Jump to content

DSM's Photo


Member Since 28 Jul 2005
Offline Last Active Dec 15 2014 11:33 AM

#2556182 Vaya con dios Damien Brunner

Posted by number9 on 12 December 2014 - 09:01 PM

I read some articles on NJ.com (the Devils Mlive.com) about the subject that had some interviews about the topic.

I agree on his departure from Detroit though. Holland didn't want to overpay for a player that was still rather unknown. I don't blame him, and I don't blame Brunner for trying to cash in. I'm just happy now that his departure opened a spot for a whole bunch of young forwards who are clearly more useful players.


Certainly, I'm glad Holland was smart enough not to get stuck with him

#2556042 Myers close to become a wing?

Posted by DickieDunn on 12 December 2014 - 07:21 PM

I would trade anyone doe the right deal. A risk isn't the right deal though, and Myers is a risk. He could turn into a stud after a trade like Chara and Pronged, or he could continue to play like a deer caught in the headlights and miss 20% of each season, or he could just settle into being a decent second pair D.

#2556032 Vaya con dios Damien Brunner

Posted by DeGraa55 on 12 December 2014 - 06:42 PM

Brunnner was his own worst enemy though. If he would been on detroit a third line he would still be in the nhl.

But his terrible attitude and lack of defense(a reason why the wings most likely didn't care if he stayed it not...specially since Tatar is doing what Brunnner did just better).
  • DSM likes this

#2555923 More Mantha stuff.....

Posted by krsmith17 on 12 December 2014 - 06:55 AM

It's likely Mantha probably did say something like this, I've heard many of his interviews and it does sound like something he would say. However, I don't really get the point of this thread... It could have easily been added to the already existing Mantha thread, and without being able to provide a source, it makes even less sense to post.


Anyhow, Mantha should start the season in Detroit, if he starts in Grand Rapids, Ken Holland is a moron. He is that good, he definitely doesn't need time to adjust in the minor league...... :ninja:

#2555872 Vaya con dios Damien Brunner

Posted by kipwinger on 11 December 2014 - 06:19 PM

Apples to oranges.

At only 23, there's a chance Nestrasil may still have some upside and he can still be retained as a restricted free agent at the end of the season if he works out. He's also got four inches and 20+ lbs. over Brunner, and has the versatility to line up at both center and wing. He also has an easily bury-able cap hit that is a fraction of Brunners.

On the other hand... At almost 29, Brunner pretty much is what he is. A small winger who hasn't been able to hang onto a top six role in what amounts to about two seasons of NHL experience, but doesn't have the tools to play in his own end and is basically useless in a bottom six role.He also carries an unfriendly cap hit for a player that may end up buried in the AHL. His documented issues with PDB likely also make GM'S apprehensive.

My guess here is that he has refused an assignment to the AHL, which is likely best for him at this point, if he wants to stick at the NHL level.


Next to the amount of words wasted on the waiving of Colton Orr and Frazer Maclaren, that's the most text I've ever seen spent on two players who matter as little as these two do.

#2555800 Mitchell Callahan

Posted by krsmith17 on 11 December 2014 - 12:05 PM

I think Andersson needs to be shipped out now, and Callahan called up to replace him on the 4th line...
  • DSM likes this

#2555136 Theoretical "Expansion Draft" implications - Who to protect?

Posted by Jesusberg on 09 December 2014 - 06:14 PM

Again, this is all "theoretically" based on an (unlikely to actually happen) June 2015 expansion draft based on the rules for the last expansion drafts.


It's also unlikely that those rules would be the formula for a "Cap Era" expansion draft. Two things didn't exist during the last expansions: The salary cap and the notion of "higher league parity".


I wouldn't be surprised if the league adds new provisions for a salary cap expansion.


The first thing to consider is that the expansion team would need to reach the minimum salary floor. The league probably knows that the expansion team won't have a snowballs chance in hell to compete in the now thin UFA market and would struggle to reach the cap floor without having provisions in the expansion draft. They would also want the new team to atleast be able to compete on level with basement level teams. Something they can't do with one draft worth of prospects and the pack of career AHL players or mediocre veterans that moved in the '98-2000 expansion drafts.


My guess is that the league will also put in rules stating that teams have to expose a certain number of players that have a cap hit over a certain level and/or a certain number of years remaining on their contract. Something like:


Each team must leave unprotected atleast:

-Four players (1G, 1D, 2F)

-One of which is under contract for atleast the next season with a cap hit at or over $3.5m

-One of which is under contract for alteast the next season with a cap hit from $2m-$3.5m

-Two of which are under contract for atleast the next season with a cap hit from $700k($150k over league minimum)-$2m


Then the league would mandate that the expansion team take a certain number of players that meet each criteria, like: Atleast 3 of the $3.5M+ players exposed and 5 from the $2m-$3.5m category, and atleast 7 from the $700k+ category.


Would be a good opportunity for some teams to offload bad contracts (ala Lecavalier), but also guarantees the expansion team atleast a small amount of NHL talent for their inaugural season, and a jump start at meeting the salary floor for their first season (most likely in the same fashion Edmonton did this past season, by overpaying mediocre UFA's like Nikitin and Pouliot!).

I agree that they may attach some conditions for the players being exposed, but I don't think there would be any shortage of those "bad contracts" available (Semin, Mike Richards, Brian Campbell and Matt Carle come to mind). While I think teams should have a minimum amount of salary exposed, if the criteria is too specific, it's going to handcuff a good number of teams. For example, outside of Michal Neuvirth, Buffalo doesn't have another player in the 2.0-3.5 range.

I think the onus should really be on the expansion teams. They can overpay UFA's, make deals, etc., but I agree there should be a minimum amount of cap dollars made available - maybe not just so specific on the number of players and their ranges. It's another obstacle (the cap), but I think teams would be relieved to unload some of their contracts for sure.

  • DSM likes this

#2555132 Theoretical "Expansion Draft" implications - Who to protect?

Posted by Jesusberg on 09 December 2014 - 05:43 PM

Mrazek is out of waiver options after this season. That wouldn't work.

"Petr Mrazek's waiver exemption of 5 year(s) and 73 games remains in place through to the end of the 2015-16 season. However, that exemption will end immediately when he appears in 73 career NHL regular season and playoff game(s). He has played in 14, meaning he is 59 away from his exemption ending."


  • DSM likes this

#2555122 Theoretical "Expansion Draft" implications - Who to protect?

Posted by Jesusberg on 09 December 2014 - 04:31 PM

I would think CBS and MIN would be included. In the '98 expansion, the Ducks, Sharks, Lightning, Panthers etc. took part and they were all expansions in the early 90's.

The ten game minimum criteria is confusing to me as well. For this "theoretical" situation in which the draft takes place this coming June, Gustavsson and McCollum could still get claimed.

If we're protecting two, does McCollum even count? He's played one game in the NHL.

For some reason, I was thinking July and not June, hence me thinking Detroit could sign someone to protect their goaltenders right away. While I get this theoretical draft would occur this June, I imagine it's going to be next June or the one after (if this happens). I think it would be tough to find someone fitting the criteria to sign in Detroit's situation - it's all but certain that we're going to roll with Mrazek as the back-up next season. Someone like Fasth or McElhinney could meet the requirements (depending on how much they play this season), but it's hard to imagine they'd be up for playing in the AHL. I'm assuming that if they don't have a 3rd goaltender that meets the 10/25 game criteria, they'd have to expose one of Howie or Mrazek? Bleh if so.

  • DSM likes this

#2555109 Theoretical "Expansion Draft" implications - Who to protect?

Posted by rick zombo on 09 December 2014 - 03:28 PM

If we lose Mrazek, Helm, Ericsson, or Abdlekader  because that "Count Von Count meets Gollum" lookalike f****** troll want to put a rink beside a blackjack table, I'm going postal.


That being said, I'd go with




and do exactly what you did except I'd protect either Helm or Abdlekader over Weiss.

#2554013 Jeff Petry; trade between us and oilers

Posted by Dabura on 05 December 2014 - 12:27 AM

Sending Kindl to Oilers will completely destroy that team. NHL needs Oilers.


Kindl would be one of their better defensemen. That's how bad it is.

  • DSM likes this

#2553721 Are the Wings a Contender?

Posted by Son of a Wing on 04 December 2014 - 01:01 PM

Dickie and nawein are right on this one. 



If a player clears, he can be sent to the minors, kept on the NHL roster or traded to another team.

A player who clears waivers does not require waivers again until they’ve spent 30 cumulative days on an NHL roster or played in 10 NHL games since they last cleared waivers. They can be recalled to the NHL and reassigned an unlimited amount of times as long as they don’t meet those requirements. Even if they’ve started accruing NHL days or NHL games, clearing waivers “re-sets the clock” as far as their waiver eligibility goes.


It has to be 30 cumulative days on an NHL roster. Days on a minor league roster do not count.

#2522696 Am I the only one that winces when seeing another "Edler to Red Wi

Posted by Bryguy on 03 June 2014 - 09:19 PM

Well we can stop worrying since Linden said they are not going to trade him.

#2518702 Jaroslav Halak's negotiating rights traded to Islanders.

Posted by rick zombo on 01 May 2014 - 02:46 PM

Read somewhere else that they may keep Nabokov as backup if they can get a decent starter.

Apparently they will be moving on from Poulin and Nilsson, who never materialized as starter material as they had hoped.

Nabokov would likely be their top choice for a backup if they can get Halak signed up.

If Nabokov hits the market, would he want to come to Detroit this time? My thinking is that he'd either retire, go back to the KHL or sign on as a backup with a team that has a legitimate shot at a Cup. A la Vokoun with the Pens.


Unless Holland outbids everyone. He has the cap space to do it.

  • DSM likes this

#2514414 Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Posted by frankgrimes on 23 April 2014 - 04:15 PM


While I'm no longer one of those "WINGS NEED AN ENFORCER" types, I do think Holland/Babcock should consider having someone on the team that can keep the flies off.


It has to say something when EVERY team that has won a Cup in the salary cap era did so while carrying a player or players of that ilk on their roster for the entire season. Included our beloved 2008 Red Wings team.


I know one of the common laments is that the player takes a roster spot from a better player, but a better playing sitting as #14 forward isn't going to play much anyway...


See and that's exactly the point. Such a player wouldn't take away much, a #14 forward doesn't offer anything a hardnosed "goontype" player at least keeps the other team honest. There is a reason why nobody isf****** around with Monahan or Baertschi and even if they try it, McGrattan steps in and the case is closed.


To me our young guns are looking intimidated and somewhat unsure of themselves, it's a good but a very tough learning experience for them. More importantly hopefully an eye-opener for Holland and his anti-enforcer/toughguy stance.

  • DSM likes this