Jump to content


e_prime's Photo

e_prime

Member Since 05 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 01:16 PM
-----

#2567673 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by kipwinger on Today, 01:04 PM

 

Not even Godström would like that great on that roster, that's how bad they are and we all know why. The point is Buffalo doesn't have to trade Myers - even if he isn't as good as advertised - they aren't even close to the cap and won't  be for a few more years and they know that other teams are desperate for defensive help that drives the price up. I mean if it's Pulkinnen, Jurco and and a pick I'd pull the trigger but not if i t includes one of Larkin, Mantha (one of them should only be on the table if we are talking about OEL).

 

I'm also wondering why are people so high on Green ? The guy is not a great defender, sadly injury prone and around 30 by the time this team could content again he will be way past his prime. Green will command a big payday and for what he brings I'd rather go after other defenders (including Franson). I haven't watched a lot of Leafs games this season because they are incredible boring to watch with their stupid new philosophy but I think Franson could be a solid signing come July 1 although I'd prefer some bigger name like Boychuck - Isles won't have the money to re-sign him as long as Wang is still at the helm -.

 

As much as the media is hyping up this trade deadline I think it will be a very boring one with only minor movements...the top teams are close to the cap and the bottom teams will for sure not t rade their first round pick in such a deep draft so all the ingredients for the most boring trade dead line since years are there.

 

A 29 year old Mike Green is too old to help us, but a 31 year old Johnny Boychuk isn't? 

 

Do you have a fever?




#2567664 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by Jesusberg on Today, 12:01 PM

While I wouldn't hate landing Myers, I think I'd hate the assets we'd have to part with for him. I'm actually rooting for the Ducks to get him.

I wonder what the "two pieces and a draft pick" for Yandle are. If those pieces are Smith and Pulkkinen, I pull the trigger. If they're something like DeKeyser and Nyquist/Tatar/Mantha, I show Don Maloney that .gif of himself and laugh at him.




#2567149 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by Dabura on 30 January 2015 - 01:21 PM

The thing is, where most fans and even a lot of GM's look at what will benefit the team this season, Ken Holland is looking at this season, as well as 5+ years from now.

 

Ken Holland traded a first-round pick for Kyle Quincey.

 

Ken Holland threw crazy money at Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. Had we signed them, "5+ years from now" wouldn't have been a thing anymore. We would've spent the duration of those enormous contracts living year-to-year, selling off young, homegrown assets when they became too expensive to hold on to. (Not necessarily saying it wouldn't have been worth it. Just saying.)

 

Ken Holland traded one of our better prospects and a second-round pick for a rental so that we could limp into the playoffs and keep The Streak alive.

 

Ken Holland courted Stephane Robidas, who was injured at the time and, as he's failed to establish himself as a regular on the Maple Leafs' blue line, is pretty clearly washed up.

 

Ken Holland has pursued Rick Nash, Alex Edler, Jarome Iginla, and probably every other big name under the sun. Eventually, we're going to land one of those big names. Because, at some point, you have to. We added Rafalski in the summer of '07 and Stuart in February of '08. The Kings added Williams and Richards and Carter, and then Gaborik. The Blackhawks added Sharp and Oduya and Hossa.

 

That's half the reason why you stockpile assets in the first place - so that you can trade them. You don't wait to see how each and every one of your promising prospects pans out. If you have your seven D slots filled, and you've got as many as five really good D prospects in the pipeline, and you're a Keith Yandle away from being a Cup favorite, and Keith Yandle is - for the first time ever - known to be available, and you have three more years left with Datsyuk...do you really say, "Well, we have to think about 5+ years from now"? I mean, sure, of course the future's a consideration. But, um, I'm personally not willing to wait 3-to-5 years to see if one of our prospects (at least two of whom inevitably won't be Red Wings, if only because we're not going to have enough room) becomes as good and valuable as Yandle is right now. Our blue line doesn't move the puck well enough and doesn't produce enough offense. Smith isn't producing. Ouellet doesn't have Yandle's offensive upside. Marchenko is a shutdown defenseman. Sproul is a couple years away from being a regular, never mind an impact player. You're telling me we can't afford to part with any of these players, even if we're getting a top-pairing defenseman who can score 50 points for the scoring-challenged Coyotes?

 

We need a Rafalski, and we need him while Datsyuk and Zetterberg are still dominant players. We're going to have to give to get him. If we're going to wait to see if one of our prospects becomes a Rafalski, we're taking a bigger risk than the one we'd be taking if we acquired that player. Because, we don't know where we're going to be 5+ years from now (though, we do know Datsyuk will be gone and Zetterberg will be a shell of the player we have today and Nyquist and Tatar and DeKeyser will be making serious money). I'm not saying we should trade one of our untouchables. I'm assuming we can add a Yandle without having to part with one of our crown jewels. Which is one of the perks of having a ton of assets. You can afford to part with a couple pieces. Pulkkinen isn't a key roster player for us right now, nor is Jurco, nor is Smith, nor is Ouellet, nor is Marchenko, nor is Sproul, nor is the pimple-faced 18-year-old we'd draft with our mid-to-late first-round pick. Remove two or three of these pieces and we're still a contender, and our future is still extremely bright, especially with a top-end defenseman in the prime of his career being added to the fold.

 

We're contenders. Datsyuk and Zetterberg and Kronwall and Nyquist and Tatar and Sheahan and DeKeyser have all avoided major injury this season. The Eastern Conference crown has never been so up-for-grabs. We should make a push. Why say, "Well, it's great that we're contenders, but what about 5+ years from now?" Well...maybe we're contenders 5+ years from now. But...we're contenders...right now...? I'm not talking about selling the farm. I'm talking about moving a D prospect plus Pulkkinen/Jurco. If that's completely out of the question, then we're never going to make a meaningful trade and this team is never going to reach its full potential. We draft and develop well, but not well enough that we can say, "Y'know what, let's try to win with an entirely homegrown roster." Why would we make that a thing? Even if it's possible, it's certainly not realistic. Every Cup-winning team that has ever been has needed some outside help.




#2566747 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by kipwinger on 29 January 2015 - 02:47 PM

If I offered you $1,000,000 today OR $0.01 today, doubling each day for 30 days... Which would you take?... 95% of LGWers take the million up front, I'm just glad Holland would take the penny...

 

Holland wouldn't make any combination of a deal there. Sure, making that deal makes us better today, but we take a huge hit in the future...

 

The smart move is somewhere in the middle though right?  I mean, I get that it's good to be patient and build a contender.  But at some point, you've got to decide now's the time, and try to win.  Always looking toward the future obscures the fact that (pardon this goofy description) the present was the future at one point.  What's all this saving, and developing, and patience working toward if not to make a Cup run?  And as far as I know, no team (in the modern era) has done that with 100% homegrown pieces.  Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston...all had significant help from outside.  If you're not willing to move pieces for guys like Yandle, or O'Reilly, or Spezza, or Kesler, etc. when they become available, exactly what are you willing to move them for?  And if the answer is "nothing", you're in trouble.  Because, as I said, nobody has ever managed to win that way yet. 




#2566036 LA puts Mike Richards on waivers

Posted by greenrebellion on 26 January 2015 - 01:42 PM

 
wow what a handcuff


And people think we have it bad with Franzen!


#2565538 Pittsburgh/Philly might be the best rivalry in the game now

Posted by vladdy16 on 22 January 2015 - 11:47 AM

There are all sorts of rivalries, in all sorts of sports, most of which don't have fighting.  Why would it be necessary in this case?

Fighting isn't necessary, but a face wash now and again is good.

 

Jimmay_zpsf26ujqxe.jpg




#2565532 Pittsburgh/Philly might be the best rivalry in the game now

Posted by kipwinger on 22 January 2015 - 10:57 AM

There are all sorts of rivalries, in all sorts of sports, most of which don't have fighting.  Why would it be necessary in this case?




#2565708 Franzen on IR

Posted by GMRwings1983 on 23 January 2015 - 01:59 PM

 

But you have evidence to suspect him of "emotional issues"?

 

This whole thread has turned hokey.  Why don't we all stick to Franzen and hockey and not try to assassinate/dissect his character.  Regardless of how we feel about him on the ice, there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest he's not a decent, committed, hard working, emotionally stable person. 

 

Holland should sign McGrattan as a shadow buddy for Franzen.  He seems like a good teammate and is popular with the ladies for some reason.  I feel he can help Franzen get over his anxiety issues.  It will help the team in the long run.  




#2565234 1/20 GDT: Wild 4 @ Red Wings 5 (SO)

Posted by vladdy16 on 20 January 2015 - 10:15 PM

Guess I'm in rare form tonight.  My son keeps poking his head in to see if it's safe to enter the room.




#2564908 Randy Carlyle relieved of his duties by Leafs

Posted by number9 on 20 January 2015 - 02:31 PM

In other Toronto news...how punchable is William Nylander's face?  Seriously, I was just reading an article about this kid and I couldn't stop thinking about how much I want to punch him.  And it's entirely his face too.  He might be the best kid on earth, for all I know, but his face is sooooo punch worthy.
 
  nylander-1.jpg


Kip wants to punch someone? Why are GMR and Frank not all over this?


#2563215 TB's Paquette learns the hard way, don't start **** w Chara

Posted by kipwinger on 14 January 2015 - 04:38 PM

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. 




#2563243 Franzen on IR

Posted by Jesusberg on 14 January 2015 - 06:34 PM

Hey guys, how's it go...

 

3204840swsw.gif




#2563210 TB's Paquette learns the hard way, don't start **** w Chara

Posted by kipwinger on 14 January 2015 - 04:17 PM

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. 




#2563201 TB's Paquette learns the hard way, don't start **** w Chara

Posted by jimmyemeryhunter on 14 January 2015 - 03:53 PM

I never said they were similar, but Mickey loved a good scrap, enthusiastically; and if you listen to him, he subtly mourns the lack of team toughness without coming right out and saying the team is soft. 
 
Mickey has sorta been forced to. He calls Red Wings games; not a lot of hitting (at least on our part) or fighting. But when one does happen (rarely), what does he always say? "Attaboy! Not one person in their seat! They love it!", to paraphrase. He loves old time hockey as much as the rest of us neanderthals. 

But he's the first one to talk about how bad checks need to be taken out of the game, the only time I hear him get riled up about a fight is when its warranted...
Maybe that's because were watching the weakling wings, and fights are so few and far between that its easier to recall his reactions to fights back when the team was stacked with guys who were fighters.
Most of them, if not all had a scoring touch.. and very rarely attacked a player unwarranted.

Plus back then the knowledge of concussions and the effects it has on people quality of life was basically nonexistent...
And now that its been brought to the forefront and the science behind it all is coming along you can hear him changing his stance on it.

Slowly but surely.

And its not because hes been forced to change because of the way the wings play the game, its because he's smart, and doesn't want to see these kids suffering permanent brain problems because of stupid shenanigans.

He says it time and time again how the games gotten so fast, the players have gotten so much bigger, stronger, and faster that its infinitely more dangerous..

I've never heard him say atta boy to a bad hit, whether it bw from behind, or a hit to the head.
He says the same stuff about our team when they do it.
Like with Jurcos hit last year, he didn't defend it, he called it how it was.


#2563193 TB's Paquette learns the hard way, don't start **** w Chara

Posted by kipwinger on 14 January 2015 - 03:30 PM

Apparently you never heard Mickey Redmond in the late 80s/early 90s whenever Probie, Kocur or Mac dropped 'em. 

 

Hey, if you think Mickey and Jack Edwards are similar that's fine.  I disagree.