Buppy

Or you could not be racist, and stop equating a shorthand version of a person's name to an ethnic slur. What are you going to do if we draft this guy?

Ok, deflecting has nothing to do with opinions. Saying "Abby sucks" in a "Mantha sucks" topic, even if it's true, is still deflecting. "Whataboutism" in modern parlance. Vocabulary lesson aside... You're confused. Mantha wasn't scratched. He was moved to a lower line. Just like has happened to Abby and Kronwall. Just like happened to Vanek. But, to you, when it happens to vets it's "natural progression". And that's part of your problem. YOU don't treat kids and vets the same way. Vet gets demoted it's natural, kid gets demoted it must be punishment for a bad game. You can't even give the team credit for promoting a kid. That's just a kid "forcing" it. I don't believe scratching someone, or demoting them, is necessarily a punishment. (Nor every promotion necessarily a reward.) Sometimes things just need to change. Sometimes there are things to consider beyond performance. So I don't think the Ras question matters. (Though with Ehn gone, I'd probably say yes.) While I'm sure the lack of performance is part of it, I don't think it's everything. That's another problem. Kids and vets are, and should be, sometimes treated differently. That is not bias. Different situations sometimes call for different actions. There's an expectation that kids can learn something from watching the game from a new perspective. Both Cholowski and Rasmussen said they thought it was valuable. Maybe it's not true, maybe they were lying, doesn't really matter. If the coaches believe it's true, then there is no bias in that regard. A waiver-exempt, developing prospect is typically the better choice to send to the minors than the vet at the bottom of the pro roster, assuming they're roughly equal otherwise. I'd also argue that "trying hard", but not producing because you "suck" warrants different treatment than not sucking, but not producing because you're not trying hard. (And for the record, I'm not saying Mantha isn't trying. Just that effort and ability are different things.) This post makes it sound like you think Mantha was demoted because of the Montreal game. Though before that game you said he needed to be better. And you said afterword that he "responded" after being demoted, even though he hasn't scored, hasn't been on the ice for a goal scored, or even many decent chances. -5 ES shot attempts with him on the ice. 8 shots but again few dangerous opportunities. Do you really think he's responded? Should he be moved back to the top line? If so, what is it specifically about his play (and lack of production) that makes him deserving of promotion while Abdelkader's lack of production, despite "working his ass off", deserves a worse punishment than what you'd have given Mantha for what you called "maybe his worst game ever"? If I'm the only one saying "vet bias" is BS, it's only because I'm the only one who is paying attention. At least paying attention to the facts instead of Ken and Mick saying "overripe" 6000 times in the last 20 years. Fact is we have a roster comprised almost entirely of the best "kids" we've produced over the last ~15 years, and we're terrible. Not terrible because we haven't yet moved on from the oldest of those "kids" to the 2nd and 3rd tiers of the newest. Not because we've brought in some UFA vets and traded away a few mediocre kids. It's because none of the kids, from Helm and Ericsson at the end of the glory days, to Ras and Zadina today, have yet been good enough to make a difference. In all those draft picks, dozens of NHL players in the "Overripe"-era, dozens more near miss prospects, and what? Maybe 3, 4, 5? questionable decisions, and that based mostly on hindsight. Nearly all the kids who have stuck in the NHL came up before they were out of options, often taking a spot from a veteran. The best have all worked their way up to the top of the lineup. Our top D-man is a 20yo rookie, and top F is a 22yo in his 4th year. Mantha, Athanasiou, and Bertuzzi have all been in the top 6 most of the year, ahead of veterans, and they're some of the youngest players on the team. 19yo Rasmussen replaced veteran Abby on the PP, and he hasn't even been good. Jensen might be older, but he's played less than 2 full years and is currently our #2 defenseman, and he's not good either. When exceptions to your rule vastly outnumber the examples of it, it's time to rethink your rule. Aside from "bu-bu-but everyone says so!", what "examples" do you have? Your opinion on who deserves to be scratched or waived? Your baseless assumptions regarding how and why some decisions are made? That time Kenny said "It's a man's game"? Anything?

Further proof that when things aren't going well, anything and everything becomes a reason to *****. Hopefully they won't go through with it, then the FSD sale results in new broadcaster, s***ty coverage, and local blackouts. But also lower revenue so we can't spend to the cap, so you don't have to ***** about the crap team you can't watch spending too much.

Saying "Mantha deserves it, but so do other people" is deflecting. Textbook. But that's really beside the point. You said Abby and Kronwall (and implied veterans in general) don't get demoted. You were wrong. I corrected you. Now instead of just admitting you were wrong, you are again deflecting and trying to turn it into a personal fight. I didn't put any words in your mouth, I was debunking this ridiculous vet bias narrative you keep trying to push. My post had nothing to do with what you were or weren't saying about Mantha. Even the part about making excuses was about your motivations behind bringing up other players. In this thread you've criticized Rasmussen, Ehn, Abby, Kronwall, Blashill, and the organization in general, as well as a couple posts just mocking the topic. If that's not an attempt to redirect criticism away from Mantha, then what is it? Of course, your first response to Mantha being demoted was to call Blashill dumb (not the "I think he should have been" you later tried to claim). I do suspect you're being disingenuous, but that's just my feeling. Not putting any words in your mouth.

Yes, deflecting. Like when instead of acknowledging that the foundation of your previous complaint was factually inaccurate, you try to spin it into me having some personal vendetta. Deflecting. Literally the only reason to play the "other players have been bad too" card. Deflecting.

How about the fact that your premise is just plain wrong? A few years ago Abby was an 18+ minute top line forward, now getting ~15 minutes on the 3rd/4th lines, and lost his PP spot to a 19yo who didn't have that good a camp and isn't producing. That you are still trying to argue vet bias is absurd. Kronwall has also sunk down the depth chart over the years. Only our dearth of options has kept him on the PP. Played one game this year with both Cholowski and Hronek in the lineup, and didn't see any PP time that game. As usual, you're just looking to deflect and make excuses for players you like. I'm sure if you actually liked Ras you'd be all up in arms about him playing with Glendening and Abdelkader. For my take, the whole "Mantha got demoted" thing is being over-emphasized. Things aren't working, things get changed. With the exception of Florida he's been getting good minutes, PP time, playing with Vanek and Larkin or Nielsen at center as often as Ehn. We can call it the 4th line and act like he's being mistreated, but honestly with this team there aren't too many better situations. If he's really a 60+ point player like you think, he shouldn't need to be put in a prime situation. He should be the guy that makes a situation good for other players.

hype aeterna

hype

If fans could make trades this team would already be eliminated from the 2020 playoffs. But LCA would be full: "How can we be 0-13 after 6 games? I have to see this for myself."

Sulak and Hicketts have both been abysmal. Probably just flipped a coin for which to send down. Our actual roster would be almost $7M below the cap. We have a lot of dead money. Also, the entire purpose of the cap is to take spending out of the equation, and it works. Very little correlation between spending and team quality. And what do you think we could do if we had a bunch of free cap space? Nothing wrong with a complimentary player on the top line. It's not like "loading up" (if we can call it that with our roster) the top line worked at all.

There's two extra forwards, so the question should be which forward, in addition to Witko, should sit. Ras can sit another couple or so to get some more time up, play another four games, then either we decide to play him the rest of the year or send him down. Frk and Ehn are the only real options. I would go with Frk just because it's annoying watching the team trying to set up telegraphed one-times all day while Frk scores like Glendening. Or we could go with benching as punishment. Normally not a fan of that, but on the other hand I have been thinking Nielsen needs his ass kicked. Vanek, Abby, and Mantha are close as well.

Keep in mind that Rasmussen is a slide candidate. He can only play 9 games before using a year of his ELC. Scratching him gives an opportunity for more practice, more instruction, more time with the team, before that decision has to be made. It's not necessarily punishment or singling him out.

Someone reset the Matrix when we weren't looking. The Q was the lowest scoring of the CHL leagues last year. Only 6 players hit 1.4 ppg. The whole world is a lie. Up is West. North is 5. Ed McMahon never worked for Publisher's Clearinghouse. Nothing makes sense anymore.

Great, you realize that the standings don't matter. So the sort criteria is arbitrary. I am honestly surprised. I was sure your next topic was going to be "Why does the NHL list wins/losses as stats for goaltenders?" But to answer the question: I would, like most people, use my brain to make a decision. A decision that would be the same regardless of how said goaltenders were ranked in whatever list I was looking at. It seems you need a website to think for you. Sorry about your luck. If you're so upset about the NHL standings, you should be more proactive in your campaign. Since you probably need assistance on how to go about this, please visit www.HowToWriteALetterToYourCongressmanAskingForSomethingStupid.com for further instruction.

Depends on how you want to define "standings" I guess. Pretty clear from his response that he's talking about how the teams are ranked. The fact that the displayed standings require any "interpretation" kind of proves the point.

No, he's saying records matter, but how they're displayed on a web page doesn't.

Svech is on IR. We won't know if he actually made it until he's healthy. Given the state of our defense, I wouldn't be surprised if we carry 8 D. I also think our young D generally looked better than our young forwards. While I don't think Ehn is someone we need to worry about wasting in the pressbox, it still makes little sense to have him on the team if he isn't going to play regularly. I'd prefer Svech (or better yet, Zadina) over Ehn, though I'm not sure either of them would have a suitable role.

What I, and I assume Toby, meant by "standings don't matter" is that they aren't used for anything. e.g. There's no prize for being in 1st place in December. Obviously a team's record always matters, but only because it's part of the final record, not because of where they're ranked on some website at some arbitrary time. Teams don't sell because they're in 12th place in February, they sell because they think they'll still be in 12th place in April.

Joakehn Ehnderssehn Cory Ehnertehn Luke Glehndehnehng

I suspected you might be that guy. This question seems to pop up almost every year. The answer remains the same: "Because they want to". The only time the standings matter is at the end of the season, when everyone has played an equal number of games. And as you already know, at that time points give the same result as percentage. If mid-season standings bother you, don't look at them. And for Neo, 2004 was a long time ago. You should check out some post-lockout hockey.

You say that like you think "officially retire" means acknowledging that he isn't going to play again. Like we need to maintain some illusion that he's just injured, but might be back some day. But it doesn't matter if he'll never play again, or if everyone knows it. The only thing that matters is that his injury is real. "Officially retire" in respect to the cap recapture penalty means filing the necessary paperwork to terminate his contract, so that we'd no longer be paying him or dealing with his normal cap hit.

An inconsequential move if Ehn is going to be in the pressbox. I wonder if we might go with 8 defensemen, with Ehn as a regular, or at least fighting Frk over the 12th forward.

They can retire the number whenever they want. No rule that says he has to be retired, "officially" or otherwise. Also, the Wings don't need to act like he isn't "retired". So long as his condition is legitimate the NHL can't do anything. If they don't like it, they have to wait until the next CBA to change the rules.

Coke is hardly the real problem. Crystal meth use is so pervasive; the NHL actually has a stat for how much time players spend on it every game.

There's a loud "woosh" sound, but unfortunately it can only be heard by people who don't need to hear it.