influenced what happened (and how we view it).
1) Its the managment's job to determine whether guys are just a flash in the pan or here to stay. They clearly misjudged Franzen's long term potential. Though it should be noted that for three of the next four years he was within 5 pts. of his 2009 career high. So even if they agreed on a short "prove it" contract, he would have been in the same ballpark as he was in 2009. Indications were that he'd keep it up, but still, it's their job to get it right.
2) Having a better handle on Hudler's status would have helped retain Hossa. Hudler held out and bolted for Europe when he didn't get offered enough money as an RFA, but that happened after Hossa had already signed elsewhere. Assuming they knew he wanted a TON of money, they could have traded his rights before free agency and used that money toward Hossa. Knowing Hudler was a potential flight risk might have helped prioritize extending Hossa as well.
3) Having a better handle on whether Samuelsson was going to try out FA could have made a difference as well. He ultimately did want to test the market, and so a big chunk of his salary could have been used to extend Hossa prior to FA (if, indeed, he wanted to come back).
And that's about all for big mistakes. Otherwise, it was just a matter of prioritization. And, as I said before, considering the Wings had just won the Cup without Hossa, he probably wasn't as big a priority for Holland as we'd all like to think.
So - you feel Holland could've signed both Hossa, and Franzen, or am I reading too much into your post?
Yes (see below).
My point is, why bother? You just won a Cup with your EXACT same team...minus Hossa. So offer him a contract that leaves you in a good cap situation, and if he takes it great. If not, you've still got a team that just won the Stanley Cup.
The fact that he didn't re-sign Hossa was probably not limited by Franzen's contract. There's always options. We had plenty of moveable assets going into free agency 2010. If Holland really though keeping Hossa was integral to team success, he could have traded Filppula, Hudler, Kronwall, Stuart, Cleary, Abby, Helm, Howard, Ericsson, Lilja. Or NOT SIGNED Bertuzzi, Miller, Eaves, May, or Williams. Remember that the difference between what Holland offered Hossa and what he took from Chicago was only about 1.5 million dollars. One or two of these players would have easily covered that. The likely reason he didn't re-sign Hossa is because Hossa wanted 5+ million for the next 12 years. Which Holland didn't want to do.
How did it suddenly become and either/or scenario between Franzen and Hossa?
I never said Mick condoned dirty plays of said attaboy to bad hits, just good scraps. Mick loves big clean hits as much as the next guy (excluding a few people here), but he does from time to time talk about giving another player a face-full of lumber, again, paraphrasing. So it's hard to say that he's got it all out of his system.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but again, they call two very dissimilar teams. Mick was never as big of an ******* as Edwards, but I can't say he'd be so different in terms of enthusiasm for the rough stuff if Detroit had a similar team to Boston, which they did throughout the 90's. He'd just have a less annoying voice.
You're misunderstanding what I have against Edwards. I don't care if he likes fighting. But it annoys me when Jack Edwards manipulates his fans' love of fighting, in order to justify Boston douchebaggery (like the Chara punch after a Chara penalty). I don't care if Boston dives. But I DO care if Jack Edwards pretends that Boston players are all the remains between hockey and European soccer, just because he knows that message will resonate. I don't like that Jack Edwards has simultaneously never played hockey, and knows EXACTLY what is ruining/vital to the game, which happens to coincide with whatever his fans already think is ruining/vital to the game.
He tells a bunch of idiots exactly what they want to hear. Which makes him dishonest, and more importantly, annoying. That's why he sucks. Because he's formulaic and fake.
Hossa was a 'All Star' calibre player prior to being a Red Wing for that 1 year while Franzen looked like a 4th liner until having 2 exceptional years which he then earned his lengthy deal.
Yes - hindsight is indeed 20/20 - however Hossa was/is a thoroughbred while Franzen - well he's just a Mule.
IMHO it landed down to either having 1 or the other for Holland (not sure if he could've ever signed both)...A more expensive, but proven Hossa, or the less expensive Franzen.
So blame Holland, fine. I don't care. And I don't care that you think Hossa's better. He is. But I'm a little tired of hearing people ***** about Franzen as if he was supposed to voluntarily turn down the money. Or as if his contract hasn't been helpful. Or like his production didn't warrant 3.9 million a year.
As for the second part, about either having one or the other, that's absurd. Here's a recent example: Boston didn't have a lot of cap space and wanted to keep Riley Smith and Torey Krug. They didn't have a lot of money. They convinced Krug and Smith to sign one year contracts below market value. Let Iginla walk (even though they didn't want to), and traded Boychuk. Where there's a will there's a way.
You can argue all day that Holland made the wrong decisions, but he clearly thought that keeping Hudler, Filppula, AND Franzen was worth more to the team than losing two of those guys and keeping Hossa.
And it's a little hard to blame him since he had just got done winning a Cup the year before with Hudler, Filppula, and Franzen...but not Hossa.
I was more or less comparing a similar aspect of younger Mickey and JE, but I was more or less referencing your line about fans "holding their announcing team to a higher standard". Because 80's-90s Mickey, though less whiny, was as enthusiastic as JE about a big hit or scrap when he called games, and when someone went after Yzerman he would reference retaliation, and there usually was some. Obviously Redmond and Edwards are not very similar these days, because they call two very dissimilar teams. But Boston is actually not so different from Detroit's back-to-back teams of the 90s, probably even softer AND cleaner, but it's a different game.
Doesn't the fact that he's largely stopped being so horrible only lend credence to what I'm saying about having standards?
Edwards is a jackass. But if Boston fans didn't like idiotic jackasses, then Edwards would change or get fired.