kipwinger

Exactly. I don't think it was that the Neilsen-Tatar-Vanek line didn't work, so much as they wanted different things out of their lines. My impression initially was that they wanted Neilsen, Zuccarello, and whichever other winger to act as a sort of shutdown line to play against other top lines, freeing up the first and third lines to provide the offense. Neilsen was their best defensive forward. So in that sense, putting him with Tatar and Vanek wouldn't work. Subsequently Gaborik got hurt and Tatar played extremely well on the top scoring line so there was no reason to change the philosophy. They just moved Tatar up to the first (from the third) and drew Boedker into the lineup.

This isn't quite true, but close. During the exhibitions games at the beginning of the tourney, when Team Europe was still trying to figure out their best line combos, Tatar-Neilsen-Vanek was a line (for about a period) against Team NA. Afterward, Tatar and Vanek played briefly together with Draisaitl (sp?) before Gaborik was eventually hurt and Tatar went up. But you're right in the sense that they did not play together for prolonged periods of time. 100% accurate.

I don't think it's "wrong". I just think it's a bit misleading, because saying a young player had a down year (meaning they scored less, which is demonstrable) is often misconstrued as they regressed or stalled in their development (which both Nyquist and Tatar have been accused of). I agree that they scored less overall. I guess my point is that their regression in production had very little to do with the quality of their individual play. I was responding to someone who called Tatar a "new man", and I think that's not really accurate. He's always been this good. He just looked worse last year because our powerplay was garbage and he played nearly 2;00 minutes less per game.

Well, I'm certainly not going to try to talk you into liking something you don't. But it's too bad that you didn't see any games. There were some really good ones played. I really liked watching the NA team play.

I look at Callahan the same way I look at Andrej Nestrasil from a couple years ago. Is losing him some big loss? No. Is he anything more than a fourth liner at the NHL level? No. Did he produce more in 55 games last season than Drew Miller or Steve Ott have in their last 100 games? Absolutely. And if you can field guys like that for your 4th line more cheaply than you can sign either of those guys, why wouldn't you do it?

In my example above, Jurco's the most unproven of the proposed 4th liners. Otherwise Helm and Sheahan have shown decent ability to produce against tougher competition than a fourth line would provide. Not many 4th lines around the league actually play hockey. Most, like ours, are checking line guys who play the majority of the time in their own zone. I have plenty of faith (I acknowledge that it's just speculation) the 30+ points that Sheahan and Helm have proven capable of producing against tougher matchups would carry over against lesser lines...even despite the reduced ice time. 60 odd points out of your fourth line would be pretty nice.

But if you look at Tatar, his even strength scoring rate last season was 1.69 pts/60. The year before it was 1.7 pts/60. However his powerplay production dropped from 5.43 to 3.9 pts/60, which likely had to do with our powerplay going from among the best in the league to one of the worst. Hardly an indictment of Tatar. Nyquist's even strength points/60 actually increased from two years ago to last year. 1.44 to 1.69. But again, his powerplay production plummeted from 5.73 to 3.08 pts/60. Again, likely because our powerplay went from good to awful. Their rates of production, at least at even strength, weren't worse. Their rates on the pp were much worse, but how much of that had to do with them vs. Ferschweiler's pp being ineffective?

To be fair, I definitely said I'd rather he be on the team than either of them. Even if he's only AS good as them, he's still a better option because he's cheaper. I don't see how as team as absymal as ours was (at times) last year signs either of those two goofballs to a contract. Actually, I'd throw Glendening into that mix as well. I'm not going to be heartbroken if Mitch isn't on the team, in fact I think we've got MUCH better options for our fourth line, but Miller and Ott aren't it. I'm tired of our team's weird fetish for gritty, experienced, plugs on the fourth line. If we absolutely HAVE to have a gritty, shot blocking, pk guy on the fourth line I'd rather it be Mitch. Here's a novel idea, do away with this notion of a "matchup" fourth line. Let your best players play against other teams' best players, and put together a fourth line that could roast other teams' fourth lines. Then you might actually see "depth scoring", which would be helpful. In some ways (and I know I'll catch a ton of s*** for this) I blame the glorification of the Grind Line for this. People seem to think that the Grind Line was a matchup line, and that is some tried and true strategy for line deployment. It wasn't. Firstly, they hardly ever matched up against top lines on good teams. They were dangerous because they were WAY better than other depth lines. Hypothetically, if you did something like this, our fourth line would absolutely bury other depth lines on other teams. Tatar-Neilsen-Abby Z-Larkin-Vanek Nyquist-AA-Mantha Jurco-Helm-Sheahan

Since when do you care about possession? When it's convenient for your argument? Tatar is one of the best possession wingers in the league, has been for a couple years, and you complain about him incessantly. Also, the AHL doesn't even track possession metrics so I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. Chances are you have absolutely no idea what he does for possession and are just making things up to serve your point of view. Thirdly, Callahan's numbers in the AHL are reminiscent of Abdelkader's and better than Ott's numbers at the same level. And while neither of those guys is a great possession player at the NHL level (and you've made your distaste for Abby quite clear) even you have to admit that they are/were at least deserving of an NHL jobs, possession vacuums or otherwise. What makes Callahan different?

Apparently Matthias Janmark is going to miss majority (or all) of the season with a "joint issue" which required surgery. And this has got me wondering... People said the Erik Cole trade was bad, and blamed Holland excessively, because Cole got hurt and couldn't help us. So now that Janmark is hurt, does that make the Cole trade good again? Or better at least?

I don't know that his time is past, but I agree that he's not a priority. And to be honest, it's not the end of the world if that's the case. As much as I'm annoyed by our organization's "grit" and "desire" and "veteran leadership" fetish, if you're going to prioritize those things I'd rather you do it on the fourth line than on the second or first (looking at you Brad Richards).

I don't agree with this. Tatar looks exactly like he always does...good. Tatar scored at almost exactly the same rate last year as he did two years ago. The only difference was his usage. And the narrative surrounding last year's season. Dumb s*** media types like Helene St. James and Ansar Khan kept repeating over and over that he and Nyquist had "down years". And pretty soon everybody starting thinking it. But it wasn't true at all. The only thing down was their ice time. It's the exact same thing that Phil Kessel had going on this season. Look back over his career and his production fluctuates with his ice time, but his RATE OF PRODUCTION remains relatively stable. So no, Tatar isn't a "new" man, Krueger was just smart enough to recognize how good he is and give him the minutes...unlike our coach who preferred to give those minutes to Helm and Richards lol.

Don't get ahead of yourself. I think Callahan DOES deserve a shot at making the roster, and I think he'd be a cheaper alternative to Ott or Miller, but given the Wings offseason signings and preference for veterans he'll most likely be waived and sent to GR. Which I'm fine with. Sucks for him, sucks for the team (maybe) but he's also a 4th liner so I'm not going to get worked up about it. Callahan, for one, will not be contributing to our logjam at forward.

Probably for the same reason it took Nyquist, Ouellet, and Howard so long to get their shots.

Oh Jesus, are you really falling back on semantics? OK fine. He's been good in the AHL. Now what?

Solid offense, defense, and special teams ability at the next highest level in North American hockey.Also, he's cheap and the salary cap exists.

I can't stand that they're playing AA on the wing. This kid needs the puck on his stick more often. He's too dangerous to play the wing. I really hope that's the long term plan for him.

WWE Legend Jim Ross calls hypothetical scenarios in which famous hockey players come out of the crowd to help Team Europe overcome Team Canada. Amazing! Skip to 4:45 to here Good Ol' JR call the returns. http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ross-wwe-s-jim-ross-calls-world-cup-final-1.574714

Been calling for it for a while. He can get hit by pucks just as well as Miller or Ott. The only difference is he might score once in a while.

If Callahan doesn't get a roster spot over Ott or Miller I'll ******* puke.

Lol. Nice try. Every single year haha.

Nah, I wouldn't sweeten the pot too much. Just a little to make the cap situation work and/or deal with our log jam at forward and defense. Basically throw in someone to sweeten the deal rather than lose them later on waivers. I also agree that the value of getting Fowler is basically the same as getting Trouba. But all things being equal I think we would rather have a righty. Not that its a deal breaker.

Well, I'm not sure about that, but I think it would be a solid move. I'm less blown away by Trouba than most are, but I could handle losing Nyquist plus a middling piece to get him. Then again, it would all depend on what his contract demands are. I don't think, at this point, that he's a 5 million dollar defenseman. And definitely not a 6 million dollar guy. If he'd sign a reasonable bridge deal to play for us, something like 4.5 million x 4 years, I'd feel really good about it. Then, if he develops into the stud he's heralded to be, then give him big money as an FA when he's 26. Completely reasonable. If he wants big money now, as an RFA, and after not really proving much to this point, then I don't want him.

Ugh. I really hate to get into the trade for Trouba hype, but this just makes too much sense to me. We need a young righty defenseman. The Jets want an established left shooting defenseman, and the Ducks want(ed?) a left wing PP specialist? To Detroit: Trouba To Winnipeg: Fowler To Anaheim: Nyquist+

I couldn't answer that question. I've never dug into Silfverbergs numbers or seen him play much in the same way I have for Nyquist and Tatar. If I find some time this week I'll give it a look and let you know.