kipwinger

Jacob Trouba is like a better version of Brendan Smith. No matter how much he underperforms the wildly out of proportion expectations of his acolytes, they'll always have an excuse handy. Then one day, he'll be 28 years old, and not that much different of a player than he is now, and suddenly everyone will say "well he never really panned out". Trouba isn't a #1 defenseman. He's not going to develop into one either. He's a perfectly good defenseman, but if you want a top guy (and everyone seems to) then it's not going to be him. His offense just isn't' good enough.

I'd like Sutter. But no thanks on Lombardi.

I think it's problematic that the league can even "let" them play in the first place. Shows just how uneven the relationship is. Like I said above, it would be a good time for the players to conduct a work action. Show the owners that they don't "let" players do anything unless it's addressed in the CBA or a personal contract. I'm a union guy, but they need to show their teeth once in a while. Like I said, I get the that owners invest a lot in these players. I also get that the players aren't merely assets. Clearly both sides are going to have to figure out an Olympic option in the next CBA.

Lol. Haven't been downtown lately huh? Gentrification is in full effect, even in Detroit.

I completely agree with the part about players not being just "assets" and I've said so elsewhere. I've actually argued (mostly on twitter) that this would be a really good opportunity for the NHLPA to conduct a work action because A) They need to show the owners they they can hurt them too (for the next CBA negotiations), and B) because pretty much everyone would be sympathetic to the players on this one. I'm of the opinion that in any industry both workers AND owners have the right, and responsibility, to protect their own interests. Employment is an implicit agreement between two equal parties. Which is why I HATE it when people say the owners "own" a players contract. As far as costs, I was mostly talking about the potential costs of injuries to star players as well as the opportunity cost of having your building sitting empty for 3 weeks. At the very least owners have to spend the assets to find things to fill their arenas during that time, and given that it's only a year out, that may be difficult and/or expensive. I do realize that it doesn't "cost" them anything in terms of spending money to send players to the Olympics. But aside from intangible things like "growing the game" or "increasing their profile" there really isn't any incentive for them to do it. The potential that a Crosby getting hurt probably out weigh the benefit of him playing considering there really is no benefit from the owners perspective. Like I said, they're just protecting their (sizeable) investment, which i think it totally reasonable. Just like I think it would be totally reasonable for the players to negotiate an "olympic clause" in the next CBA if it really means that much to them. And none of this is to say that I won't be totally bummed about them not playing. I will. I absolutely love the Olympic hockey tourney.

I 100% agree with you. I just recognize (as you did above) that for league owners hockey IS a business, and they've invested lots of money into players and want to get something out of it. It may be in the NHL's interest to see the game grow, but it's not their BUSINESS to see the game grow. Their business is putting asses in seats at the Joe, or the Verizon center, or whatever. And allowing players to play, and assuming the risks and costs associated with that, isn't something they're likely to do without some incentive. Currently there really isn't one, or at least a tangible one, so it's something they're unwilling to do. Which is disappointing, but I think reasonable. I mean, a big part of the reason Alex Ovechkin is a bigger star (and draw) than Ilya Kovalchuk is precisely because the NHL has invested a ton of money into making him a star both through investment in his development but also through intense (and expensive) marketing. As far as the bolded, I agree that this is their thinking, but I'm not sure it's going to pay off. The hockey tourney is the premier event at the winter games. Lots of people buy tickets to see the best tourney on earth. Lots of people buy Team USA sweaters, but even more would buy Team USA Austen Matthews sweaters. And advertisers and networks are (IMO) much more likely to buy in at a higher price if it's a best on best tourney and not a rehash of the World Juniors. We'll see if their gamble pays off. It obviously has ramifications on how they'll approach negotiations with the NBA, PGA, pro tennis, etc. for the Summer games.

Dude, quit it. This is getting eerie.

They used the wrong word. Traditions, by their very nature, can't be outdated because you keep doing them for symbolic purposes. Perhaps they should have said "irrelevant". Throwing octopi on this ice isn't outdated, it happens every year. But it's totally irrelevant given that it takes more than 8 wins to get a Cup nowadays. It's just something people do because they've always done it, but it has no relevance to modern hockey at all. I guess maybe it's symbolic of "Detroit-ness". But so are Atwater beer and coneydogs, why not throw them on the ice? And if we're dead set on the number 8 I think we should switch to hot dog buns. Firstly, because it's cheaper. Secondly, because hot dog buns have just as much relevance to hockey as octopi do. Which is to say, zero relevance. Whoa! I think you're on to something. The traditional large pizza has EIGHT slices! And seventy years ago it took EIGHT wins to hoist the Cup. Is the universe trying to tell us something? This is cosmically significant!

Well, I'm not super old or anything, but I have been around the block once or twice. Every so often PETA complains about something that A) nobody seems bothered by, or B) nobody cares enough to do something about. And it's entirely meaningless. It's literally just a bunch of suburban liberal dips***s crusading. Which is fine. I think it's good for people to care about stuff. Even idiots. But then all the traditionalist goofballs on the other side act like their livelihoods are being attacked because a handful of misguided and ineffectual goobers have stated their opposition to something that's never going to change. The traditionists freak out, because change scares them only slightly less than different points of view, and they act all "from my cold dead hands"-ish about something that they spend 99.99% of their time not paying attention to. If PETA tries to set a farmers' cows loose, they should go to jail. Likewise, if Red Wings fan start sacrificing live octopi before games, they should also go to jail. Otherwise, both groups should go find something more productive to do with their time.

To be clear, I think that both the tradition as well as those PETA folks are EQUALLY dumb. And I'm good on taking a guess. There's not really any good reason why the convergence of dead animals and arbitrary (and outdated) numbers should have anything more than a fleeting, bemused, affect on my life. But feel free, obviously you're really passionate about those things. I suggest pickled pig's feet and the number 11. And please, please, please, take pictures of whatever you get into.

How about whoever guesses the correct number gets that number of dead chicken livers thrown on them? It'll be cool, maybe even start a tradition. I mean, get it? There's this relevant number (the correct guess) so we find some decaying animal matter (in this case chicken liver) that comes in the same number, and we throw it. It'll be a hoot and also wildly symbolic.

I mostly agree. I mean, you do need a good puck moving defense to generate offense and we don't really have that. But yeah, we obviously have very capable wingers who can finish off plays. With a competent powerplay and quality centers Tatar probably scores close to 30 this year, AA and Mantha and maybe Nyquist are all over 20. That's not too shabby. If you look at all the really top flight offensive teams they usually have around 4 or 5 guys who score over 20 goals. And having quality play making centers is a big part of that. Z was able to elevate the play of his wingers this year, but otherwise we didn't really have a center that could do it, and that's PART of the reason everyone's numbers were way down.

Lol. Both the tradition, and being irritated by it, are idiotic if you think about it for more than about 2 seconds.

I've wanted Mittelstadt for a while now. He's the best puckhandler in the top 10 outside of Hischier, he's got good wheels and good size. His stats probably suffer from not playing in the CHL, which is a much more offensive brand of hockey, and as a result his draft ranking suffers as well. I want someone who can distribute the puck just as well as he scores, which Mittelstadt does. He's highly creative, and is a really good playmaker. He can also create scoring chances out of nothing because of his puck skills. Wingers are a position of strength for us. Going forward we've likely got AA, Mantha, Svech, and one of Nyquist/Tatar as our wingers in the top six. We need centers who can control the puck and find them in the offensive zone. Mittelstadt fits the bill.

I'm pumped about this. Seems like the organization may be trying to get ahead of the curve on the rebuild. His numbers weren't great in college, but remember a few things. 1) Freshmen don't get a ton of playing time in NCAA hockey, and rarely put up big numbers when they do. 2) the NCAA itself isn't a high scoring league. I'm happy that the kid will have the advantage of professional quality training facilities, nutritionists, etc. That should only help him develop physically. And playing against better quality opposition might mean he'll struggle at first, but hopefully it means he'll be ready to make the jump at an earlier age. I've said before I'd like to see us competitive again in 3 years. If Cholo takes 3 years to develop and can come up to the big club and be a quality defender at age 22-23 I'll be thrilled. I like this.

It blows my mind that people are still blaming the league on this. It's like the knee jerk distaste for Bettman clouds any other consideration when something bad happens in hockey. The owner, and Bettman, WANTED their players to go to the Olympics and lobbied to do so when pro players entered the games in the 90's. They seem perfectly willing to agree to player participation when it doesn't cost them anything, and would be absolutely ready to agree if they actually made a little money off the deal. But clearly the IOC isn't content with that arrangement. They don't want to pay expenses and they don't want to share profit. Few owners are going to agree if it actually COSTS them money. That's silly. Blame the IOC. For once, this isn't Bettman's fault.

Per the CBA, IF players and owners agreed to attend the event, AND the IOC was actually willing to let the NHL make money off of the enterprise, my understanding is that the NHLPA and the NHL would split the revenue 50-50. So you can't even say the owners just want everything for themselves here. The only difference is that the players are willing to play for free while the owners aren't willing to part with their players' services for nothing. Totally reasonable to me.

I disagree. I completely understand owners wanting to protect their investment, but they don't OWN the players. Players are contractors who supply their labor (i.e. hockey playing) to franchise owners. I suspect that there's nothing in their contracts prohibiting them from playing elsewhere provided their owners agree to a leave of absence (which, in cases like Ovechkin, they're willing to do). I actually think this is precisely the time for players do conduct a work action, if nothing else, to show the owners that they (the players) are willing to hurt the owners too (to prove a point for the next CBA negotiations). Having said that, I don't even blame the owners here. I blame the IOC. They make an insane amount of money off NHL talent in the games, and the owners (who reasonably want a kickback), are being blackballed by the Olympic committee. They won't allow the NHL preferential treatment in terms of advertising, branding, etc. And now they're not even willing to pay the costs associated with getting the NHLers into the tourny. At the end of the day it's their loss. Going to be awfully hard to sell a bunch of Team Canada "Crosby" sweaters if he isn't there. The IOC is 100% more corrupt than the owners because unlike the NHL, the Olympics are ostensibly not a profit making enterprise. Either way, I'll still be all about the tourny. There are a TON of high end, non-professional players, who will fill the ranks and I'll be pumped to see it. It's essentially the World Juniors on steroids because you'll have everyone from juniors through the AHL to fill the teams with.

I didn't think we were discussing the feasibility of trading Nyquist or Dekeyser. But rather that you didn't think they'd fetch a 1st rounder, yet that they're both much better than a 1st rounder would likely be. I agree it doesn't happen often. Mostly because teams don't trade guys like Nyquist and Dekeyser very often when they're under contract. When they do, they're worth 1st rounders, though I'll concede that the more common return is appropriately valued prospects (I'd be fine with that too). I agree that we need more than one good defenseman. I think we probably even agree that Dekeyser is a pretty good defenseman. I just don't think we agree on WHEN it would be useful to have them, whether DK will still be this good then, what we should do in the mean time. I also don't think that Dekeyser is so good that it's unreasonable to think that between drafting, UFA, and what we have now that we couldn't (in a couple years) have a better defense without Dekeyser than we do with him.

Why do you want another winger? It's already a position of strength for us.

I'm confused by your response. If a 1st rounder isn't likely to turn out as good as DK and Nyquist are now why wouldn't a team looking to win now be willing to trade the 1st? And also, a first would have more value to us anyway (regardless of the risk) because we are (ideally) looking to be competitive in 3-4 years. So it matters a great deal less how good DK and Nyquist are now, but rather how good they will be then. Assuming we kept Tatar, we don't really need Nyquist. Seems pretty clear that some combination of AA, Mantha, Svechnikov, and Tatar are going to be the top six wingers going forward. Nyquist is a pretty expensive 3rd liner. Why not get the pick and hope to turn it into the next Werenski? Same with Dekeyser. He's not a top pairing defenseman NOW. He definitely won't be in a few years. So what's the point of keeping him when we could move him and trust that our scouting and development will find/develop someone (at least) as good as DK is now in a few years when we need it?

I agree that whoever we draft this year will most likely be in the lineup. I just left them out of the lineup I proposed because I didn't want to speculate in who we'd take. And it is because of this that I'd move DK and Nyquist or Tatar (preferably Nyquist). They each probably get us a 1st this year. With 3 firsts we have the ability to 1) move up (if we're drafting 4-7th) and get an impact player in the draft, or 2) depending on our lottery position draft an impact player without moving up and get two later 1st rounders to further stock the cupboard, or 3) get a high lottery pick, then trade 2 later round picks for one pick in the 7-10th spot. All of which seem like better options to me than hanging on to them and hoping they don't continue to regress between now and when we're likely to be competitive again.

We don't need to "immediately" replace him. We won't be good for at least another three years. We need to replace him/improve upon him by then. Which wouldn't be that hard. I feel the same way about Nyquist and Tatar. I'd move DK and one of them. They'd all get you a first rounder. Three first round picks would be HUGE in a couple years. Then sign FA's to fill out your roster. Besides, why keep him? By the next time we're any good he'll be 30 years old, his contract will still suck, and he'll be even less worth it. Edit: Also, aren't you the guy who CONSTANTLY complains about overpriced guys who are only suituationally good?

Because he's a decent player, would get us a high draft pick, and costs too much. He's exactly the kind of guy I'd move. Good enough to get a decent return, but not so good that we can't live without him.

I don't know either. And I don't even think we draft badly. As I said elsewhere, I think we've drafted really well lately to be honest. I really like Tyler Wright as the director of scouting. As far as I know, Yzerman didn't really have much of a "scouting" roll. I think that was primarily the purview of Nill, MacDonnell, and Fischer in North America, and Andersson and Vakurov in Europe while Yzerman was around. But your point is valid. I think you're right though that we've had a lot of turnover in our scouting ranks the last few years. Thankfully there hasn't been much fall off to speak of. And as I said elsewhere, I think there's a misperception that getting late round draft steals was easier than it actually is because we had a lot of success with that for a while with guys like Dats, Z, Franzen, Filppula, etc. But the truth is, guys like that almost never turn out to be that good. We weren't better at drafting back then, we just got really, really, really lucky.