kipwinger

Put him with Datsyuk and his nickname would be Silky. On account of his hands.

I'm for whatever configuration of players helps us win. If Luke can do that better on the first than the fourth, I'm fine with it. I'm skeptical he could keep it up. But if he did, I'd stick with what works. Seems like all too often we want the team to win, but specifically with the guys we like contributing in the ways we want. But that's wrong headed. If we were a better team with Luke on the first and Tatar on the fourth, then that's what we ought to do.

Shhhhhhh...Abby and Helm suck and are fourth liners at best. Don't diverge from the narrative. I read that Winging It in Motown blog too. But it's bulls***. It's not like Pulkkinen was playing with scrubs. Babs gave him several games with Zetterberg and he didn't produce jack squat. The answer to all our offensively under performance issues can't be "put him with Datsyuk". He's played with good players and hasn't produced that well. That's not a good reason to give him more ice time with better players. And that's not a good strategy to begin with. This is the part of the season when we're trying to win games and establish home ice for the playoffs, not worry about the development of rookies. Edit: Oh yeah, that blog was especially retarded because it implicitly compared Pulkkinen to Brett Hull (again). A comparison that is made all too often, and only sounds dumber the more it's repeated.

But he is practicing right? So whether or not some people's careers are ended because of concussions doesn't really matter in this case. All indications, barring some set back, seem to point toward him making a recovery. At least I hope so. It's pretty clear he wants to keep playing.

No official update. But considering he was skating yesterday, and a couple of weeks ago Holland said “I know he’s working with Dr. (Jeff) Kutcher (a specialist at Michigan who treats sports concussions). I get a report occasionally from (trainer) Piet Van Zant when Piet talks to Dr. Kutcher. But (Franzen) is not here. He’s not on the bike. I don’t know how far he is away.” I think it's probably safe to say he's improving. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/16/holland-franzen-concussion-not-close-to-returning/

One goal in two games. I'm not going to scoff at it too much.

He has 30 pts. in 44 playoff games over the last 5 years. Which is even better than his regular season ppg numbers.

Until recently they hadn't lost two in a row in regulation. So the high win percentage in regulation stands to reason. I don't think anyone would argue that the Red Wings are a bad team. However, IMO there are a few weak points to our game that I'd like to see us tighten up before the playoffs roll around. Most recently, we've been starting games late and generally look aloof during the first period. Our 5-on-5 scoring is only average and we seem overly reliant on special teams play for offense. I'm still not sold on our transition game, and turnovers seem to still be a problem at times. I'm hoping that between now and the playoffs we can figure out the best line and defense pairs to ice, and that the additions of Cole and Zidlicky will allow us to get people slotted for maximum efficiency. Barring any serious injuries I don't see why we wouldn't be able to improve in some of these areas.

In a week where Luke Glendening found himself on the top line, I don't think any defensive configurations should come as a surprise. Anybody who thinks "that will never happen", clearly hasn't watched Mike Babcock coach. If he has even the inkling that Marchenko will make the top four better, he'll be up there in a heartbeat.

Did Ericsson look bad against Calgary and Boston? I heard Weiss did.

Yikes, I leave for the weekend and Luke Glendening is on the first line when I return. What the hell is going on?

Lol. You get incredibly lighthearted when your arguments start to fall flat. A far cry from the guy who so vigorously blamed me for the downfall of the NHL awards process. Wait, did you blame me? Or just make a vague statement and not so subtly point it at me? Either way, I didn't make any of the arguments you claim I did. I'm not responsible for NHL awards. And I'm smart enough to know what plausible deniability is. If you're going to make up a bunch of things (most improved award), in the future could you spare me the "who me" routine when you get called out on it? Or maybe next time you disagree with me about who should be the NHL Coach of the Year, you should just act decent about it instead of pulling that "this is the kind of thinking" crap. Then we wouldn't be in this position.

No. If the image of raw, unadulterated, masculinity makes you squeamish, look away.

This is the type of thinking that makes me think people on the internet just like to argue. What?!? Stop playing the victim. I wasn't talking about you. I said "this type of thinking".

I concede. You got me.

You said "this type of thinking" while quoting me as an example. If I quoted you and said "this type of thinking is goofy" you'd have every reason to think I was talking about you. It's not that hard to figure out what you were suggesting. And you're not really clever at all. So I'm not sure why you're trying to dance around it now. You think "my type of thinking" ruins awards that I (in fact) have no say in administering. Which is absurd. But I doubt that's the point. Apparently something about me really bakes your clams. And you really wanted to show me what's what. And you did. In sense that you put a bunch of words in my mouth, made me responsible for something I have no part of, and then danced around about it when I confronted you about it. I don't choose NHL awards. And I didn't suggest that the team with the greatest improvement from one year to the next should get awards. So try again. Careful. That's exactly the type of thinking that's wrong with awards. But not your thinking. Someone else. But the kind that you're an example of. Except not.

Again, it's not slander if it's meant to be funny. Which it was. As clearly stated by the author. If I said, "Frankgrimes eats crickets", you couldn't sue me for slander even if you don't, in fact, eat crickets. Which is why so few people get sued for slander. Slander typically happens when somebody (journalists or people under oath) report something as fact which is actually untrue. TSN didn't report "Lupul banged Cuthbert". They just posted a tweet from a guy who said that. Which is irresponsible of them. But not illegal.

I'm not sure where this idea of "most improved" is coming from. I mentioned a number of coaches that I think did a good job this year. They've all improved their teams. I'm not sure who improved the their team the most (probably Laviolette, if I had to guess), but I certainly wasn't saying the that the coach (or GM) with the best record this year (compared to last year) should win it. That would be most improved. Something I've never advocated for. Personally, I'd look at all the coaches whose teams dramatically improved over the last year, and then I'd try to figure out why. Was it because their powerplay is way better (Detroit), or because they're more healthy (Detroit), or because they got a new coach (Nashville, Washington), or they had a whole year with a different coach (Winnipeg), or a couple new assistants, etc? And then whoever's improvement was most directly attributable to the coach, would get the award. And that's how I'd vote, if I had a vote, for coach of the year. But I don't, have a vote just to be clear. So if you think my thinking is ruining the sanctity of the NHL awards process, rest assured that it isn't.

Awwwww s***. You've bitten off more than you can chew on this one. While your logic is solid, you argument is vulnerable in one key way. What if a bunch of people on LGW think that Brendan Smith is WAY better than he is? I mean, what if they thought that instead of a third pair defenseman with upside, he was a "dynamic two way defenseman"? What if they thought that instead of a mediocre defenseman who has underwhelmed both offensively, and defensively, they thought of him as a future cornerstone of our blueline and in some cases have even compared him favorably to Keith Yandle? Then, it absolutely WOULD be like scratching Kronwall for Marchenko wouldn't it? And that's how your argument is wrong. Because Brendan Smith, despite his past and/or current performance, is a frickin' defensively stalwart.

Why the hell do you live there? Just out of curiosity?

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was pointing out the fact that you called me (and my thinking) out and oddly not Pierre Lebrun, the person who wrote the article in the OP, mentioned all the same guys I did, and actually gets to vote for those awards. Why not say "his type of thinking is ruining the awards"? Since he actually gets a vote. Instead, it's my thinking. Seems like you've got an axe to grind, or some hostility or something. I promise I don't get to vote for these awards, and so you can be assured that my thinking isn't ruining anything. Otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say. A coach (or GM) of the year award should go to the best coach (or GM) over the last year. And since I don't believe (my opinion) that any of these guys did absolutely nothing between this last year and this, I'm going to heavily rely on improvement as an indicator, when offering up my (clearly stated) personal preferences.

I live in D.C., and we got dumped on today (by southern standards). About six inches of snow in a few hours. I was the only person in my neighborhood outside enjoying the weather. It was a blast. I miss Michigan for a ton of reasons, but the snow is the biggest. We get this kind of snowfall a couple of times a year and it's always a treat for a handful of Northerners.

I'd probably erase that last post before that troll earns you a nice little suspension. I agree with your comments, but you'll be the one that suffers for it. Just trying to do you a solid.

Who said it should be the "sole factor" for picking a winner? Certainly I didn't. You've been on fire with your straw man arguments lately. I did say that the guys who stick out "to me" are the guys who's teams have dramatically improved since last year. I'm not sure why that's such a big stretch. Should the coach or GM of the year be someone whose team got worse? And even if it was the "sole factor", I'm hardly the only person that feels that way. Lots who people, who know a lot about the sport, vote that way all by themselves. So your "this type of thinking is what's wrong with the awards" comment is a bit of an exaggeration.

It's a annual award. The Islanders are significantly better than they were a year ago. Why should they not be in consideration? I'd agree if we were talking about giving Garth Snow a lifetime achievement award. We aren't.