kipwinger

Doesn't Datsyuk have one of the league's highest shootout percentages? Seems like a no brainer to me.

I want nothing to do with a Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Alfie (or Nyquist) top line. It should be wildly clear over the last five or six post seasons that we don't have anyone scoring down low. Giving another perimeter guy top line minutes is a recipe for failure. I'd rather lose a little bit of offense but change the dynamic of our attack than keep throwing the same one dimensional attack at teams over and over and over. Jurco showed a willingness to use his body to protect the puck, was strong in the corners, and had no problem creating offense in traffic. Plus, despite rookie linemates, limited minutes, and no powerplay time, his offensive number projected very favorably to Alfie's over a full season (and should only increase with D and Z). As such... Z-Dats-Jurco Nyquist-Weiss-Franzen Tatar-Sheahan-Abby Miller-Helm-Glendening/Callahan/Cleary

Jesus, can you imagine? "I tried to reach [Detroit Red Wings owner] Mike Ilitch, because I knew Wayne would have loved to go to Detroit," Pocklington said. "But it was basically done so quickly, and that was it. There was never a bidding war. There probably should have been, looking back." Interesting read to say the least. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=679887

Firstly, I've heard you rail about how bad a stat +/- is about a thousand times. So it seems like you're nitpicking stats that you'd otherwise argue aren't worth a damn. But I'll play along... In, the last decade of his career Gretzky had a negative +/- seven times. Five of those times his team didn't make the playoffs (e.g. they were bad teams). The fact that he drives possession doesn't mean he's going to make bad teams into defensive stalwarts, and I never claimed such. But it does mean that on good defensive teams (like the 97 and 98 Wings) his "lack of defense" will likely be made up for by his contributions to possession. I think the reason why that seems less clear based on +/- stats is because increased possession leads to more powerplays (e.g. those Wings teams were on the PP all the time, hence "our PP is our enforcer), and the additional offensive zone time (and points) gained on the PP does not affect the +/-. For example, if Gretzky was doing his thing in the offensive zone, creating offense on the cycle, and generally pressuring the opposition (like he did his whole career), the opposing team A) can't generate offense (so you're not playing defense) and B) has a greater likelihood of taking a penalty (so you're not playing defense). When they do take penalties, and Gretzky's team scores, it won't affect his +/- but nevertheless his possession lead to A) scoring, and B) long periods of time in which his team didn't have to play defense. He did this ALL THE TIME during his career. But don't just take my word for it. Here's two time Stanley Cup winning coach Daryll Sutter making the EXACT same argument while explaining how Marian Gaborik's defensive shortcomings wouldn't matter to LA. "The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone (say) they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,” said Sutter. http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-03-10/la-kings-news-darryl-sutter-quotes-corsi-for-definition-sidney-crosby

Nobody said he wasn't a star. Many people, however, have suggested (rightly) that he wasn't considered the untouchable, legendary, captain of a dynasty franchise until much later. He was obviously a star. He was scoring 100+ points a season at that point.

I love Jurco on the top line. Also, when old man Alf inevitably gets hurt Mantha gets that third line spot. I also Iike the idea of giving one reserve spot to Callahan. But what about the defense? That's much tougher.

I'd add that in getting Gretzky you wouldn't sacrifice team defense, only individual defense. Individually he's worse than Yzerman, no doubt. But he's so much better of a possession player that your team defense would improve simply by virtue of having to play in the defensive zone so much less. But other than that, I agree with most of what you've said above.

Well it's all hypothetical anyway isn't it, because they were already much better than anyone else either way? Hence the two Cups. The whole point of the thread though (hence the title "What Might Have Been"), is what would have happened if Gretzky had come here in a trade in 1988. I contend that we'd have still won the Cups in 1997 and 1998...and perhaps more along the way. Gretzky was that good of a possession player. Yzerman had only one clear advantage over Gretzky and that was defense, and Yzerman's defense (puck possession team) wasn't really a game changer in those series. Gretzky's additional offensive acumen, I argue, might have been. Tell me the additional offense wouldn't have been useful in the 7 games series' in 91 , 93, 94, or the 6 game series in 96 as well? Gretzky was SO much better than everyone offensively, that the team would be better overall than with Yzerman's. Why? Because Gretzky massively drove possession to such a degree that on a puck possession team like Detroit, it would lead to huge overall net gains. Both for the offense (where his ability to control the puck would lead to more zone time and increased production for everyone), along with the defense (which would be better by virtue of never having to actually play in their own zone). In short, Gretzky is the ultimate possession player, and the Detroit Red Wings of the late 90's where one of the ultimate possession teams. Of course they'd be better.

No, I get your point (and Hoon's). My position is that you'd be nuts not to make the trade in 1988. And when you did, you'd still have had a better team in 1997 and 1998 to win the Cup...if not some sooner. Those teams didn't win back to back years because of Steve Yzerman's defense. They won because they were the best team assembled since the 1991 and 1992 Pens. Gretzky's defensive shortcomings (which are overblown) would have been more than made up for by the fact that he was (even as an old man) a MUCH better offensive player than Yzerman, and would have only been more so if put on a dynasty team with the likes of Shanny, Fedorov, Larionov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov, etc. etc. etc. I guess my main point is that when you look at their respective stats, it looks like Stevie wasn't all that far behind Gretzky in 97 and 98. But that's because everybody on those Detroit teams had MASSIVELY inflated numbers because of just how good the team was. Put Gretzky on those teams and instead of 97 and 90 pts. he probably has 125-130 both years. Sure Stevie played better defense, but who cares? We had some of the best defensive teams in the history of the game with or without Yzerman's defense.

Because Gretzky was putting up more points on significantly worse teams. At every single stage of their respective careers Wayne Gretzky was a superior player. I know that it's become fashionable over the years to downplay just how good this guy was, but the truth is, he's not universally considered the greatest hockey player in the history of the game because he was actually worse than Steve Yzerman. Again, this is just a case of hometown nostalgia. As I've already said, it's like saying you wouldn't trade Ray Bourque for Bobby Orr (I know, same team) just because Bourque was really good too. Given their respective careers up to that point, you'd be a complete and total fool to not trade Yzerman for Gretzky in 1988.

Of course it's a "what if", but that's the point I'm trying to illustrate. Whenever anybody blames injures for the woes that have befallen us over the last five years, they're doing the same thing. They're assuming that having Dats, Z, Helm, and Franzen healthy will make up for all the team's shortcomings. But that's not really true. In 2011, and 2012 we were 19th and 13th in the league in injuries (e.g. not badly injured), and yet we had exactly the same results as we did a last year and the year before. Why? Because aside from Dats, Z, Franzen (and back then Lidstrom), our team was full of plugs. The very same plugs who would have been in the roster MORE had they been healthy last year. We already know what a healthy season of Dats, Z, Franzen, Cleary, Bert, Helm, Abby, etc. looks like. It looks like 2011 and 2012...when we didn't do anything at all in the playoffs. And back then they were all younger and had Lidstrom too. What makes you think it would have been different last year? Everybody acts like without injuries we'd have had some super team full of good kids and productive veterans. That's not true. We started the season with too many forwards and not enough cap space. And even if we did have the roster and cap room, no way do Sheahan or Jurco make that team out of training camp. Without extended injuries they don't ever get a call up. Maybe Nyquist would have, but add him to the roster below and it's still bad. So, in reality, we'd have had this... Z-Dats-Abby Franzen-Weiss-Alfie Cleary-Helm-Bert/Tatar Miller-Andersson-Eaves/Tootoo/Sammy Kronwall-Ericsson Quincey-Dekeyser Smith-Kindl Lashoff That team would get MURDERED by any Cup competitive team in either conference. Finally, an aside: Give me a break on the Chicago series. You're talking about having our full roster minus a rookie defenseman and a third line center. No team is fully healthy in the playoffs. If your margin of victory is so narrow that a third line center and a rookie defenseman can tip the balance, then you probably weren't meant to win anyway.

He's not speaking literally, he's speaking figuratively. When people nostalgically look back at Yzerman, they remember him how he was in the Bowman years and rarely remember the early part of his career. He wasn't a selfless, gutsy, two way, leader back then. He was a showy, one dimensional, goal scorer. At the time of the Gretzky trade, Yzerman wasn't the Stevie Y that we all remember as "The Captain", though he was in fact the captain of the team. That's what he's saying.

We were talking about over the last five years. All of those guys (Bert, Cleary, Sammy, etc.) had significantly bigger roles in the last five years than they did last year, were not regular scratches, but were not in the lineup nightly because of injuries. Net positive. And even if that weren't true, you're still making my point for me, which is that just because injuries severely diminished our success last season...they didn't noticeably impact us (for the worse) the four post-seasons before that. Edit: Actually, I take that back. Even last year. Without injuries there were not enough roster spots or cap space to call up ANY of Nyquist, Sheahan, Jurco. No injuries means Dats, Z, Franzen, and Alfie would have been surrounded by garbage all season. Look at our opening day roster. You think that team's winning anything? Nope.

After the last few seasons I'm not really sure what these guys are doing in the gym. Clearly not stretching their groins.

I'm about to blow your mind. If injuries weren't a concern over the last 5 years, Dats, Z, Helm, Weiss, and Franzen would have played more. But guys like Bertuzzi, Samuelsson, Cleary, Kindl, White, Colaiacovo, Eaves, Emmerton, and Gustavsson would have played MORE too. Conversely, guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Andersson, Sheahan, Jurco, and Mrazek would have played less. It's entirely possible that we could have been a WORSE team without injuries than with them. You don't get to pick and choose the effect that injuries have. Gotta take the bad with the good. And when you have a s***ty roster, losing bad players to injury is a net positive.

Jarnkrok was only in North America for half a season before the trade. It stands to reason we wouldn't be talking about him, most of us had never seen him play one shift of hockey prior to this last season. There isn't any chatter about Backman either, but not because he's no good. Nobody's seen him play and he doesn't have a track record in North America to compare things too. So, it could mean we didn't have much to say about a guy we'd never seen. Or it could be that there's always going to be more to say about losing a good prospect for nothing, than keeping one in your system for a few years. For instance, I'd have a lot more to say about Andreas Athanasiou if Holland traded him for a guy that walked at the end of a disappointing season.

All of the things you just said were true of last year, and last year alone. They've had the exact same playoff struggles for five years. You're making it seem like the Wings have been injured for half a decade. They haven't...and even if they have that's all the more reason to do something different because obviously the team can't stay healthy (in this hypothetical scenario). Seriously, the argument you're making seems to go like this... Me: We haven't been good in the playoffs for 5 years. You: That's because we've been injured consistently for 5 years. Me: We should do something different then, because this team can't stay healthy. You: Nope, we should say the course because the injury bug can't possibly be that bad again. Me: Of course it can, it's been happening for 5 YEARS! At this point it's not a fluke anymore.

You keep talking about injuries but we've been healthy in the playoffs every year except this one. Why are you so sure it's injuries when we've had the same result for since 2010 without any significant injuries?

Wait, if I understand your logic correctly you're suggesting we put a player in the minors even though he'd make our team better, just in case we have an injury. That way, in the event of said injury, you can call him up to make the team better? If that's the case, why not start half the team in GR and fill their spots with dudes who aren't as good. Then, when they all get hurt, you can call up the guys who should have been there in the first place. I don't think anybody is doubting we'll have a better regular season. Sure we will. But I thought we had higher standards than that in Detroit. I thought we were supposed to compete for Cups and be elite? I remember when the phrase "class of the league" used to follow mention of the Wings. Bemoan all the injuries you want. With or without them, we've still done nothing to improve the weaknesses that have gotten us crushed in the playoffs for the last 5 years.

Probably. Alf will just sign a bonus heavy contract that will carry over to next season.

I don't see why everyone's so eager to compare Jurco to Tatar and Nyquist and not to Sheahan. Oh wait, yeah I do. Because it's convenient for their argument. Sheahan wasn't ready either. Looked lost in his call ups. Didn't really fit. Then he comes up and earns a spot because he wants it. Just like you're supposed to do. To me it comes down to this: I think we'd be a better team with some guys who can score in and around the crease. We currently don't really have any (maybe Franzen). I think we'd be harder to play against. And I think that even if Jurco scored 15 fewer points than Alfie, we'd still be a better team if it gave us more than one offensive look. As it stands we're a team full of guys who can only score from the perimeter...again. And teams have figured out how to beat us in the playoffs. I know it makes everybody feel better to blame injuries, but the fact is that our perimeter game hasn't worked in about 5 years. Alfie doesn't help that. Jurco would.

That's the LGW way though. Everybody is a stud until he's not in the organization anymore. We're like Red Sox fans. "Johnny Damon is the kind of guy you build a franchise around"....*Damon goes to Yankees*..."f*** that bum. I never liked him". Jarnkrok was/is a good prospect. Any revisionist attempt to paint him as some washout is demonstrably false. I don't care if people liked the trade or didn't, doesn't matter now. But the extra step of trying to justify it post hoc by claiming that Jarnkrok wasn't any good is bulls***. "I like to think of him like a Zetterberg." - Scout Ari Vouri "He has great hockey sense, very tenacious, a lot of (Henrik) Zetterberg-type qualities. He’s strong on the puck, never gives up on the puck.” - Jim Nill "He’s probably the best prospect in our organization overall." - Jiri Fischer “We all feel he’s a top-six forward in the long run." - Hakan Andersson “The stuff he can do, he is as good as anybody in terms of hand-eye coordination and skill in tight places. It’s just a matter of time until he starts putting up big numbers." - Jiri Fischer

Booooooring. Tomas Tatar could do that drunk.

Yeah, I'm not sure about this Fischer comment. His job is to oversee the development of all the organization's prospects. Not sell them to anyone. They've already been drafted. Who would he be selling them to? Fans?

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the nostalgia of Yzerman. But you've also got to remember that when the Gretzky trade went down Steve Yzerman wasn't "The Captain" Stevie Y. He was a fifth year one dimensional player who many thought couldn't get the team over the hump. The things you remember him for so fondly wouldn't even happen for another few years. All that leadership and two way selflessness? Wasn't even a thought at the time of that trade.