kipwinger

Lol. This just in. Eli Manning vehemently denies his role in the memorabilia scandal he's been accused of. It's probably all made up. Clickbait and all. I mean, he DID deny it after all.

I would prefer to see the Wings do what Columbus did with its fourth line this season. Get rid of all the useless "grinders" on the 4th, replace them with guys who had formerly been top 9 guys, and replace THOSE guys' spots in the top 9 with young skilled players on entry level contracts. Sam Gagner and Scott Hartnell replaced guys like Jared Boll and Gregory Campbell (who were SUPER MEGA TOUGH), and all they accomplished was a combined 31 goals and 56 assists from the FOURTH LINE. You know what's really super duper hard to play against? A line that can actual control the puck and score goals instead of just hitting and blocking shots. Novel idea I know. Here's an article that helps explain the philosophy. I think it makes way more sense for improving our team. Or we could just keep doing what we did this season, with essentially the same personnel, and expect a different outcome. https://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/blue-jackets/blue-jackets-fourth-line-taking-nhl-storm/

Those weren't rhetorical questions, I have literally paid zero attention to Liljegren. I just recall seeing that he was ranked pretty high at the beginning of the season, but that he had a pretty s***ty year.

Nope. I'm saying whether or not we had Steve Ott made no difference at all to our winning and losing. So why sign him again? Why not try to find a solution that actually IMPROVES your team rather than one that does nothing at all? Again, this isn't theoretical. If having Ott made us better, as you're suggesting, then we would have been better when we had him. But we weren't. We were the same crappy team with or without his "hardness to play against" or whatever other stupid intangible you're suggesting he brings to the table.

Right, because we were so much better with Ott than without him lol. It's not like this is theoretical, we already know what a Red Wings team with Steve Ott looks like. I'm not speculating here. We need to improve our top 9, which will push guys like Helm, Abby, and Sheahan DOWN the roster. Not add aging veteran grinders which push guys like that UP the roster. On a good team, Helm and Abby are 4th liners, and guys like Miller and Ott, are in the AHL or are retired.

Hasn't he tumbled down the board since the mid season ranking? Also, aren't his offensive numbers abysmal this year for a top offensive defenseman?

Not a year goes by without some primadonna professional athlete doing or saying something dickish, someone lets the cat out of the bag, and then said player (and their agent) lie and lie and lie about it. It literally happen CONSTANTLY in pro sports. I don't see why anyone would deny the veracity of this.

The big deal is, you've got guys on the roster who are better than Ott, you have guys on the roster you want to be better than Ott, and you're trying to develop you team in order to be competitive again in a few years. So giving a roster spot to a 34 year old grinder at the end of his career is absurd. Why not re-sign Miller if you're dying to bring back a veteran grinder? He had almost the exact same s***ty season that Ott did. Our team is stacked with 4th line types. More than we could ever need. And you're advocating bringing another one in for what? Because you like him? We've got Glendening, Helm, Abby, Sheahan, Bertuzzi ALREADY on the team. Smith too if you're really stretching it. The only way I sign a veteran grinder is if we magically get rid of at least 3 of them in the offseason, which is unrealistic. And WHY would that even make sense anyway? Get rid of grinders so you can sign different, older, less good grinders? It's dumb, regardless of how you look at it.

Because they're overpaid they're unlikely to be "shed". So you'd just be adding Ott's salary on top of theirs, and all of those guys are better players than he is. I can't believe I actually have to explain this. And even if you should shed one of those guys contracts, it would still be better to plug that hole with Bertuzzi since you'd ideally like him to be on the big club anyway.

Agreed. We've already got 3 guys that forecheck well, have 4th line level offense, and are already under contract. Glendening-Helm-Abby. Why do we need someone like Ott? Oh right, because he occasionally punches people. Ugh. Nyq-Z-Mantha Tatar-Larkin-AA Frk-Neilsen-Svech Glen-Helm-Abby

Thank god Eichel isn't Russian. This is a real bad look for the kid.

3 takeaways from this series so far. 1. We need to forecheck as aggressively as Toronto does, Washington cannot break out the puck right now. 2. We need to target Dmity Orlov in a trade scenario, that dude is realgud. 3. Evgeny Kuznetsov might be the most effortlessly impressive skater I've seen since Fedorov.

Yeah, those guys totally suck lol.

Nyquist-Z-Mantha Tatar-AA-Svech Frk-Larkin-Abby Sheahan-Neilsen-Helm Glendening, Nosek DK-Jensen Ouellet-Green Kronwall/Ericsson-Sproul Kronwall/Ericsson, Hronek Mrazek Howard

Two years ago, when Dekeyser got similar ice time, and powerplay time as Trouba, he scored 31 points. THIS is precisely my point. Feeding a guy minutes their skill set doesn't suggest they've earned will increase their numbers, but WON'T make your team better. Ian White had a career year in Detroit because he got tons of minutes and played with Lidstrom, but that didn't make him a better player or the Wings a better team. It was only good for Ian White. We still had to suffer through a middling defenseman playing minutes WAY above his head. Jacob Trouba hasn't proven he's a top defenseman, so I'm opposed to giving up the assets or salary of a top defenseman for him.

That's because Myers only played 11 games. If he's healthy, all those 5 on 5 and powerplay minutes go to him, and Trouba's numbers fall (just like they did a year ago). It's really not that hard to figure out why I don't think he's as good as everyone else does. He hasn't earned any ice time, his numbers this year were inflated because of an injury to someone else, and they weren't even that impressive to begin with when you consider he had entirely favorable conditions in which to put them up. I used Hamilton as an example of a guy who scored early and often at a young age, something Trouba's fans seem to think is hard to do (despite tons of guys doing it).

I didn't say he was offensively inept. I said he's a good 2-3 defenseman, which his numbers indicate. You seem to be arguing that if you give him 25 minutes a night AND a ton of powerplay time, that he'll score more (something that's true of every single player in the league). But there's a reason why his team has been unwilling to give those kinds of minutes to Trouba (unless forced to by Myers injury). And I suspect that the reason why is because they don't think he's as capable as people like you do. So why spend the assets on him before he proves otherwise? If the plays out his contract in Winnipeg, earns the ice time, and puts up points I'd be happy to sign him. I'm just not convinced of this vast potential that everyone else seems to really believe in.

Your stats above indicate that Hamilton is a much better point producer over his career. Which is my point. I'm not giving up big assets, or big money, for a defenseman that doesn't score well. I don't give a s*** how well he kills penalties lol. Most #1 defenemen DON'T kill penalties, and for good reason. You have to ask yourself WHY Trouba doesn't get powerplay time. Could it be that he's NOT that good offensively? Probably. Otherwise you seem to be arguing that a guy with all this skill is not seeing it utilized, presumably because his coach is A) an idiot, or B) wants to lose. Both are absurd. His coach seems to get pretty good offense out of the rest of his team. As I've said already, what makes you think that Trouba is going to dramatically change his game after coming to our offensively inept team? The likelihood is he'll put up WORSE numbers, which only further calls into question the rationale for giving up assets and/or signing him to a big contract. Let him prove he can do it in Winnipeg and then sign him as an FA I say. That's because you're looking at total TOI per game, which includes PK time. Also, Myers only played 11 games this year due to injury. Last season he played more at even strength AND on the powerplay than Trouba did. Trouba's ice time goes up when you factor in PK time. Again, "top" defensemen don't kill penalties very often. When his team needs offense, the minutes haven't gone to Trouba (except this year because Myers wasn't available), they've gone to Myers.

Well a contract dispute, this early in his career, isn't exactly reassuring to me either. But we'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance lol. What I do know is that when Winnipeg needed another big minute righty to play on their blueline they didn't give those minutes to Trouba (a guy already on the team), they traded for Myers. THEN they didn't give Trouba the (rumored) big contract he though he deserved, and he copped an attitude about it. So I'm not the only person not convinced of his potential apparently.

Well, to begin with, roughly 50 defenseman had better years (offensively) than he did. And most of them have a track record of doing so. Who cares if some guys had a down year? In order to have a "down year" you have to have had a series of "up" years. Something Trouba has never, ever, done despite the fact that plenty of "top defenseman" have done so at the same stages of their careers that Trouba is now. I'd be all for it if we were talking about a guy like Hamilton, who scored 40, 40, and 50 points the last 3 seasons on two different teams. That's a safe bet and one I'd be willing to part with assets for.

My point is that for whatever reasons he hasn't proven anything yet with his play. So why gamble on the guy? He's young. If he proves he's a high end player then sign him as an FA. If not, then you haven't lost anything, aside from a bunch of high end assets for a guy who may, or more likely may not, turn into the thing everyone agrees we really need.

You're talking about a matter of months in their age here. And at least they did break out. He still hasn't, if indeed he can. I'm not suggesting that guys can't grow. I'm suggesting that a guy who's consistently played 60ish games, with offensive numbers that haven't really impressed, probably isn't worth gambling on. He's MUCH more likely to continue to be slightly above average than he is to have a "break out" season on our s***ty team. Why not wait, see if he does break out, and then sign him in FA at his actual worth after he's PROVEN he can be a high end guy?

Right, but so far in his (admittedly young) career he typically only plays about 60 odd games a year. Also plenty of true #1 defensemen did perform at consistently higher levels than Trouba has, at the same stange of their careers. Subban did. Josi did. Hamilton did. Doughty did. Karlsson did. Ekman-Larsson did. You're acting like nobody ever performs at a high level when they're young. But plenty of guys do. Top defensemen do. And he hasn't. So I'm not sure why you think age is the reason. Pretty much ALL of the top defensemen in the league have done something that Trouba hasn't, yet folks still argue that he's probably going to be like them. I just don't see it. To me he seems more similar to Phaneuf, Fowler, Vlasic, or Bouwmeester. Certainly his career thus far has been more like theirs than it has been like a top guy. What makes you think he's going to blossom into a top defenseman after coming to our offensively inept team?

I'm not trying to "bring him down at all". He's a solid 2-3 defenseman. Just like Dekeyser is. I wouldn't even be opposed to signing him as an FA. But I'm opposed to giving up a package befitting a future #1 defenseman when he's not going to be one. Everyone keeps saying that he's got "potential" to be a top defenseman. He doesn't. Kronwall, who pretty much all of LGW (other than me) believes wasn't ever a true #1 defeneman dramatically outperformed Trouba over his first 250-ish games. Dion Phaneuf, who pretty much all of the hockey world thinks isn't a true #1 Defenseman dramatically outperformed Trouba over his first 250-ish games. Same with Shattenkirk. I'm just not sure why everyone thinks that a guy who's developed at a slower rate than those guys will turn out better? The answer, of course, is that many folks REALLY LIKE Trouba, and so they want it to be true. But it's not. He'll likely never put up the kind of offense that would qualify him as a legit #1, which is what everyone is saying he "has the potential" to be. Trouba just had a "career" year, and he scored 33 points. On one of the league's top offensive teams. He got plenty of minutes, at 5 on 5, AND on the powerplay, and he benefited from Tyler Myers being injured all season. So there was nothing to stop him from scoring more, other than his own ability, and he only put up middling offensive numbers. True #1 defenseman put up 40+ points consistently. Trouba hasn't been able to do that despite having very favorable conditions to do so. I have no idea why people think he will on our team.

Wow, you missed the point entirely. I wasn't comparing Smith to Trouba, and I plainly said that Trouba was better. I was talking about how people around here fail to see the flaws in Trouba's game, much like they did with Smith, and always have excuses ready for why he isn't where they think he's capable of being. But the truth is that neither of them are as good some fans want them to be.