All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Today
-
You do realize the primary reason Holland signed Nielsen was to lure his buddy, and old teammate Tavares to Detroit come July 1st
-
-
-
I know it's cliche, but from what I've seen of this series - the Bruins are doing a good job with the physicality, and not allowing the Leafs any time to set up pretty plays that they were used to making during the reg season. My only beef with Winnipeg is that they don't wear these awesome jerseys...
-
My fitbit #Fitstats_en_US for 4/20/2018: 9,599 steps and 4.2 miles traveled. https://t.co/8YeecvmLJM
-
-
-
F.Michael reacted to a post in a topic:
ESPN lists most dominant champions of last 20 years: 2008 Red Wings come in 9th
-
F.Michael reacted to a post in a topic:
ESPN lists most dominant champions of last 20 years: 2008 Red Wings come in 9th
-
Let's not exaggerate things here. What I said is that kids absolutely do have opportunities to make the team. Because they do. "Purely on merit" is fallacious. "Merit" isn't a thing unto itself. A player's past performance (which some could consider as veteran status) is inextricably included in any evaluation of merit. Organizational depth is also a merit worth considering. As can be putting players in suitable roles and/or weighing the difference between playing a big role in the minors versus a minor role in the big league. I didn't mention forwards because if I did someone would have said "we're talking about defense, that doesn't count". But since you bring it up, I have often argued the same thing in regards to all players. "Overripe" is more of a fan meme than a true organizational philosophy. Larkin, despite the ironic attempt to use a kid who made the team in his first camp at 19 as an example of bias against kids, pretty well proves my point. But even if you want to believe that "veteran status" is given undue consideration, that cannot explain these supposed examples of kids "not being given a fair chance" because of the simple fact that we have never had a roster comprised entirely of veterans. Any kid you point to as being passed over in favor of a vet was also passed over in favor of a different kid. You say Holland wouldn't move Jensen or Ouellet, but why? They aren't exactly vets, and even if you did want to define vet liberally enough to include them, I would still question why you'd think we wouldn't move them. We just recently moved Marchenko in favor of Jensen. Kindl, Smith, Quincey also fairly recently moved out. Clearly the team is willing to get rid of players when they want. I'd say people are upset not because there's a bias toward vets, but rather that there isn't a bias against them. They just think those are the same thing.
-
Suter's been worth the money, but Parise's been a bust!
-
-
lolpens
-
2018 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
Z and D for the C replied to Neomaxizoomdweebie's topic in General
Filppula is about to win the Flyers a cup. More on this and other things I'll dream about tonight later -
Gonna have to change my screen name probably. Yes, moving back to Michigan as soon as this place sells and not sure yet where to land in the Mitten. Could be anywhere but hopefully I'll get to see some games in the new LCA and be back with proper hockey fans!
-
Flyers win 4-2. Series is 3-2 Penguins. Filppula was very good in this game.
-
I love watching the Wild get ground up by Winnipeg. Screw Parise and Suter who can't help. Those two boys should have been honest, they simply went to Minny to be close to family and friends, not to ACTUALLY compete for a cup.
-
xtrememachine1 reacted to a post in a topic:
ESPN lists most dominant champions of last 20 years: 2008 Red Wings come in 9th
-
Leafs gonna Leaf.
-
Filppula scores 2-2 after 2 periods.
-
Sure it is. You're claiming the only thing that's held kids back is their own shortcomings, that the Wings make roster decisions based purely on merit, in every single case, with no special consideration ever given to veteran status, contract size, etc. I agree that the kids have mostly sucked and that this has (arguably) hurt their cause more than veteran depth has. I disagree that the Wings are always completely 100% objective in these matters and that there's never been a veteran thing. The notion that the kids have mostly sucked is pretty self-explanatory, so I focused on the veteran thing. The veteran thing is indeed a thing. I'm not saying it's a sinister, conspiratorial thing. On the contrary: it's actually pretty mundane. Why? Because it makes sense. The Wings were perennial contenders for roughly a quarter century. That means going Cup-or-bust every year, which means leaning on proven, experienced veterans and maintaining a winning culture shaped by proven, experienced veterans. It also means having a perpetually shallow prospect pool. All of this is why we get "Tie goes to the veteran." All of this is why we get "This is a man's league." All of this is why we get "overripening" as an overriding development philosophy. All of this is why we get "Why does anyone think [x prospect] is going to be a savior in Detroit right now?" It doesn't mean grave injustices have been inflicted upon countless Wings prospects. It just means the Wings are/were obsessed with veteran depth. The Wings have been veteran-centric for ages now. Again, this is known. It's understood. If I say all of this to an NHL GM (maybe even Holland himself), he's not going to stare at me blankly and ask, "What are you talking about?" He'd acknowledge the perpetually shallow prospect pool and how that's been a major factor in the Wings' reluctance to "go younger," and he'd also acknowledge that the Wings are known for being veteran-centric, possibly to their own detriment in some cases. That's been a big part of the Wings identity for a long time. If you're drafted by the Wings, your path to the NHL is probably going to be longer than it would be with many other organizations. I remember Tatar passive-aggressively threatening to bolt to the KHL because he felt he was overdue for a promotion to the big club and was concerned that the Wings might be placing veteran roadblocks in front of him. I remember Mike Modano. I remember Cleary being kept around way past his expiration date as a player. I remember Blashill revealing that he had to push back against Holland and convince him that Larkin ought to be on the 2015-16 opening night roster. I think arguing that there's absolutely no veteran thing is not arguing in good faith. I also think overstating the impact of the veteran thing on prospects is not arguing in good faith. I think neither side here is arguing in entirely good faith. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight, though. Honestly, I think you're being kind of hilariously militant about all of this. There've been cases where a kid could've been promoted earlier but wasn't, and I'm not going to say it's totally, completely, 100% because the kid wasn't good enough in every single case. (Nor will I say it's because of a conspiracy to keep kids down.) Ouellet probably would've been a serviceable #6 back then. It's not a grave injustice that he didn't get that roster spot at that time, but I think it's naive/dishonest to say it was entirely a merit thing and that any and all other cases have been only about merit, 100% objective. Question: Why are we limiting this discussion to defensemen? Nyquist probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Tatar probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Hicketts probably could've/should've made the team out of camp this season if it was entirely about merit. Blashill probably shouldn't have had to butt heads with Holland over Larkin. Hicketts had a great rookie season in the AHL and a great training camp last fall. Maybe Blashill wanted him to improve his skating just a little bit more, that's fine, I totally get that. But, speaking of skepticism, I don't fully buy that he was sent back to the AHL because he didn't do enough to earn a spot and giving him another year in the AHL was really just about doing what was best for his development. He failed to make the cut because Green, Daley, DeKeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, Jensen, and Ouellet were ahead of him on the depth chart and Holland was not going to move Jensen/Ouellet to make room.
- Yesterday
-
Giroux scores with a snipe from the slot - Filppula made the play battling around THREE penguins
-
-
-
ESPN lists most dominant champions of last 20 years: 2008 Red Wings come in 9th
Barrie replied to shocky2002's topic in General
No doubt a 2002 Avs vs. 2008 Wings series would be great! -
I know the Leafs don't have the best defense, but I'm shocked at how poorly a Babcock coached team has been playing in their own zone. I'd expect it in his first year as a coach, to get his players attention, but not in year three. The Leafs are paying Babcock $7 million a season, he should be teaching his defensemen better positional hockey than this.
-
The bolded is kinda the point though. Draper/Babcock/Fans can hoot n holler for young players all they want, but the smart one there was Holland. XO doesn't even look ready for full duties now, after multiple seasons with the wings, let alone back then. It would be one thing if we drafted a kid, held him back per usual, and then he lit up the league when we finally let him on to the squad full-time. That would be case in point that kids are being held back too long... but that hasn't happened. Every time we bring a kid on they've been completely underwhelming. Kindl, Smith, Jensen, Sproul, Marchenko, Ouellet, etc. Each one of those players were hyped and fans clamored and moaned that they should be on the team, then when they finally were, they turned out to be poop. At this point, why would Hicketts be the exception? Each one of those players was the exception at one point so forgive me if I'm skeptical...
-
I don't recall ever hearing that other than on this forum, but I assume it's just another "we like our team" piece of nonsense. And as usual, when you judge things based on media soundbites, it gives a ridiculously inaccurate depiction of reality. In the last 6 seasons, we have had 15 different defensemen play at least 20 games for a total of 45 player-seasons. 16 of those 45 were players 25 or under. 855 of 2615 total games. Roughly one third of our defense roster over the last six years has been devoted to bringing in young players. 8 of the 15 played at least one year at 25 or younger. 6 at 23 or younger. Suggesting that kids aren't given legit opportunities is laughably false. The kids we've had just haven't been very good. Whine all you want about "tie goes to the vet", but the fact is neither Hicketts nor Sproul were anywhere close to a "tie" with any of our s***ty vets. One, that's not a middle ground. That's just saying the same thing while acknowledging that the kids have sucked. Two, your second question is demonstrably false (see above). The "veteran thing" is a fan thing, because the most popular player on a struggling team is the one who isn't playing. Funny you'd mention Ouellet. Several years later he still isn't as good as the several years older and worse version of Ericsson everyone wanted him to replace, and is now himself included as a "vet" that's holding back the kids.
-
Haha pretty much. I hate the fact Chicago finished in the bottom 7 or 8. Liked seeing them miss the playoffs, but finishing just outside would have been much better. A team with their roster shouldn't be in the draft lottery mix with only a bit lower odds than Detroit. Losing Crawford really shouldn't have killed them when they had plenty of time to find a goalie that didn't suck, but I guess it's an excuse to have a bad season and get a solid first rounder. Or an elite one, depending. And if Hossa and Crawford don't return, which they most likely won't, they have a good shopping budget to pick up a capable goalie and other stuff.
-
For sure. Maybe Rasmussen was a bad comparable. But you get where I'm coming from, yeah? Worth noting: I've liked Geekie for a while now, so I'm probably a little biased. Maybe the Hurricanes see him as just another prospect, nothing special.
-
Right but I think there's a lot different expectations from a Top 10 pick and a 3rd round over ager. Geekie is a year older than Rasmussen and in Junior that means alot.
-
Fair point. I wouldn't say he's as highly regarded as Rasmussen, but it's the same idea: Rasmussen and Geekie are still unknowns with the potential to do great things five years from now, while AA and Kapanen are older and more known and likely wouldn't really give the Hurricanes or Wings anything they don't already have or couldn't get by other, cheaper means. But then, I'm not the Hurricanes' GM, and I've certainly been wrong about countless things in the past.
-
Is he that highly regarded? I'll be honest, I'd never even heard of him before this year. He was passed over in his draft year and when he was finally drafted last year, it wasnt until the 3rd round. Not to mention he actually had less points this year than last. Exceptional playoffs of course. You guys are acting like he's a blue-chipper though.
-
"No." - Red Wings
