OT: Dammit, Osgood!
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 AM ^
I'm not worried about Zetterberg and Datsyuk. I believe they'll come on and be dominant. Hank started the year a month late and so had a slow start, and both have had to play with guys like Leino and Miller in the top-6.
I think the Wings have drafted pretty well the past several years, actually. They have at least 2/3 prospects in each of the last 5 draft classes performing very well right now, including two Hobey hopefuls (Smith and Nyquist) and the youngest player in the AHL going nearly point-per-game (Tatar).
They ARE lacking top-line prospects, I agree, but that can almost completely be attributed to their annual draft position. Forwards with obvious top-line potential seldom make it out of the top-15 picks. I really like the potential of Tatar, Nyquist, and Mursak as future top-6 players though. Ferraro, Nestrasil, and Emmerton are also intriguing.
I think the Wings will be sure to sign a solid top-6 winger this off-season. Frolov is the most obvious candidate, which means it will probably be someone else lol.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
"Forwards with obvious top-line potential seldom make it out of the top-15 picks."
That statement is only true if you are solely talking about "potential" on draft day, rather than actually achieving top-line status.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:47 AM ^
I was, which is why I used the qualifier 'obvious.' It's tough to find those other guys, who drop lower but still make it to a team's top line. Takes some luck too. The Wings have accomplished the feat on more than one occasion in the past though.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:57 AM ^
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant, but I was just clarifying because a lot of people don't make the connection in hockey that somewhere near half of the players in the HOF classes over the last decade or so have been late round picks (some incredibly late). I think the Wings have a little more than luck to attribute to their success. For a long time they were virtually the only team that had the contacts in Sweden that they have, which allowed the to unearth some absolute gems in the later rounds.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:30 AM ^
Yeah, I completely agree. And before Sweden, the Wings had a nice head-start in Russia too.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
The Wings had the foresight to get in early on the Euroscouting.
But they really had to. With a lot of playoff appearances and therefore low draft picks, what are you left with, if everyone else is picking North American players?
December 25th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
That's not really how and why it happened though. It was more of a matter of having the right people in the organization with the right contacts at the right time. When they first started their efforts in Sweden they hadn't had been at the top of the standings very long.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 AM ^
but your post is delusional. You start off by implying that the arguements on this thread aren't valid but end by agreeing with them.
The arguement isn't about what the wings can accomplish in the offseason or next year, it is about this year, and the wings will not win the cup this year....book it.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 AM ^
Nothing delusional in my post. Every year people say the Wings are too old and that their era of winning is over. I'm saying neither are true. They are even laughable at times, given some of the reasons people cite. It was clear in my post that I did not agree with them, so I'm not sure how you extrapolated the idea that I did. Agreeing that they are old does not mean I agree that they are too old to win. And admitting that this year is a hiccup does not mean I agree that their days of winning are over (unless one believes that every year they didn't win the Cup was the end of a winning era, in which case they had no winning era to begin with).
As for "the argument," the two that I addressed were made by others in this thread, and I chose to respond to them. So that is what the argument was about in my post, as far as I was concerned.
As for the argument about this year, I agree, they most likely won't win the Cup, but it's not because they are too old and it's not because an era is over. That's my position.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
"And admitting that this year is a hiccup does not mean I agree that their days of winning are over (unless one believes that every year they didn't win the Cup was the end of a winning era, in which case they had no winning era to begin with)."
That comparison doesn't even make sense. Every one of those teams that didn't win the Cup in the last 15 years finished at or near the top of the league standings in the regular season. This team isn't going to finish anywhere near the top o the league standings this year. Yes, people have made the argument for years that the Wings are "too old" and "too tired" and they were wrong because they were uneducated and just looking at certain players. Unfortunately, now is the time that their argument is probably more likely true than not. They are at a point now where rather than just having a few guys that are "too old" and "too tired" that the nucleus of the team really is "too old" and "too tired". I really believe that last year was the end of the era. The first sign of the years and the number of games finally catching up with them was the last five games of last season.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:59 AM ^
I draw a distinction between too old and too tired. They may be too tired. They have been too tired in the past when they failed to win the Cup. But I have not seen a quality argument that supports the idea that they are too old.
And I don't mean this in a rude way, but I really couldn't care less where they finish in the standings, because that factor has zero bearing on the future of the team. Especially when their position in the standings is in very large part due to the massive injuries they have suffered. The Wings are in fine shape, I'm confident that they will rebound next year and be serious contenders again. They've been more down and out than they are right now, and for longer periods of time, and still maintained the "era." They have the best front office in the league with Holland, Devellano, and Nill. With Hakan Andersson, they have one of the top group of scouts in the NHL. We'll have to agree to disagree on the end of an era.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
Well, two things:
(1) I get what you are saying on distinguishing between "old" and "tired". I agree, in general. However, my contention is that at a certain point, although the terms are different, they start to converge more than not. The fact remains that the Wings had one of the oldest (if not the oldest) rosters in the league last year and it didn't get much younger this year. For my opinion to change much for next year I would have to see some pretty extensive change in the make up of the roster (which is probably likely to happen, but what that make up will be remains to be seen).
(2) I agree with you about where they finish in the standings. It's not really relevant for the playoffs and it's definitely not relevant for next season. A low seed in the playoffs if they were to make it could actually even be a positive because they would be likely to face off with a relatively inexperienced team in the first round. Of the nine teams currently ahead of the Wings there is very little playoff experience on all but two of those teams (and considering that one of those two teams is San Jose, that doesn't mean much). I'll disagree that they have been more down and out than they are right now since the mid-90s, but that's a fair disagreement.
Anyway, I appreciate the good hockey talk!
December 24th, 2009 at 1:28 AM ^
(1) There is certainly a correlation there, I agree. The older the team, the quicker they tire. However, in this specific case, I will say that, given the amount of games they've played the last few years, ANY team would be tired. I think they are either the oldest or second oldest team in the league this year, and they may or may not get significantly younger next year. But I still don't think they are too old to win. Their '98 team was about the same average age, if I remember correctly. And their '02 team was actually older (though, granted, they had a near-All Star team that season).
(2) To clarify on my 'down and out statement,' I just think there have been a couple seasons since the mid-90s where, going into the year, they weren't expected to be strong contenders, whether it was because they had been trounced in the first couple rounds for a few years in a row, or because Dave Lewis was the coach, or whatever. I think there's already more optimism for next year than there was for a couple seasons in the recent past.
And yeah, good hockey discussion, always fun to talk about.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
"Cap-wise, the Wings are in good shape going into this off-season. If the cap goes up, as expected in recent reports, then the Wings will easily have enough to sign a solid top-6 forward, to go with Hank, Dats, Mule, Flip, and Cleary (or Homer or Bert if they are re-signed), and they'll be an improved team."
You're kidding, right? There is NO WAY that the cap is going up next year.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 AM ^
No, I'm not kidding. And yes, there is a way. It was announced by Bettman at the GM/BOG meetings on December 15th that the cap is expected to go up, by as much as $2M. Reported by Sportsnet. Also was talked about on NHLN. I can't find the original article I read last week, but it's mentioned on this Pittsburgh site: http://insidepittsburghsports.com/story/salary-cap-to-increase-by-2-mil…
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Apparently you missed this in the article that you linked: "The league does not expect a decrease and early projections show the POSSIBILITY of even a $1.5-$2 million increase AT THE MAX." (emphasis added)? I'll be surprised if it goes up at all and absolutely shocked if it goes up $1.5 million.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:06 AM ^
No, I didn't miss that. But the coverage by NHLN and Sportsnet was more thorough. Bettman announced that the cap IS going up, and that it COULD be by as much as $2M, which is all I'm saying. Bettman has the most pertinent numbers on the matter and is relaying this info to the league's GMs so that they can plan for next season. This happens every year and his announcements have always been fairly accurate. I don't understand why anyone would be surprised or shocked if the cap goes up at this point. Is there someone more credible saying that the cap will not go up? Most writers who say such things are basing their opinions on speculation or flimsy evidence. Or, most often, are just parroting.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
Lidstrom might be a UFA, but there's no way the guy is going to not get a pay cut. He makes $7MM per year right now, if I'm not mistaken. If I had to guess now, I would say that the Wings would sign him for a few more years at a cap hit of around $4MM per year. The price for free agents has dropped like a rock the last couple of years. The Wings should have some nice cap space again next year.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
Detroit knows this well: The most talented team does not always win the Stanley Cup.
All Detroit has to do is get healthy, reach the playoffs, and they will have a legitimate shot at the cup.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^
But then doesn't that argument hold true for the Hawks as well? Or are they to be destroyed when the almighty wings get back a few of these uber-talented players?
This thread has run in logical circles since the very beginning.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
"This thread has run in logical circles since the very beginning."
Well, to be fair, given what I know about the average age of most of the posters on this board, most of the Wings fans who are posting here likely don't have any recollection of what it's like to struggle through a regular season and not to have playoff hockey at the end of the year.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Ugh. I am old enough to have vague recollections of the Dead Wings. But then we got Steve Yzerman, and things slowly started to change.
I remember Norris Division playoff battles with Chicago and Toronto. When the Wings were good enough to get past them, they'd get steamrollered by the Oilers.
Wow, looking at the wiki page, I didn't remember that LA, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Washington were members in the '70s. Then Washington was moved and Hartford was in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris_Division
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 PM ^
Of course that argument holds for any team that makes the playoffs. Recent Finals history shows that 6th, 7th, and 8th seeded teams have made it to the Stanley Cup Finals.
Buffalo a 7th seed in 1999
Anaheim a 7th seed in 2003
Calgary a 6th seed in 2004
Edmonton an 8th seed in 2006
Neither of those teams won the Stanley Cup. But all of them save the Buffalo series went to a seventh game. Which tells me that those teams were within a whisker of winning it all.
Now to be fair, I did not say the Wings would crush the Hawks when they get healthy. Someone else did. I am simply saying that you cannot predict the Wings have zero chance of winning the Stanley Cup. They have enough talent to win a Stanley Cup. So does Chicago, so do the Pens, so do a number of NHL teams. Talent alone will not win a Stanley Cup. You need to be healthy, you need timely goaltending, and you need to catch some breaks. (ie: pucks need to bounce your way)
If the Wings return to full health, get some bounces to go their way, and Osgood can do what he has done before in the playoffs, I like their chances.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
Howard has played well enough this year that the Wings finally appear to have a young, viable backup to Osgood if Osgood stinks it up in the playoffs. The guy I am extremely disappointed in is Leino. As the injuries have piled up, this guy has gotten every oppotunity to step up. Instead, he's stuck on three goals. When everyone gets healthy, the Wings should keep Eaves, Miller, and Abdelkader in the lineup and send Leino to Grand Rapids again.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
I thought Leino played better after being a healthy scratch for the 2nd time, but yeah, we could use some more goals out of him.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
Oh man, I'm tiring of Leino, and fast. If he doesn't show significant improvement by the end of the season, he should be trade bait. The thing I dislike most is that he's, more often than not, lazy. Doesn't move his feet, half-hearted backcheck attempts, no puck pursuit. I had high hopes for him going into this season, but what a disappointment so far.
I agree on a demotion, if he's still playing the same way when guys get healthy. As a top-6 player, he's behind Hank, Dats, Mule, Flip, Homer, Cleary, Bert, and Williams. As a bottom-6 player, he's behind Helm, Eaves, Abdelkader, Miller, Draper, and Maltby. Hell, probably May too.