Blog Entry

Defense first

Posted on: March 2, 2010 4:23 pm
Edited on: March 2, 2010 4:31 pm
 
It's always nice to add some scoring, but the priority for most teams is getting deeper on defense. For the right price that is. And the right price since the brief post-Olympic trading window opened Sunday at midnight seems to be a second-round pick.

Actually, it was a lot cheaper for the Atlanta Thrashers who earlier today signed 48-year-old free agent Chris Chelios to a two-way contract for some insurance. Chelios will remain with the team’s minor league affiliate in Chicago for the time being and may not see any action for Atlanta. But if he does, the pro-rated part of his deal will cost the Thrashers only about $150,000.

Ottawa will pay quite a bit more for 34-year-old veteran Andy Sutton as he finishes out his $3.5 million contract, but the Senators only had to trade a second-round pick that originally belonged to the San Jose Sharks to get him from the New York Islanders. That means one of the NHL’s hottest teams heading into the break gave up what will be around the 58th pick to rent a big physical stay-at-home type who can play significant minutes and blocks a lot of shots.

Not a bad thing, and neither was the move by Nashville to pick up the serviceable Denis Grebeshkov from the Edmonton Oilers. That sets the stage for the Predators to move Dan Hamhuis, a pending unrestricted free agent they are unlikely to re-sign.

The overhauling Florida Panthers weren’t really interested in re-upping Jordan Leopold, so they shipped him off to the Pittsburgh Penguins. That added a second-round pick to the third rounder that came along with Leopold for Jay Bouweemster last spring, which is a decent return considering the position Florida was in when they had to trade their former defenseman.

The Panthers in fact, might be the team that moves the market before the 3 p.m. ET cutoff. Their new owners have made it clear they want big changes and that few, if any of the players are untouchable. GM Randy Sexton got things rolling even before the Leopold deal, moving Dominic Moore to Montreal prior to the Olympic break and getting a second round pick in return. 

And Sexton could strike it big if he works out something for goaltender Tomas Vokoun, who was one of the NHL’s hottest goaltenders for several weeks before the Olympic break and had a strong tournament as the Czech starter.

Chances are the biggest deals were already made before the break with Ilya Kovalchuk, Dion Phaneuf, J-S Giguere and Olli Jokinen all moving, but a Vokoun trade would be in the same blockbuster category. So would something involving Toronto defenseman Tomas Kaberle. Both he and Vokoun have no-trade clause, but there have been indications from both that they waive them to join a select group of teams.

Carolina Hurricanes forward Ray Whitney, still likely the highest profile player to be moved, isn’t quite as picky. The 37-year-old pending UFA is arguably the best offensive upgrade available , but he wants a contract extension from any team that asks him to waive his no-trade.

Stay tuned.
Category: NHL
Comments

Since: May 7, 2008
Posted on: March 5, 2010 1:55 pm
 

Defense first

Reading your post was a waste of my time.  I have to look no further than the teams in this city to provide example of how you are wrong.  Pittsburgh is a small market team.  Go ahead and look at the market in Pittsburgh as compared to Detroit, Philly, New York, Dallas...it just doesn't compare.  Teams like the Pens and Steelers are competetive because they have strong organizations and have proven they can win.  They were given this opportunity because of the cap.  The Pirates on the other hand have absolutely no chance because they can no afford to pay players near the amount that Philly or NY can.  I never said the Wings don't have a great organization because obviously they do, but having a cap helps to create higher turn over, meaning the good teams end up being relatively bad teams at some point unless the organization is just that good or that bad.  The NFL has the highest turnover in that aspect because of the cap.  A team that didn't even make the playoffs the previous year may end up winning their division and even the Super Bowl.  Without a cap you don't give small market teams a chance to be competitive for more than a few years because even if they draft/develop good talent they won't be able to hold on to them once they become more productive and demand more money.  A salary cap is the only way to ensure that all teams have as close to an equal opportunity as possible and it has been proven.  Just because you want to see big moves at the trade deadline so your Wings can make the playoffs this year doesn't mean it makes sense to get rid of the cap.  One last thing, quit saying you're done responding to a thread and then come back writing a bunch of nonsense again.  Everyone on this board gets more dumb with every post you write.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 5, 2010 12:34 pm
 

Defense first

You can draft as well as you want and develop tons of great talent, but if you can't afford to keep those players once they are good it all goes for nothing
Once again, you don't get it.  No, it doesn't all "go for nothing". This is the NHL, not the MLB.  There is a rookie cap in place and when you draft like the Wings do and a couple of other teams you get very cheap talent producing for the team for years before they can ask for more money.  And even then they are still the teams property until they turn at least 26 years old and are very marketable and can be traded for high draft picks or other great value players.  So once again no, it's never a waste.

 All they had to do was add a couple other good players and there you go, a bought championship.
You need to be reminded that just 2  seasons ago ( with a salary cap) the Wings won the Stanley Cup.  And last season, once again with a salary cap in place they got to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. 
Not too bad...... I mean, with a cap.    So using your definition of a "bought" championship that is literally the only way anybody wins a cup but in reality see, you couldn't be more wrong.  Buying a championship ( without a cap) consists of what the Yankees do and that is scooping up top talent from around the league and overpaying to get them.  Drafting and developing your own players and they paying them nothing more then market value is never buying a championship. 

What you want to see is not going to happen again anytime in the near future.  You think that a salary cap should and will allow a small market team with a 40-45 million dollar cap to beat out big market teams.  That isn't going to happen.  Maybe you think that small market teams that max out on the cap have an equal chance at winning the cup now? No they don't.  Why you say? Because THEY are the ones that are forced to overpay mediocre talent to stay where they are.  All stars have no interest for the most part in playing in Edmonton or Nashville or Phoenix or wherever else so they'll take the same money for an established larger market team.  


The cap brings teams like that back down to the rest of the competition.  If you don't realize it then you honestly do have your head way to far up your Red Wing butt
Once again, no.  Until small market teams start winning stanley cups as often as larger market teams your theory isn't worth the space it takes on cbs's site.  I'll say it again.  With the exception of the 2 seasons I mentioned where small market teams had no adjustments to make and big market teams did and needed a while to gel, there are literally almost no examples of the parity you wish for and speak of in the NHL.  

Actually parity doesn't exist in almost any sport.  Big market teams, with or without a salary cap dominate and small market teams struggle to fill seats, get tv deals, advertising, etc.

It's how it is... now I for real am done educating you and i'm done with this thread. 

Adios... and happy dreaming.
 



Since: May 7, 2008
Posted on: March 5, 2010 9:08 am
 

Defense first

You can draft as well as you want and develop tons of great talent, but if you can't afford to keep those players once they are good it all goes for nothing.  Detroit was able to pay those players because there was no cap.  All they had to do was add a couple other good players and there you go, a bought championship.  I'm not saying that Detroit doesn't have a good organization cause obviously they do, but now that they can't spend more money than other organizations they can't continue to be head and shoulders above other teams.  The cap brings teams like that back down to the rest of the competition.  If you don't realize it then you honestly do have your head way to far up your Red Wing butt.  My point is that the cap is great for hockey and for fans of teams in smaller markets that can't afford to pay the high end players whether they come through trade, free agency, or player development.




Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 4, 2010 3:03 pm
 

Defense first

One last thought, what is with all the name calling?
Name calling isn't good but it's reserved for people like you that talk nonesense and rarely include even one fact in a paragraph.  Here is some information that proves you wrong beyond belief.  You'll never admit it, but I like making people that think they are smart look stupid so here it is.

When you have an aging team you are going to have injury problems and the reason they are aging is because they can't afford to bring in good young talent as a result of the cap.
This years key injuries ( "key" defined as a regular every day NHL player) were not to "old" players.  Look it up because I want to see if you're even capable of researching something.  You are 100 percent wrong.  Actually don't bother because you don't even know who their every day players are.

That reason being the fact that the Wings can no longer buy a championship and that is showing in their lack of depth and the age of their team.
That statement proves beyond any doubt at all that you don't know hockey.  Why do I say that? Because out of the 4 Stanley Cups in the last dozen or so years and 5 appearances, there was only ONE cup and total of one appearance where they "bought" anything.

The other 3 cups and 4 appearances were primarily DRAFTED players... HOME GROWN PLAYERS.. like 60-70 percent of them.  And I"m not talking only role players. I"m talking about the reason they won was because of the players they drafted and developed. Only jealous fans like yourself say otherwise.   The biggest myth in all of sports comes from Wings haters that pretend the Wings bought their success when in reality that is 100 percent untrue.  Yzerman, Lidstrom, Maltby, Draper, McCarty, Ozzie, even Shanahan  they got by trading Primeau whom they brought up through the system.  Federov etc were not bought ....

Oh, one final thing.  You guys can't have it both ways, at least not with me and I mean ever !   When Detroit traded a 23 year old dman they just drafted a while back in the first round PLUS 2 MORE FIRST ROUND PICKS for Chris Chelios at the age of 36 at the time, everybody called Detroit stupid.  But suddenly when Chelios was playing like an allstar for years just because Detroit paid him a large salary they "bought" him???  No sir.  Not even one other team in the league would have traded the equivalent of 3 1st rounds picks for him. But the wings did..... because they know what they are doing.

When the Wings traded kozlov and a 1st round pick for Hasek who by the way was 36 years at the time, there was doubt.  He was on the block for a long time in Buffalo yet nobody except for Detroit grabbed him.  Once again,  people can't call a move stupid and then when proven wrong say a player was bought.... can't do that.

Detroit has won as much as they have because they know how to draft and know how to develop players.  They have been in the last 2 cup finals and won 2 years ago so that's pretty good for an old team that can't win without a cap.  I'd say that's solid....





Since: May 7, 2008
Posted on: March 4, 2010 2:15 pm
 

Defense first

Haha I literally almost laughed out loud at work.  Don't do that or I might lose my job for posting on here.  I wasn't implying that your posts don't make sense to you, but that they in fact don't make sense.  I'm not saying they don't make sense to me, I'm saying they don't make sense.  If you can't understand that I am sorry.  When you have an aging team you are going to have injury problems and the reason they are aging is because they can't afford to bring in good young talent as a result of the cap.  I'm not a hater, I have much respect for the Red Wings since they have been consistently at the top of the league for years, but fans like you that have their heads up the rear ends don't make any sense.  I also was not saying you were making excuses for the game last night.  I was however saying that you are making excuses for the bad year and the real reason is that the Wings are an aging team that will be injury prone.  This whole arguement started over a discussion about the salary cap, incase you forgot.  Your theory on not having a cap makes no sense, except for the reason why you, as a Wings fan, would not want one anymore.  That reason being the fact that the Wings can no longer buy a championship and that is showing in their lack of depth and the age of their team.  One last thought, what is with all the name calling?



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 4, 2010 12:04 pm
 

Defense first

Wow Fitz. You truly are a very stupid person aren't you??  First of all, I don't care if you can't make sense of my posts....  obviously haters like you don't understand what I have to say....
Lastly, stop acting like other teams haven't had injury problems.  No need to make excuses for your aging team that has shown a lack of depth this year.
You are a moron, nothing more nothing less.  There is no "excuse" for how they played last night and getting in sync may never happen now but to imply that these injuries are anything close to 90 percent of the other teams is ridiculous an only a moron like you would even suggest that for a second.

The only team worse off as of March 1st was the Edmonton Oilers who by the way are looking at the number 1 overall pick and sit a few points dead last in the NHL.   As of March 1st and for basically 60 games the Wings on average of about 4.6 starters out per game.  Only Edmonton at about 5.1 was worse and as I said we know how they adapted and how they did.

Pitt for example is only at about 2.6, a tremendous difference if you know anything about anything.  But since you don't, I'll explain in a way a dummy like you can get it.  If your team has 2 more players out then mine every single day ( especially key players)  then your team on average is more likely to lose then mine is.  If you don't understand numbers then just tell me and I'll stop.

When you lose a guy like Kronwall, a physical and offensive presence in the back for that long you're in trouble. When a sniper like Franzen misses 50 games you're in trouble.  Throw in Holmstrom missing about 15 and that's bad.  But now throw in just about every 2nd to 4th line guy along with 2 other dmen missing plenty of time and it's a catastrophe.

I speak with plenty of very good and intelligent Pens fans on these boards.  This is the last reply you get from me because you sir are a moron.



Since: May 7, 2008
Posted on: March 4, 2010 8:32 am
 

Defense first

Get over yourself and you beloved Red Wings man!  I've read a few of your posts on these boards over the past few months and I've yet to read one that makes any sense.  Just because you're you want the Wings to be able to spend money like they used to in order to win championships doesn't mean they should drop the cap.  The Pens were a struggling team before the lockout that could not hold on to the top players because they simply couldn't afford to pay them.  With the cap they have been able to hold on to guys like Gonchar, Malkin, Fleury, Staal, and Crosby and therefore win the Stanley Cup.  With out the cap the Pens would never have been to the finals 2 years in a row.  The point of the cap is to allow small market teams the opportunity to compete with the large market teams.  Sure some of them will choose not to spend the money or make bad decisions when they do decide to spend some money, but they atleast have the opportunity to compete unlike when there was no cap.  Lastly, stop acting like other teams haven't had injury problems.  No need to make excuses for your aging team that has shown a lack of depth this year.




Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 3, 2010 11:54 pm
 

Defense first

 Look at the Wings this year for example.  Other teams have caught up to them in talent and it shows in the standings
I'm disgusted with tonight's game but I doubt other teams have caught up as you say.  The Wings are just now playing their regular lineup for the first time in over 60 games.  The injuries have been ridiculous and far beyond anything anybody else has suffered.  Key player after key player has missed crazy amounts of games all season long.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 3, 2010 11:51 pm
 

Defense first

Yeah.  I would say 4 stanley cups and 5 finals appearances in 12 seasons not counting the lockout and being in the last 2 finals qualifies as ok..... some people on these boards have crap for brains.




Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: March 3, 2010 11:50 pm
 

Defense first

tommygunn.  Stay with me for a minute here and please be reasonable.  People in favour of a salary cap always say the same thing, that it becomes more competitive and fair to small market teams.  But the truth is, it doesn't and I can prove that to you.  Aside from the year before and the year after the lockout where good teams had to suddenly dump crazy amounts of money and the medicore to bad teams didn't, this league is no more compeitive now then it was before.  Sure, some of these teams win a few more regular season games but in the end the stanley cup finalists and winners are not small market teams that were bad before the cap. They are established hockey franchises and pretty well the same teams that did well before.

Look at the Wings for instance.  They have been to the finals the last 2 years in a row with a cap.  Now this year they got destroyed by injuries in a way I've never seen but how did a salary cap help anybody else in the Western conference??

Finally, the small market teams don't want to win anyway.  Look at teams like Atlanta, Columbus,  Nashville,  the Islanders.. they are spending WELL BELOW what the cap allows, and some are barely above the minimum.  And even a few other small market teams are at 50 million and still 6 or 7 million below other teams that do compete.

In baseball, the bad teams and small market teams make a fortune off revenue sharing and their share of tv deals but they don't want to spend the money.  The owners of their teams are trying to make up for lost time and pocketing the money.   My beloved Detroit Tigers spent money ONE off season, injuries came and it's gonna hurt for 2 more years.  But that being said, they already gave up on spending money and you watch, they won't spend that way again.  They'll keep some of their own stars but that's about it...

Go look at the last 10 stanley cup winners and once again, ignore the 2 years i mentioned. Then go back even farther... great teams and great organizations win.  Losers lose.... and that'll never change.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com