kipwinger

Well, as much as I have criticized Mike Babcock over the years, I don't think he actively wanted the team to lose. And if there were an obvious way to improve the team, I'm sure he'd have done it. So the fact that Riley's brother was consistently left off the powerplay tells me that he's probably not as good at it as you'd think. Likely due to the fact that he's dumb and makes awful decisions, which might very well outweigh his skating ability. Again, if he gets a chance and runs with it. Good. But I'd be really reluctant to change something that's working really well just because it would be good for one guy. He needs to earn it like everybody else.

Would it be better for the team? As I've already stated, our powerplay was really good without him. Unless he makes it better, it doesn't matter what it would do for him individually.

Why? Our powerplay was really good without him. I'd like to see if Blashill can get more out of some of our under performers. So in that sense I get what you're saying. But there's no sense in changing something that's working really well, just to get one guy going. That's counterproductive. If our powerplay regresses, or if someone struggles, then I'm all for giving Smith a shot. But if something is working well, why would you mess with it just to improve the stat line of a third pair defenseman? If Smith earns powerplay opportunities, and succeeds, good for him and good for the team. But it's going to be hard considering that was one of the best parts of our team last season.

Generally speaking, Blashill lets his defensemen be a little more active offensively. Which may bode well for the future's of Kindl or Smith. But not likely both.

But what you said to discredit Osgood is also true of those other guys. If you stuck Sawchuck, Fuhr, Plante, or Smith on crappy teams, instead of dynasty teams, they wouldn't have been great either. They were all system goalies. But nobody holds it against them. Osgood put up comparable, or better, career numbers than the guys I just mentioned. He did it on a really good team. They did it on even better teams. But only Osgood gets criticized for it.

I can't wait to see how Toronto fans, media, etc. react to trap hockey. It's going to be soooooo sweet,. Cherry will love it. Everyone else will come falling back to earth the minute they realize their team isn't going to score goals.

I'm really not trying to turn this into an Osgood debate, but it looks like it's already heading that way. Using the fact that Osgood "took advantage of all-star teams" against him completely ignores the fact that guys like Fuhr, Sawchuk, Plante, and Smith ALL played for dynasty teams as well. I don't see anybody arguing that Grant Fuhr's banner should be pulled down because he played with Messier and Gretzky.

Yeah, because Mike Babcock loves those three guys. Might as well thrown Kindl in there too. That'll really sweeten the pot. Any potential trade for Phaneuf went right out the window the second Babs went to Toronto.

Why would Holland do that? It was Babcock that wanted him back. If anything, Shanny's working on his next contract.

Ken Holland will offer the same thing he always does. He'll offer the chance to make reasonable money and play for a perennial winner who treats you well. He will not, however, offer the most money. So guys who want the make the most, and don't care about anything else, won't come here. Guys who want to win, be treated well, AND make reasonable money will sign here. Franson, Green, or anybody else will need to decide if they're in it for the money, or if they'd like to be part of an organization that's competently run and consistently successful. If the former, then we're probably better off promoting from within anyway. At least it will keep us out of cap hell.

That's because the Griffs are making it easy on him. They gain the zone and toss the puck at him from the perimeter. Of course it's easy for him to deal with. They've got not net front presence and nobody is making plays in the offensive zone. They look like a team full of Mikael Samuelssons.

Griffs need to get some sustained pressure and some bodies in front of Markstrom. You're not going to beat that giant without a screen.

Just heard Kent Huskins' name mentioned playing for Utica. Anybody remember that crazy cat?

Now now, no need for that. I just disagree with you about Jurco, vociferously. But that doesn't mean we can't be friends. I'll assume that this post is exactly that, a dust up amongst old pals. And I'll take note of the fact that when I disagree with you in the future, you'd probably prefer that I do so in a gentler way.

It's official. Toews is better than Yzerman. Straight from the horse's mouth. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/jonathan-toews-better-player-than-steve-yzerman--says-steve-yzerman-175536179.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Hogwash. You do think he's terrible. You're agreeing with a guy who called him completely worthless. Now you're just trying to justify getting rid of him, post hoc. Secondly, yes he has impressed offensively. He scored at a point per game pace in the AHL the year he was called up for good. 32 points in 32 games. For comparison's sake, Nyquist scored 58 points in 56 games prior to his first extended call up, and Tatar never scored a point per game. Both of them got sent back down for additional seasoning after their first call ups. Jurco didn't. Which is why it's taking him longer to hit his potential. Secondly, we had 6 players put up more than 40 points this year. Three of them will be 35 years old, or older, next year. One of them was a defenseman. So no, we don't have a "surplus of young players who can provide those numbers". We have 3 young players that can do it, Abby, Nyquist, and Tatar. And two of them have only done it once. Because you said the guy was completely worthless, got called on it, and then put words in everybody else's mouths. Nobody said he was awesome, or that he ruled, or anything else like it. You said that in order to distort our positions and make yours seem more reasonable. Which it wasn't. It's a strawman argument. You're hardly the first person to do it. And it's obnoxious each and every time. If you don't want people "be a jerk about it", don't call players worthless and then distort people's positions when they disagree with you. Believe it or not, most of us are here to talk about hockey. And comments like that, and your subsequent behavior, make our ears perk up a bit.

You don't have to assume anything. Babcock was explicit in his desire to keep Jurco in Detroit. And while it probably didn't do him any favors, I'd be pretty reluctant to say that he f***ed up Jurco's development. At worst he probably delayed it, a little bit, but that's all. I've been Babcock's most vocal critic for a long time. But I've got no problem with the way he's handled young guys. He doesn't put them in over their heads. He doesn't make them carry too much of the load. And he emphasizes the fundamentals of the pro-game, rather than take the easy way out. That's what he was doing with Jurco, and given how it worked for other young Red Wings, I'd say it's the right idea.

Hyperbole, last refuge of flawed logic. Person 1: We should trade Jurco, he was completely worthless! Pretty Much Everybody Else: No he wasn't, he just didn't score a lot. He's still got plenty of upside. And he's young. Person 1: Fine! Jurco rules! Not disappointing at all. Pretty Much Everybody Else: Yeah, that's what we said.

Aha, thanks for the correction. It only bolsters my original point though. The Lightening didn't "play uninspired". The Wings are just a tough out.

I don't think anybody would be happy if that's all he ever turned out to be. Babs commented several times throughout the season that he was incredibly happy with Jurco's game, and that he needed to continue to have good habits and his offense would come. Which is exactly how I feel about him. If he'd had the opportunity to "over ripen" like Nyquist or Tatar, and enter the league at 24 or 25, after several years in GR, then I'd expect more out of him too. But he didn't. So his development will be slower than guys like that. It's to be expected if you're being even remotely reasonable in your assessment. If he still looks like this next year, or the year after, then talk to me. He's played less than 100 NHL hockey games. Have even the slightest amount of patience.

Knee jerk reaction I probably wouldn't have thought that about Abby. But when you think about it, having a fourth line that is as defensively responsible as ours was, allows you to keep your top six off the ice in the d-zone. And if you look at (for example) Glendening's TOI and faceoffs taken, it's probably much higher than most fourth line centers. Which suggests that he was probably put out there to win the faceoff and get the puck out of the defensive zone ANY time there was a d-zone faceoff. Which is not to say that Abby, or any of the top six, was being sheltered. Rather, why send them out when one of your best defensive players is also one of your best faceoff guys? Just use him, and save your top six the effort. I bet (had they kept track) that Draper's possession stats would have looked a lot like Glendening's, and our top six guys (in the glory years) would have had more o-zone starts than you'd imagine given how good they were defensively.

I completely agree about the importance of zone starts as a mediating variable when looking at Corsi, I've mentioned that same point many times when discussing B. Smith. I only brought up those guys to compare him to other third and fourth liners. And because Jurco played quite a lot on the fourth line this season. So while his zone starts probably weren't as tough as Glendening or Miller, they were probably AS tough as Andersson's, and considerably tougher than Weiss or Pulkkinen. But agreed. And point taken.

Wow, I don't know where to begin. First, possession means a lot, regardless of production. Which is why the emphasis on those metrics is sweeping the league. If you can go get loose pucks, or keep pucks when you have them, then EVERYBODY on your team benefits (regardless of your individual production). Jurco does this. Guys like Miller, Glendening, Pulkkinen, Weiss, Andersson, don't. Secondly, being on the penalty kill is not necessarily indicative of your defensive play. For example: Brendan Smith sees a reasonable amount of time on the PK despite being AWFUL defensively at even strength. Being good at one does not mean you'd be good at the other. Finally, Justin Abdelkader followed up his "coming out party" with 6 points in 50 games the following year. You'd probably have advocated trading him too. And it would have been just as silly. Jurco is young. He had a bad year offensively. However, he did a lot of other things very well, as evidenced by the fact that Babcock lobbied to keep him in Detroit instead of send him down to GR, AND Babs used him over guys like Weiss and Pulkkinen (who were better offensively) in the playoffs. If he sucked so much, and if he provided nothing at all, then why did Babcock keep playing him? It's not like he didn't have other options.

Very good point. EUROPE!

What would you get for him in trade that would be any better than him being a "complimentary scorer" in four years? He's not exactly overflowing with value right now. He's big, fast, good defensively, hits, and has strong possession numbers. If, in four years (when he'll only be 26), he can contribute 40-50 points around the crease, he'll be worth FAR more than anything you'd have gotten by trading him now. As far as the Franzen comparison, I agree. But we've already got Mantha for that.