Gold Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jesusberg

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/28/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Windsor, Ontario
  1. There's AA out there on the PK. Shows what I know about how Blash wants to handle his TOI... lol.
  2. Agreed. This is probably my biggest "Uhh, what the...?" moment through three games. At the very least, I wish they'd switch Abdelkader and Tatar. Right, and I don't necessarily think it's Helm stirring the pot, but the three have worked well together. Larkin or AA could work just as well in that spot, if not better. Even during the last preseason game against Toronto, Vanek and Nyquist were showing signs of chemistry. Honestly, looking at your line combinations, I don't think we're all that far off. Generally, I just try to stick within the parameters of what I think management is willing to do. It's not like I don't want to see a faster team, capable of scoring more often. Just usually more a matter of, "considering the way this team is run" for me. The only real snag for me is having AA on that second PK unit. Not that I think it's impossible, but it still feels as if he's on a short leash with Blash. Felt like he didn't see much ice time after that failed drop-pass to Miller during the last game. Ideally, everyone has their role, but it's not a huge deal (for me, personally) if Nielsen is playing on the secondary units of the PP and PK. Also, curious about what happens when Kronwall returns. Kind of hope they stick with four forwards on each unit, but I think Smith has looked solid on the PP.
  3. That's great, but I'm not sure what Maltby scoring 50 in junior hockey has to do with his role in the NHL. He never potted more than 14 goals in a year, and cracked 30 points twice. Maltby altered his game and at the NHL level, and received the minutes/role he did because of his ability to play a two-way game. It's not "everyone", but for many discussing his role on the team, they're simply repeating what management is saying. To their point, why use Mantha in the lineup if he's only going to play 10 minutes a night? If he can displace someone who is currently in a top-nine role (not necessary top-six) and take their spot on the power play, then I'm all for it I doubt you'll find many people who want Miller/Ott over Mantha - just ones who want Mantha in the right role on this team. I get where you're coming from, but I'm not in a rush to break-up that Nyquist-Helm-Vanek line. Last season was pretty ugly in terms of "balance", but Blashill appears to be off to a better start this season. The forwards (outside of AA and Ott) are playing within roughly four minutes of each other's TOI/GP. Not to mention, he appears to have created some clearly-defined roles when it comes to the PP and PK. Outside of Nielsen, no one else is double-dipping between the special teams units. So I guess my point is less about fourth line vs. top-nine/top-six, and more about having the right opportunities/roles for guys like AA and Mantha. So sure, on paper, Mantha could jump into the lineup for Miller/Ott, but he's not taking over their PK minutes. Like I said, I think Mantha's best opportunity occurs if Sheahan struggles in his current role.
  4. I'm still not entirely sure why Miller/Glendening/Ott are being compared to Mantha/AA. I understand that people want to see them in the lineup over the aforementioned grinders, but it's players like Sheahan, Helm and/or Abdelkader that have to drop down the depth chart. If that happens, one of those fourth-line guys would get pushed out, but I sure as hell don't want to see Mantha on the fourth line. AA's more suited for that kind of role, but there are always going to be complaints about his TOI/GP. Management needs to feel as if Mantha/AA can do more in the top-nine group than someone like Sheahan. Helm's line is clicking right now, and I don't see the team leaving Abdelkader on the fourth line for an extended period of time. IMO, Mantha's best chance at an extended call-up this year (outside of injury) is Sheahan struggling in the top-nine, then getting pushed down to the fourth line.
  5. Normally I'd agree with this, but I've read a few articles, blogs, etc. recently outlining how notoriously patient Cheveldayoff is when it comes to trading. Prior to finally getting moved to Buffalo, Kane was demanding a trade during (nearly) every off-season. Cheveldayoff waited for the right package. Sure, the situation is a bit different here, but I don't expect him to just settle. I think Trouba caves before Cheveldayoff makes a trade he's not happy making. I agree that we see a ton of those, "seriously, the Wings could have paid that price" scenarios, but I'm not sure this is one of them.
  6. I second this ^ I used GF, but CapFriendly is my "go-to" site for cap-related questions.
  7. Was just about to post these. Not sure why Blashill seems set on putting two NFP guys like Abdelkader and Sheahan on the same line. Only thing I can think of is he wants to match them up to shut down other top lines. If he's so keen on using those guys in the top-six group, I'd much rather see Tatar-Nielsen-Sheahan, Abdelkader-Larkin-Z.
  8. Obviously you can't please everyone, but I have no idea what kind of team fans want to see the Wings ice. It feels as if, regardless of what's thrown out there, we'll find something to complain about. I'm genuinely curious what people are looking for (within reason) using the current group of forwards in the Wings' system. Something along the lines of...? Tatar-Nielsen-Nyquist Zetterberg-Larkin-Abdelkader Mantha-Athanasiou-Vanek Sheahan-Helm-Glendening Jurco, Miller Waived: Ott
  9. My guess is that Athanasiou is going to have to make an impact fairly quickly/avoid any glaring mistakes, otherwise I can picture Blashill pushing him down a couple of lines. And when that happens... *steps away from LGW for the night*
  10. They actually had him skating on their 2nd line with Granlund-Koivu in practice, but decided to go back to using Pominville there. Same deal with their 2nd PP unit - Granlund-Koivu, then Pominville/Pulkkinen/Niederreiter as the third forward on the unit. For the record, I'm not upset about the Wings losing Pulkkinen and trying to prove a point - I just happen to have all of this useless information in my head at the moment. Spending far too much time going over my fantasy hockey team and looking at line combinations/PP units recently.
  11. Generally I would agree with this, but according to some of the stuff out there from Dreger, Holland was more than willing to play ball with Cheveldayoff. Holland made an offer during the summer, and the Jets' responded by asking for "two higher-level forwards". Apparently, they want Larkin coming back the other way. It's not clear whether was one of the two forwards, or if he was involved in something outside of that, but I don't make that deal. I'd make a trade for Trouba using a variety of the team's wingers, but I don't blame Holland for refusing to move Larkin in a deal. You move him and you're filling one hole, but also digging another. The Wings don't have anyone like Trouba, but they don't have another Larkin, either.
  12. Jesusberg

  13. I'm not all torn up about losing those guys, but I'm definitely confused about some of the roster moves. Generally I'm in the, "OK, let's wait and see where this goes", but I'm not entirely sure what's going on right now. I think waiving Frk/Pulkkinen makes some sense if they intend on keeping eight defensemen long term. If they value Jurco over Frk/Pulkkinen, it makes sense to have AA there, so they can send him down in November. They have a lot more options up front, so perhaps it's a matter of the team valuing Sproul over Frk/Pulkkinen, considering the current state of the defense. I'm not entirely sure why they waived Pulkkinen if Kronwall was heading for IR, though. Unless they didn't think they would have to place Kronner on IR? I don't even know...
  14. I spent the summer thinking Coreau had to pass through waivers too, but I read an article earlier today that stated he's likely waiver-exempt. I'm thinking a few of the sites I use to keep track of contracts/waiver status are wrong. The writer cited CapFriendly as his source. Reading it over, I'm thinking he's correct. Based on the information from both of those links, Coreau signed at 21, and goaltenders who sign at 20-22 years of age have 4 years/60 games until they're waiver-eligible. I think the mix up occurred because, while Coreau signed in 2012-13, he didn't play his first professional game until 2013-14. CF's waiver FAQ states: For players whom are 20 or older, the year in which they play their first Professional Game (e.g. NHL, AHL, ECHL, KHL, European Leagues) is the year which is considered their first year towards the waiver exemption; however, the player must be under an NHL contract. So I mean, unless their information is incorrect/I'm misreading something, it looks as the team can safely send him back down to Grand Rapids this season.
  15. I don't disagree with the notion that they need someone who's willing to take some risks. I just can't see it with the current state of the defense corps at the moment, though. They've got issues all over the place. Both Kronwall and Ericsson are slowing down/facing injury-related issues. I don't think they have much faith in Smith, either. If they do, I think he's on a pretty short leash. Green is solid, but a bit of a roamer, too. That basically leaves DeKeyser and Marchenko as the "reliable" defenders on the team right now. To me that screams "we're taking the safe guy". Ouellet's not racking-up stats this preseason, but that's not really his game, anyway. I think he's made a number of smart stick plays and positional decisions. As I said, I've been high on Sproul ever since they drafted him. However, I can him repeatedly winding up for a slapshot on the power play, having his shot blocked and losing the race back. I just don't think his foot speed is there. I'm all for taking him on as the eighth defender, but I wouldn't take him over Ouellet right now.