kipwinger

Well that was pretty passive aggressive. You seem pretty dead set on Blashill "not setting the world on fire". All I've ever said is that it's possible he gets more out of this team. It's happened before. Lots of people have done it. Even inexperienced coaches. I'm not sure why you're so insistent that he's "not going to set the world on fire" and that any improvement in the teams' play won't be the result of his coaching? People forget that we were competing for a top spot in the conference at one point in time this season. Then we lost 57,000 points in the shootout, completely fell apart down the stretch, and lost in the first round. Is it unreal to think that Blashill can improve on that?

You're showing a lot of sympathy to a guy you're regularly implied was a lazy, floating, womanly, sissy of a player. Have you turned over a new leaf?

Bylsma (rookie coach) took over for Therrien the year after Therrien had coached the Pens to the finals. The result? Bylsma won a Cup. Randy Carlyle (rookie coach) took over for Mike Babcock after he left Anaheim. The result? Took his team to the conference finals the first year, and won the Stanley Cup the second. It's not always a case where a team is in a tailspin. It is entirely possible that a different coach can get more out of this team. It's not a guarantee. But it's not outlandish either. It does happen with some regularity. Again, not because the new coach is necessarily better than the old one, but because he brings a new approach to the team. There isn't only one right way to coach a team, and a coach who's good for one group of guys may not be good when that group begins to change.

Who said anything about Blashill being better? Often times, as I've illustrated above, a DIFFERENT coach can get better results. There's a very real possibility (not a guarantee) that Blashill can get more out of this team than Babs did. Not because he's better per se, but because he's different. Either way, we're about to find out.

Tons of coaches have been hired, mid season and with the exact same roster, and dramatically improved the team thereafter. Bylsma did it. Sutter did it. Hitchcock did it. Boudreau did it. Therrien did it. Laviolette did it. Literally the exact same roster. Better results. I don't know why people think that Blashill can't get better results with the same team. Or why any improvement must be attributed to internal growth. It's not like this is some unheard of thing.

How do you defend against Mothra with that wing span?

I realize that there's all sorts of residual hate from the rivalry (or what was left of it), but I really don't understand hating the Blackhawks and wanting teams in our conference (and particularly our division) to win. Firstly, because f*** anybody else in our division. But secondly, because the Hawks play (and win) EXACTLY like we used to. They're the Red Wings. If anybody should be able to appreciate just how good they are at what they do, it's us. If you'd just thrown Red Wings sweaters on the Hawks last night, it could have easily been confused for the 2009 conference semis. Maybe that's the reason why, now that I think about it.

On the contrary, I predict that we'll be better. Much better. I predict we'll have a better regular season record than last year AND we'll win a playoff series.

What an accomplishment :-(

I remember when Detroit used to play like these teams. Sigh.

For why?

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.