lomekian

RE Rasmussen vs Hughes - I wouldn't make the trade. 1) Comparing who is better when they are totally different players in style, physique, skillset and position seems like a futile task unless on is a totally different tier of player to the other. 2) Rasmussen has the potential to offer something to my mind more unique. Hughes undoubtedly has special skill and skating, but if Ras can develop more strength (as seems very likely given his size) and a bit more motor (more of a question mark), he could become the best net front guy in the league, and a very useful guy in the corners, on the boards and in the forecheck. I think hughes' style of d-man is increasingly common in junior and breaking into the league, so given our likely poor NHL performance next year as well, I give us a greater chance of picking up a hughes style guy than a Rasmussen style guy. Rasmussen is stylistically a bit of a throwback, and as long as there aren't too many of them on the roster, it could be useful in complement to others. Also, I;ve been sick of seeing us get dominated by middle line 6"4+ centers so much over the last decade, from Staal's to Bjugstad, and the potential of someone who matches up well against that sort of player, who is already defensively responsible is something I'm keen on. 3) Hughes is such a boom/bust player at the NHL level. We KNOW Rasmussen will be a useful NHL-er with a clearly defined skillset. Hughes may turn into a midget Erik Karlsson. But he may also be unable to cope defensively with the size mismatch as an NHL dman - what I've seen of him does leave question marks in this direction. Of course, if we draft the younger hughes, I might answer differently, because one would assume they have a good understanding!

Agree with those that say the current contracts won't stop us. Neither player is useless and frankly the contracts are only concerning due to the lack of top quality elsewhere. Up front we have a decent young roster, but we lack any top pieces on defence and are short of 1 or 2 potentially elite forwards. In goal we are 'meh'. if all goes well-ish we could be a playoff team in 2 years and a contender in 4. For the first time in a long time, our roster is clearly focused on the future as much as the now. A bit of lottery luck or good drafting. A couple of smart FA's and we could easily be back in the game for real In 4 years. if decisions are bad, however....

If KH got offered a 2nd for Glendening, he'd have been traded. Probably also if he'd been offered a 3rd & a 4th. For anything less than that, trading him would have been pointless and counter-productive. He's a 4th liner who is good on faceoffs, defensively responsible, scored 10+ goals and is on pace for a career year. He's also a guy who can look decent on a wing, and even fill in on the 3rd line in a push and not look hopeless. Also his cap hit isn't nearly as bad as people make out. He's also the perfect example of the undrafted unwanted guy made good in the modern game, and as such is no bad thing as a sign-post. Back on topic, it makes more sense to look at Hicketts at NHL than Hronek. Hronek we know will get looks at the NHL level, but we also know he's positionally poor at present. Hicketts for his limitations has been an all situations guy, did well in preseason, and is closer to his ceiling. So it makes more sense to look at him and see what we've got, in order to inform moves this summer. Hronek will like be on GR next year anyway due to his defensive shortcomings, so its less urgent to look at him.

Reading this thread's last couple of pages makes me wonder if perhaps you could do with finding greater meaning elsewhere in your life, rather than badgering someone to confess that you, oh wise one, were right all along. Mrazek has shown that he has great natural talent. He has also shown that lacks the positional fundamentals to maximise that talent consistently. The latter should be considerably easier to acquire than the former, but alas he is now further from doing so than he was when he first broke into the league. This suggests greater mental fragility than he demonstrated through his junior and earlier professional career. Can he fix it? Who knows? At this stage there are still a whole load of possibilities from finding himself back in eastern europe for the remainder of his career, to turning it around and becoming a good starting NHL goaltender. Very few goaltenders have become what they will be at his age, and that includes those who start great and tail off, and those who suddenly find consistency. None of us know the guy personally, so can't comment on whether he has the mental strength, flexibility, humility and intelligence to become the player he once looked very likely to be. And now he's not a wing any longer, very few of us care.

Like most, if he wants to come back 2-3 years, $4-5m cap hit, and his neck is ok, I think it's a no brainer. Even if we want to tank, having a D who can effectively give possession to the kids up front is still well worth it, unless we want to go fulll EDM, BUF or ARI. It also means Hronek can come up as a second RHD offensive D without the same amount of pressure, while learning his role from the only person on our roster with a comparative skill set. Also provides a talented partner option for Cholowski, which would be really limited otherwise. And allows us to keep Ericsson and Daley together who seen to work as a pair and boost each other's potential trade value. this isn't like re-singing Helm. This would be keeping the best player in our weakest position. and unless he drops off a cliff, we can always trade him in 2 years.

Essentially Mrazek re-found his game just a little too late. By the time he returned to some semblance of form, Howard had dropped off, and as such was going to be very hard to trade. i prefer Mrazek, and wish we'd kept him, but in Detroit's situation if you can't trade Jimmy I guess you have to trade Mrazek because you can't have $9m invested in two goalies who have both got significant consistency issues. DRW's big problem has been that they have never really been good at the same time. Both seem to need to feel safe as number 1 to perform, and neither is to date consistent enough to justify it. So it was always going to be a case of trading which you could. I think that wrong choice was made, but equally I can see why it was the choice taken, particularly with Holland's current MO of trying to simultaneously stock up on picks AND sneak into the playoffs.. Mrszek and Tatar were both great draft picks, who in a different era would have been bigger successes for us. But both have already returned more than it took to get them, even if Philly somehow miss the playoffs, so I guess we csnt be too angry. Obviously the ideal is for Mrazek to take Philly to the ECFabf either get re-signed or have a meltdown in that series (to Tampa ideally!) and somehow be coaxed to come back as a UFA if we shift Jimmy in the summer. Which is incredibly unlikely!

I have always been rather pro both goalies. Jimmy is a genuine starting goaltender who goes through bad patches and a bit injury prone. Mrazek is a young pretender who has shown patches of brilliance and patches of not being up to snuff. At present Jimmy is the more reliable guy, and (until the last fortnight) less likely to lose you a game. I still vote Mrazek simply because he's shown more by now than Jimmy had at the same age, and when he's in the zone he's better than JImmy, though we've only seen it occasionally over the last year. Were the team in danger of a playoff run, I'd go with Jimmy. But the team is going nowhere with a mediocre roster and a worse than mediocre coach, and the accidental tank is in full effect. So what's the point on marginalising the young guy who still has time to turn things back around simply to overplay a guy who isn't going to get any better and isn't likely to be around as a starter by the time we are competitive again, particularly when the last few years his body hasn't held up to being overplayed. If we are going to have a goalie deathmatch, at least give them an equal chance.

Probably avoiding too much black or grey in the rest of the uniform might help too! That's the problem with German WWI & Nazi appropriated images - they did it really well with a great flair for design, colour relationships and detail. Just ask Hugo Boss about the SS uniforms. Reminds me of the Mitchell and Webb sketch:

I still have hope that Hronek can be a genuine number 3. He's doing pretty well in the AHL when the rest of Grand Rapids are underachieving statistically in a big way. I think we also have enough d prospects with safe 5/6 written all over them. So the question is does *insert young D here* appear to be a future #1 or #2 (or at very worst #3) with a high floor to make sure the worst we end up with is a #4? And are they likely to be ready to get an NHL look at least in the next 18 months. If its yes to both, I'd trade Nike, and that should be enough with the right trading partner (seeing as we mostly think he's worth a 1st in a deep draft). If its no to either, it depends on if you can get another late pick or another maybe D prospect. If its no to both, walk away. I've not seen enough of Fabbro to comment, but from what I know, I like him more than Bean.

Its a bit Kaiser Wilhelm WWI (as occasionally evoked by the Nazis). In Abstract it is very cool logo...in context you might be a bit worried where the $$$ were coming from. You could almost count the months till someone wearing one perpetrated a mass shooting... This is dream scenario of course. And much like trading for Karlsson, I'll be astounded if it happens!

Exactly where I stand. If Karlsson says he dreamt of playing for the wings, its an honour to do so, and he can see himself making a home here long term, then firing on anyone but Larkin is an easy decision

Thanks for explaining that. Its a good stat, and isn't pretty for Mrazek, who somehow features lower than Niemi despite having a considerably better save %. So basically Mrazek's been excellent in one start, good-average in another couple and pretty poor in 3. Howard's been Brilliant in about 1/3rd, just above or below average in another 3rd and rubbish in the rest. Mrazek, luckily for him still has others below him on the list, so he's not literally the worst.... The problem with QS% is that it, like other advanced style stats only tells half of the story. At present the best goalies in the league by that measure are Oscar Dansk, Ryan Miller, Reto Berra, David Rittich, Carter Hutton, Fleury, and Charlie Lindgren. It also puts Jimmy Howard as considerably above Lundqvist, Rask, Jake Allen, Dubnyk and a few others with more wins, better save %s etc. It is partly useful, but as a measure of consistently being above average than anything else, but totally fails to factor in meltdown games or weak goals.It also fails to take into account the quality of the opposition or quality of the team. Both our goalies would much higher up the QS% list if they had STL's blue line in front of them (and a competent team coach). It is not without merit though, for sure.

And you literally used the word literally contrary to its actual meaning. 10 points! At present, Howard is the marginally better and certainly more consistent goalie. But Mrazek must be wondering why he can't get a start against shot shy Florida after Howard playing like a sieve for the last fortnight. Howie was excellent for about 12-15 games, and in the games since then he;s been worse than Mrazek. At present,Mrazek remains more likely to steal you a game against all odds, but also more likely to lose you one by letting in goals he shouldn't. Howard routinely has stretches where he plays very well, but when those stretches end, he often is pretty weak for a few in a row. Mrazek is more likely to be brilliant one game and poor the next, but also seems to find it really hard to perform without a run of games or if overplayed like he was a couple of years ago. What is interesting is when Mrazek first came into the team, his numbers were boosted by the team playing better and more supportive D in front of him than Howard. For the last year (the latter half of Mrazek's struggles) its been the opposite. That said, this team's d is going to expose most goalies. If we're riding Howard while the playoffs is still possible, I can see the logic in that (though not to this extent given his physical vulnerability), but once that gives up the ghost, we'd better give Mrazek more games. To not give him a run to see if he can re-find his former level, particularly once the season is gone, would be really quite stupid, given how long this organisation perseveres with skaters who have never excelled.

My fear too. I like Jimmy, but he's not going to be at his peak when this team is competitive, and if Mrazek can re-find his game, he will be. Also when Mrazek's head is right and his positioning is on, he is capable of amazing displays. I guess I fear that we could let him go for one more year of Jimmy, only for him to be in Vezina discussions elsewhere in 3-4 years.

Fair enough - apologies for misunderstanding you - In which case Mrazek compares really well! I mean researching what I wrote I was genuinely surprised by how many excellent goaltenders he outperformed in his first 3 seasons, including his crappy last year. I guess normally inconsistent young goalies aren't on teams that don't score any goals, so their play isn't as damaging. As you say, if Mrazek returns to his former level, the starter position is there for the taking. I'm just frustrated that Blash isn't using him either in the best way to rebuild his confidence, or indeed the best way to use any vaguely competent back up, and has seemingly flamed out Howard in the process. What's the point of saying you'll let performances determine ice time and then reward Mrazek's shutout by following up him letting in 2 softies against a rampant Calgary (with an awful defensive effort) with a fortnight of splinters on the bench. But then since our winning run, Blashill's coaching has been in insane panic mode...

But its a result of a cherry picked third season. Of course if you compare a player's worst season of their career with excellent practitioners in their position they look bad. If the other bizarre cartoon avatar had asked about everyone's 2nd seasons rather than 3rd seasons, Mrazek would have been better than all of the listed bar Rask. By a distance. Also I was talking career sv % when I was making the favourable comparison, NOT single season. I mean, you could try reading what I actually wrote...

No. But how many goaltenders that aren't in or potentially in the all time great category can you think of that never had a bad season? Nabakov had an .885 Turco had several below .900 Kipper had a few about .900 Khabibulin had a few below and around .900 Osgood had 3 cups and 4 complete seasons below .904 Miller had several between .900 and .910 So far Price is onto his third .905 season Bobrovski had a .898 and .908 and he's elite Dubnyk has lost his starters job twice with sub .900 seasons John Quick has a .902 & a .907 since being the starter Rinne has had 3 sub .910 seasons as starter including a .902 Fleury early had a .896 full season, a .905 season and a .906 (with the latter two being on stacked teams) Tim Thomas had 3 sub .910 seasons in his 9 year NHL career where he won Vezinas and Harts Hell even Patrick Roy & Brodeur had the odd bad season (worse than Mrazek to date) This is are guys listed in either the top 10 of the last decade or the top 40 all time, and I left out the guys from the 60s, 70s & 80s for fairness vs a high scoring league. Also bar Khabibulin and Dubnyk all those guys had much much better defencemen in front of them than Mrazek has had. My point is that most goalies not in the super elite category (and even some that are), have had bad seasons until they hit their peaks. Maybe Mrazek has peaked? Maybe the last 18 months are the blip? We just don't know. All we are certain about is that he had a brilliant year and a half and a crappy year and a half. Surely it would be sensible, seeing as we aren't going to be competing for anything, to try to find out which one is who he is, once it fairly soon becomes clear we aren't a playoff team.,

Age matters because most goalies don;t hit their peak till their late 20s early 30s. Hell when Price was 24/25 there was talk that he was a bust. But Ok we'll play the game - 3 full years in: Mrazek - Career average .912 (coming off a 9.01 season) Ryan Miller had just averaged .906 and had a considerably worse career save % than Mrazek Rinne averaged .915 having come off a .911 season Rask - .925 coming off a .929 - smashed it! Bobrovsky - .932! - previous 2 seasons averaged .906 ish (a brutal .898 in there) Cory Schneider - an excellent .927 - followed by .880 in the playoffs Hasek - a brilliant 9.30 after 2 sub .900 seasons Kiprusoff - .923 - His best career season. Lundqvist - .912 - .909 in the playoffs Belfour - .894 (but scoring was much higher than). So what we know is at the age of 25 and 9 months Mrazek had achieved similarly to Lundqvist and Rask and better than all the others at the same age. Comparative after 3 years of NHL experience, Mrazek's recent numbers are worse than most listed, but career wise at the same point only really much behind Rask & Schnieder, and touch behind Bobrovsky. Which entirely backs up my main point - he needs to get a run of games to see if he can rebound as some of those guys did at various points, or if he;s a busted flush as far as the wings are concerned. Oddly enough, after his first 2 full seasons, he was better than any of the above bar Rask, and by the age of 24, many of the guys above hadn't even made an impact at NHL level. We know what Jimmy is. A solid, slightly injury prone 2nd tier starter, who with good team defence can put up good numbers, but looks exposed when our team falls apart. If this team isn't going to make the playoffs (if - ha!), we need to see if our guy with a higher ceiling can have a future here. If the rest of this season doesn't improve for him, THEN its time to cut our losses. But playing the guy in our hardest road games and not picking him much after a very good shut out doesn't seem like the coach wants to help him succeed.

I don't think the questions about Mrazek's potential are as cut and dried as his critics are making out. Yes the last 20 months he's been far too aggressive, and his positioning has been off at times. But he was playing at an almost elite level before that, and has still posted very impressive shut-outs intermittently since then despite being awful in other games. I know we've seen many backup goalies fall off a cliff after an impressive run, but Mrazek played his best as a starter. Also worth remembering that by the age Mrazek is now Jimmy had won a grand total of 3 NHL games. Mrazek has won 66 with 11 shutouts. By the same age in the NHL: Ed Belfour - 4 wins 0 shutouts Lundqvist - 67 wins 7 shutouts Kiprusoff - 8 wins 2 shutouts Hasek 3 wins 0 shutouts Cory Schneider 18 wins 1 shutout. Bobrovsky 43 wins 4 shutouts Rask 47 wins 11 shutouts Rinne 1 win 0 shutouts Ryan Miller 36 wins 3 shutouts. This isn't to say that Mrazek will ever be as good as any of the above. But writing off a 25 year old goaltender who has had 2 stretches of being statistically great because he's had 18 months of poor play on a low end team with awful defense seems a little premature. At least we need to give him chance this year to see if he can rebound. No great shock that his stats have fallen off a cliff under Blash...just like half the team....

If the bad run continues, we've got to give Mrazek a chance to run with the #1 for a few games. Helps us see if he can turn it around...so we resign him/trade him/let him work. And if the worst happens Howard's groin gets a rest for a while. Mrazek has more talent and has put in performances Jimmy just can't, but his head is scrambled and decision making for the last 12 months has been BAD far more than should be the case.

I'm not saying that Tkatchuk wouldn't be brilliant to have on this team. I just haven't seen enough of the qualities you describe to see him as a power forward. He probably will graduate to what I would recognise as one as he develops, but to date, I've seen more evidence of being a snide than of what you outline. And yes Lucic IS a dirt-bag, but he is also an absolute beast when on his game, and is capable of totally physically dominating opponents. Tkatchuk isn't yet for me. As for Perry, I never really though of him as a power forward. A very good forward yes, but more of an all-rounder with an edge. As for little Bert, he seems more like a small swiss army knife player with an agitator's streak. Sort of like Marchand lite, with the lite also being on the douchbaggery, as well as the speed and skill. Also, Bertuzzi seems to be increasingly focusing on putting up points rather than starting conflicts.

Tkachuk is certainly bigger and stronger and braver than the arch rat Marchand, but he's still a skilled agitator rather than an old school power forward because he looks to get under people's skin, do things that break 'the code' but not the rules and generally wind the opposition up rather than use his physical presence and toughness in a more intimidatory fashion. A proper power forward rarely resorts to his kind of antics. he's going to be really hated in this league, because he wants to be.

don't think we can cover the cap hit unless someone is departing...

Can't quiet get a handle on Wilson...he seems quick and smart and ok at everything, but has no impact. He's the kind of guy who on a stacked team could randomly put of 40-50 points one year, get a big contract and then fall off a cliff.

I think we are safe to assume KH won't add at the deadline. He knows we aren't a contender and we have no pieces to trade away that aren't more important for us. Besides the worry about neither trading nor re-signing green at a lower cap hit and thus wasting a major asset, I'm quite relaxed about this season. If we make the playoffs it will be because our younger guys have taken a significant step forward across the season, and the experience will be great for them, and if we don't we get a better draft pick and accelerate the rebuild. None of our older guys are elite anymore, so we don't have to feel too bad about 'wasting' their peaks, and none of our younger guys have been around that long. We shouldn't be a playoff team really looking at our overall roster, but equally aren't a going to be at the bottom of the standings, so as long as the GM makes decent use of his assets, I'm happy to let the chips fall where they will.