kipwinger

He's 20. But your point is taken.

We could have used him down the stretch and in the playoffs. I'm not a doctor, so I have a hard time handicapping an injury like this. If he wants to play, I'd welcome him with open arms. He's a game changer. Not every game of course. But a lot of them. If I have to predict I'd say we'll see him for a while, he'll get another concussion, and then he'll retire. While he's had problems before, this is his first really long absence, and I just don't see a professional athlete calling it quits this early. Seems like he'd want to give it one more go.

Excellent article on Holland and Devellano. http://www.foxsports.com/detroit/story/gave-babcock-s-gone-but-the-right-man-chose-to-stay-in-detroit-052615

And help build championship teams...a lot. I think he qualifies as what Mike Babcock would call a "serial winner". Here's a quick rundown of his resume. Devellano has been a part of 15 championship teams: 7 Stanley Cup wins with the Islanders (1980, 1981, 1982), and Red Wings (1997, 1998, 2002, 2008); 3 American Hockey League Calder Cup wins with the Adirondack Red Wings (1986, 1989, 1992); 2 Central Hockey League Adams Cup wins with the Fort Worth Texans (1978) and Indianapolis Checkers (1982); 1 East Coast Hockey League Riley Cup win with the Toledo Storm (1994); and 2 American League Championship wins with the Detroit Tigers (2006, 2012)

Devallano knows what he's talking about. He was brought in to build a successful franchise and he built the most successful one in the NHL. People just rail against him because he criticized someone who is popular. And folks don't like that. It's not enough that the Wings, or the Griffins, be good. They have to be good with our favorite players too. Because if our favorite players turn out to be no good, what does that say about our own judgement? What's true of Holland in the other thread is true of Devallano here. Nobody has had as much success with the modern Wings than these guys have had. More than Bowman. More than Babcock. More than Yzerman, or Lidstrom, or everybody else. I think 30 years of unparalleled success affords you the right to say whatever the hell you want about a 20 year old prospect.

Ken Holland has been with the organization for 30 years. 18 of which he's been the GM. He started as as scout, then the director of scouting, then the assistant GM, then the co-GM, and then the full GM. It's not a coincidence that he was hired just prior to the Wings beginning an epic playoff streak. To try and dismiss his contributions to the organization as anything less than profound would be an absolutely gross understatement. He's been more important to this team's success then any other individual. If you hire a GM from outside the organization, you can argue he's riding coattails. But it's a little hard to say that about a guy who's been a member of the Red Wings longer than Steve Yzerman and Nick Lidstrom. To a lesser extent, this is true of Stan Bowman as well. Sure Tallon was the GM before him. But he started with Chicago in 2001 when they were a garbage team. Unless he was just standing around playing with himself for 8 years he likely contributed to their assent. Is he entirely responsible? No. But he's contributed from the bottom up. Yzerman doesn't deserve much credit for that first conference finals appearance as he had just come in from outside the organization and had been with the team for less than a year. But he deserves credit for every single other success they've had since.

They'll just move one of Carle or Coburn. Maybe Garrison. Besides Sustr isn't that good anyway.

I completely agree. What's more, I don't know why you'd want to even try. The entire model has been discredited. It only held together as long as it did is because you could threaten and coerce people into deciding that any other behavior wasn't worth the cost. If you're going to ban guys from coming to the NHL, what are you going to do when they defect? Or refuse to play for the national team? Are you going to have travel bans? Are you going to beat them? Are you going to threaten their families? The old Soviet system was only possible because the government was willing to enforce it by every means. Unless you're willing to completely control every part of these players lives you can't stop them from boarding a plane for the U.S. whenever they want.

I'm not shocked. I feel like all but the very rarest of people are self serving. I posted about it because it had to do with a former Red Wing, who's been in the public eye recently because of a documentary highlighting his personal struggle AGAINST this type of thing. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy (and futility) of his viewpoint. But I'm not shocked or surprised by it. He's a company man. As most people would be if they had something to gain from it.

That's what people have been saying since the 1960's. There will always be good old boys, because there will always folks too invested in the status quo to change anything... Hence, Slava Fetisov's complete about face.

At least as much as lawyers do. Besides, helping you dingbats see the light is almost a full time job. Edit: You should read the foreword by Erich Fromm in the reissued addition of "1984". It argues that modern capitalist societies ARE the Matrix. You ARE being lulled into a passive state of "happiness". Which equates to nothing more than satiation. But you didn't choose it. And it wasn't forced on you. It's just an unintentional, uncaring, affect of affluence.

Senator. But in Putin's Russia being the elected representative of the public is largely a ceremonial position. You're not really expected (or allowed) to do much.

The obnoxious thing about it is that it won't make Russian professional hockey more viable. It won't do anything he's hoping it will do. It will just make Russian hockey crappy because nobody who's playing it will give a damn. And anybody who gives a damn will turn their efforts toward activities that aren't subject to repression. How do I know? Because it already happened with Russian sports. And industry. And art. And everything else. Forcing people to do something stifles motivation, creativity, passion, hard work, and effort. It NEVER increases them. Ask Slava, it's exactly how he felt in 1989.

I disagree with the notion that we need a "guy to turn our defense around". It's overly simplistic. Just because a guy isn't going to completely change the complexion of your defense corps, all by himself, is not a reason to avoid acquiring him. There are a handful of guys who are that good. We aren't getting them. But it would be foolish to avoid upgrades entirely, and hedge your bets on drafting the next P.K. Subban, as a result.

Probably. Apparently authoritarianism is only bad when it stops YOU from doing something you want. Otherwise, it's pretty much fine by Slava.

I don't think we need to land a top guy. We've already got Kronwall. We just need to upgrade, where possible. Look at Tampa Bay's defense. Yzerman was criticized pretty heavily for wrapping up so much money in non-impact defensemen like Carle, Stralman, Garrison, and Coburn. None of those guys are really "top guys", but collectively they're better than any other alternative Tampa had. And they're playing good enough to win.

LUDA!!!!! Damn. Always one step ahead.

Whelp, I absolutely got that wrong didn't I? Yikes. Sorry for bring so dickish about the whole thing.

We should sign Blashill to play on the wing for Larkin. That size!

Saying that Larkin will be a wing is just as silly as saying Pulkkinen will be a center. He won't.

AA is a center, so is Larkin. They are the two best center prospects we have. And center depth is the most important thing in hockey. Why would AA be a wing for Larkin?

You seem to be suggesting that everybody should be wary of expecting too much out of Jeff Blashill as head coach. Because Dave Lewis wasn't a good head coach. So maybe Blash won't be either. If that's not what you're saying, then I have absolutely no idea why you'd bring Lewis up. Other than to try and make some sort of tenuous comparison which isn't grounded in similarity at all. Why did you bring Lewis up again? Edit: Nobody expects Blashill to win the Cup next year. But here's the thing...nobody expected Babcock to win the Cup next year either (had he stayed). So expectations are EXACTLY the same. However, given their relatively similar career trajectories, and the fact that Blashill out performed him in all head to head competition, I don't think it would be a stretch to expect him to be as good as Jon Cooper was in his first season as head coach. Which is a much more realistic comparison than the phony one you keep trying to make with Dave Lewis.

Lol. It'll be a cold day in hell...

But it's really, super duper, convenient for his argument. Will you reconsider?

Yes. Ericsson is a significantly better skater. He's actually one of the better skating of the large, stay at home, defensemen in the league. He's not Keith Yandle, but if you compare him to similar type guys, he's a great skater. Dion Phaneuf, however, is a terrible skater. That said, I agree that Dion is the better defenseman, 100%. But he's not a better skater. But he is a better passer, shooter, hitter, and decision maker.