Who do you think should/should not return?

As the end of the season begins and the free agency will soon begin,
who would you like to see go or stay and why?

Bertuzzi: Yes. Because of his size as well as his play. If he can heal
the back for next year and return 100%, he'll be a great asset to the
organization.

Kyle Calder: Though he isn't returning anyway, I agree with this
choice. He made a quick name with some good plays and goals at the
introduction stage with the Wings, but failed ti impress after that
and obviously, was absent from the playoffs.

Chelios: Yes. Still provides an asset with his grit and good play
positioning. Not much fire power as Schneider or Lidstrom, but he fits
in for his experience and determination.

Hudler: Yes. Has progressed more so this year even with little playing
time. He can still learn more and will be a great asset.

Lang: No. Just wasn't showing up this year. Had some good moments but
no longer the force he was in the past.

Markov: Yes. Solid D man who likes to hit, though my only concern is
the aggressiveness can lead to more injuries.

Schneider: Hell yes. No explanation needed. He's a great asset for
this team.

Hasek: No. I've indicated in here prior to the season when they signed
him I didn't feel comfortable with his style of play. Yes, he played
well, made a few outstanding plays and had a good season, but once
again, the same as in 2002, I believe his GAA and Save % were good due
to the solid defense of the Wings. I also believe he was more lucky
than good when he flopped to make saves. His habit of coming out of
the net and flopping, IMO cost a few goals that could have been a
deciding factor in games. He makes the team work harder for goals. If
you view game 6, he flops and has no idea where the puck is. Because
of this, it cost two goals. I prefer a goalie who will make an effort
to find the puck instead of "hoping" it's under him.
Also, as he becomes older, there's an increase injury factor for his
groin as well as other potential injuries.

On 24 May 2007 10:11:45 -0700, SBH wrote:

>As the end of the season begins and the free agency will soon begin,
>who would you like to see go or stay and why?
>
>Bertuzzi: Yes. Because of his size as well as his play. If he can heal
>the back for next year and return 100%, he'll be a great asset to the
>organization.

Only on the cheap, cheap, cheap. Anything over a few bucks and I'll
pass. We keep hoping to see the '02 version of Todd Bertuzzi out
there, but that guy's long gone.

I still think, based on what we gave up, he was worth the gamble at
the time.

>Kyle Calder: Though he isn't returning anyway, I agree with this
>choice. He made a quick name with some good plays and goals at the
>introduction stage with the Wings, but failed ti impress after that
>and obviously, was absent from the playoffs.

Talk about a big splash followed by a complete disappearing act.
Adios, Kyle.

>Chelios: Yes. Still provides an asset with his grit and good play
>positioning. Not much fire power as Schneider or Lidstrom, but he fits
>in for his experience and determination.

Still one of the best penalty-killing d-men in the league. He can
play here til he's 50.

>Hudler: Yes. Has progressed more so this year even with little playing
>time. He can still learn more and will be a great asset.

He needs a solid season on a scoring line to see what he can do. If
he isn't doing it by the trade deadline, package him off for a bag of
pucks.

>Lang: No. Just wasn't showing up this year. Had some good moments but
>no longer the force he was in the past.

Agreed. The guy has a lot of skill, but he simply does not skate
hard.

>Markov: Yes. Solid D man who likes to hit, though my only concern is
>the aggressiveness can lead to more injuries.

Love Markov. Definitely.

>Schneider: Hell yes. No explanation needed. He's a great asset for
>this team.

Only if we can manage the right salary for him. In a perfect world,
I'd like to see him stick for a year or two until Kindl's ready.

>Hasek: No. I've indicated in here prior to the season when they signed
>him I didn't feel comfortable with his style of play. Yes, he played
>well, made a few outstanding plays and had a good season, but once
>again, the same as in 2002, I believe his GAA and Save % were good due
>to the solid defense of the Wings. I also believe he was more lucky
>than good when he flopped to make saves. His habit of coming out of
>the net and flopping, IMO cost a few goals that could have been a
>deciding factor in games. He makes the team work harder for goals. If
>you view game 6, he flops and has no idea where the puck is. Because
>of this, it cost two goals. I prefer a goalie who will make an effort
>to find the puck instead of "hoping" it's under him.
>Also, as he becomes older, there's an increase injury factor for his
>groin as well as other potential injuries.

If Holland can sign him to the same type of incentive-laden deal, I'll
take him. It'll buy Howard one more year of seasoning and give us the
flexibility to go fishing for a goalie at the deadline if Hasek's
groin bursts.

He was one of the 3 or 4 best Red Wings this year and a major reason
we didn't bow out in the first round (Manny Legace, can you hear me?).
I'd take him back in a heartbeat.