Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Gift Of The 2003 Tigers

Stargazing: Continued Speculation on Defensive Help

There seems to be some difference of opinion out there on the internets as to whether or not the Stars had interest in Tomas Kaberle. Joe Nieuwendyk let it be known on Sunday afternoon that he would not be making a trade for Kaberle, but does that necessarily mean he wasn't interested in Kaberle before. Erroneous, disreputable places on the web variously suggest that the Stars were the team that offered a player and a pick to Toronto, but the pick would come back contingent on Kaberle signing an extension or not.

Is that true? There's no way to know. It makes sense that if the Stars were interested they would seek a guarantee of extension. The argument against trading for Kaberle (or, really, any defenseman who is for some reason "available") is 'why give up players and/or prospects for a one year rental?', particularly when you're in a semi-rebuilding mode?

This isn't just a Kaberle story. It's part of the continuing (hopefully just beginning) saga of how GM Joe intends to build a competent blue line in Dallas. Defensemen are at a premium right now in the league. They're seen as a risk in the draft, because their development takes longer, traditionally. So when one finally matures and grows into a role on a team, they lock him up. They are a precious commodity.

Even if the Stars are sold tomorrow and the new owner says (unlikely) "Here's some cash, let's get up to the cap right away!!", the Stars still wouldn't have any no-brainer, easy deals to make for d-men. It's a position that is largely being furnished through farm systems throughout the league. Not free agency. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's going to be dearly expensive if it happens that way.

Dallas_stars_news_and_notes_medium

Comment 21 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is interesting...

They’re actually trying new things at the development camp….

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/stars

I wonder if any of it will pan out. Some of the ideas sound pretty good to me. Any way we can get someone up there to see it in person? I’m not sure where Art lives or anything, but he’d probably be closest…

by Tsudbury on Aug 17, 2010 10:22 AM CDT reply actions  

That might be me, actually.

I’m just across the pond they call Ontario.

by Mike Russo on Aug 17, 2010 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

I dunno if it's a restricted thing or not...

but that would be awesome to have a personal POV on it.

I dunno, maybe I’m just really starved for the hockey season to start too, lol

by Tsudbury on Aug 17, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think the idea about

no icing on the PK is terrible. Same thing with no line changes on offsides and moving the faceoff to the other zone….same thing with the side changes in overtime.

Do we really want to see teams scoring because the quality of play on the other side has diminished greatly due to fatigue? I mean, they’re talking about increasing scoring by severely degrading the quality of the game, right?

Obviously those changes are all a long shot and unlikely. Though, I do think we’ll get to no touch icing in the next 5 years.

by Brad Gardner on Aug 17, 2010 10:37 AM CDT reply actions  

I like the idea of no touch icing, for sure...

And I’m kind of partial to the no icing on the PK too… it would force D to be a little smarter with the puck. It may even spark more SHGs, who knows. Changing the whole offsides thing though… I dunno about that.

The greatest thing I think is that they are at least looking at a ton of different ways to fix the overtime. Though the easiest would be just to eliminate the loser point, or complicate standings by going with a 3 pt system. (3 for Reg win, 2 for ot win, 1 for OTL)

by Tsudbury on Aug 17, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

I dunno, I'm kinda for no icing the puck on the PK.

It’s kind of silly to let a team break the rules because they broke the rules.

by Sugaa on Aug 17, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions  

I hate the idea of no icing on the PK.

It’s a cheap way for the NHL to gain more American viewers. More goals, more attraction for the US, even though the teams would hate it. Unfortunately I think it’ll get done…

by Pat Iversen on Aug 17, 2010 12:08 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

No icing on the PK would kill us.

I don’t like rules unless they benefit my teams, and I don’t think that one would.

Here's to all us girls who love hockey...and the men who play it.

by Brad_Richards_Rocks on Aug 17, 2010 2:14 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

a crazy idea from razor?

Ive heard razor mention an idea of completely eliminating icing. He has alot of whacky ideas but I think this would at least be worth a trial. Whats icing really other than an opportunity to blow a whistle? Make the goalie show some skill and play the damn puck to get it back up the ice.

by TimAH on Aug 17, 2010 12:05 PM CDT reply actions  

I could see that working...

I’m of the opinion that it either needs to be icing all the time, or none at all. They can’t keep doing this sometimes it’s called but not all the time, stuff.

Except they do that with regular penalties in the playoffs, so I don’t know if my argument really has any basis.

by Tsudbury on Aug 17, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

a crazy idea from razor?

Ive heard razor mention an idea of completely eliminating icing. He has alot of whacky ideas but I think this would at least be worth a trial. Whats icing really other than an opportunity to blow a whistle? Make the goalie show some skill and play the damn puck to get it back up the ice.

by TimAH on Aug 17, 2010 12:05 PM CDT reply actions  

I'm all for

anything that helps this defense keep the puck from going in its net.

by Mike Russo on Aug 17, 2010 1:13 PM CDT reply actions  

How about

We keep the ability to ice the puck on the PK but make the PK (with line changes) stay out there for the whole 2 minutes no matter how many times they’re scored on? That was one from Razor that always made sense to me. I’m not sure if I like it or not, but it makes sense.

Biggest issue is that it becomes even MORE of a special teams game than it is now.

by jabudi on Aug 17, 2010 1:48 PM CDT reply actions  

That's the difficult part...

How do you open up the game without causing more penalties or stoppage in play? The only thing I can think of is widening the blue lines, and moving the face off dots…

by Tsudbury on Aug 17, 2010 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

The main problem I can see with no icing on the PK...

…is more people getting away with more uncalled penalties, and being able to either goad their opposition into taking one (which means there’s at least a 30% chance they’ll be scored on), or get away with it because the other team’s too scared of the consequences.

Which means that when you do have someone decide that enough is enough, and it’s time to stand up for his team, he’s more likely to make a more dangerous play — if he tries to fight the antagonist (henceforth referred to as “Avery”), Avery could very well just hide and turtle up and give his team a five-minute major penalty (or, basically, an instant goal), so it almost makes more sense to just make a huge, borderline hit with the notion of knocking Avery out of the game; he’ll get the message and you get “bang for your buck” — one player gets what he deserves, thus preventing him from interfering with your guys anymore, and you may give up a goal.

In principle, I think it’s a fine idea. In practice, when you look at the results of things like the instigator rule, and so on, it’s probably a step in the wrong direction.

by C. Bob on Aug 17, 2010 2:49 PM CDT reply actions  

Not all that different

From lacrosse, is it? Plenty of games are 12 to 10 and it doesn’t really take away from it.

Only thing is that it really kills the absolute best part of the game for me- Game 7 triple OT hockey. There isn’t anything like it.

by jabudi on Aug 18, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

By "five-minute major penalty"...

…I meant to say power play.

Sorry about that.

by C. Bob on Aug 17, 2010 2:54 PM CDT reply actions  

If they really want to increase scoring

then get rid of offsides lol talk about opening up the ice and keeping the game flowing. I wold love that

GET OFF NIEUWENDYK'S NUTS

by 8thegreat on Aug 17, 2010 4:26 PM CDT reply actions  

Cherry picking would be too big of an issue.

There’s no excitement in one person standing away from the play waiting for a puck to come to him.

by Tsudbury on Aug 18, 2010 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

all you have to do is change your strategy

inline is played without offsides and their pro divisions has none of that. its just one of the defenders responisiblity to keep track of where he is, or if your playing man to man then one of your offense will pick him up. the passing is so much more open and the pace from defense to breakout is much more up tempo then with offsides. dump and chase style is the reason alot of non hockey lovers get bored of hockey. I love all hockey and understand the strategy behind it but to the causual observer (who most of have no idea what offsides is) the dump and chase is monotonous and boring. I know this wont ever happen I just want someone to test it with a high level of ice hockey and see how it translates over

GET OFF NIEUWENDYK'S NUTS

by 8thegreat on Aug 18, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions  

Totally agree

I have played in leagues that don’t have off sides and cherry pickers suck and the goals they score really do require any real talent. But I could see non hockey fans liking that, as for me the rules should not change anytime soon.

by Jay E on Aug 18, 2010 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Dallas Stars website. We talk Stars hockey 24/7/365. You're welcome to join in the discussion; please follow the code of conduct for commentary.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Untitled_000000_small
Week of 2-13 OT Thread
Group_shot_at_old_7_club_small
Prospect Reilly Smith update
Small
How would you feel about a name change?
Me2_small
College Hockey @ AAC
Small
Bring Back Garry Glitter
Small
The Longest Yard On Ice
Sunrisebusportrait_small
Why haven't the Stars been collecting more loser points?
Small
Mark Fistric, super sub?
Small
Everyone just breathe...
Untitled_000000_small
Week of 2-6 OT Thread -- Snaps is the Name of the Game, The Name of the Game is Snaps

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editors

Profile_small Brandon Worley

Sb_avatar_small Brad Gardner

Staff Writers

Twitterme_small Brandon Bibb

Hullring_small Cole Jones

198849_alds_rangers_rays_baseball_small Josh Lile

Me2_small Taylor Baird

Erin_and_kevin_at_rangers_small Erin Bolen

Contributors

Small starshorns

Pic_2011-02_small scm83x

Graphic Design Artist

Avatar_small RyanM