krsmith17

Who are the two? Obviously Seider, but who is the second guy coming? Cholowski? McIsaac? Lindstrom? Johansson? Tuomisto? We have a lot of solid prospects in the pipe, but only Seider projects to be a needle mover. Hopefully one of those other guys can exceed expectations, and become a top 2-3 defenseman.

Green was highly sought after. Daley, not so much. Green was still over half a point per game defenseman when he signed, at the age of 30. He was also that much needed right-handed power-play quarterback that the team had been lacking for years. Daley was never the point producing, offensive driver from the back end that Green was known for. He was also 34 years old, and most could have predicted the decline. Green was a great signing. Daley was not.

I've been looking everywhere for a good essay writing service... Anyone know of any?

I liked your post, because despite how annoying it is seeing the same "essay writing service" s*** posted multiple times a day in multiple threads, this post is still better than the post above... I can only assume this is sarcasm, which is fine, but did it really need it's own thread? I know this place is a ghost town right now, so whatevs, but Daley f***ing sucks, and was a terrible signing from day one...

It's not about not wanting to add elite talent. Of course you want to add elite talent, but circumstances matter. I highly doubt a player like Pietrangelo (who by the way, has been one of my favorite defensemen since entering the league) has any desire to go from one of the best teams in the NHL, winning the Cup last spring, to one of the worst teams in the NHL, finishing dead last (by a wide margin) this spring. Let's say Pietrangelo was willing to go from first to worst (I highly doubt it), we would still have to massively overpay in both dollars and term to make it work. We'd be looking at max term (seven years), for a player that will be 31 next season. How is that contract going to look in a 4-5 years? My bet, like most contracts signed on July 1st (or whatever day it falls on this year), is not very good... Sure, Pietrangelo is much better than Sergachev right now, and likely will be for another few seasons. However, one will soon start a decline, while the other will just be entering his prime. Keep in mind, regardless who we sign or trade for, we're likely another 3+ years away from becoming a serious Cup contender, and that's if everything goes right... I'd love to have a Pietrangelo type of defenseman on the team for the young guys to learn from. But Kronwall is around for that exact purpose, and maybe we can convince Lidstrom to come back at some point as well... I know a coach can't teach you the same thing in practice that a player can in a game, but I'm sure Seider, Hronek, Cholowski, McIsaac, etc. could learn a few things from Lidstrom and / or Kronner...

Other than signing a cheap backup goaltender, I hope Yzerman stays away from free agency this offseason. Especially the big name free agents the day free agency opens... If he wants to sign another stop-gap Filppula / Nemeth type, whatever, but no thanks on Hall, Pietrangelo, Krug, etc., players that are going to be massively overpaid in salary / term. Sign our big name RFA's, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Fabbri to hopefully team friendly contracts, and maybe one or two of Erne, Perlini, Ehn, Timashov, Bowey to near league minimum contracts, and let everyone else walk. I'd also be okay with bringing Gagner back on a short-term contract. I'm still hopeful that Yzerman gets creative and signs a player like Sergachev to an offer sheet. I think a bold move like that, along with getting a top two pick in the upcoming draft, and we will be in great shape going forward. Likely not a playoff team by next season, but the season after, I think we would be in position to make a strong push.

Yes, the stat is flawed. You had to remove players from the list because it was flawed. Once the appropriate players were removed, I agreed. You said Larkin was ranked 51st based on that particular stat, and then backpedaled when I brought up the flaw... I'm still not sure what you're confused about... I didn't say I have hundreds of stats that prove that Larkin is a 1C. I said there are hundreds of stats out there. A lot of which prove that Larkin is a 1C. You brought up PTS/60. I knew what the stat was, but I looked it up to verify what you were saying was accurate. Turns out it wasn't. You say you have no idea what Corsi or Fenwick are. Look them up if it interests you. If ixG isn't a valid stat because you say so, neither is PTS/60 or any of the other stats you mentioned. You act as if I'm saying we shouldn't add a center equal or better than Larkin. That clearly isn't the case. I'm hoping that Veleno is that player. Probably not though. The difference is, I'm not blaming the teams shortcomings on the teams best player. I'm not advocating trading our best player. Larkin needs more help on his wings, and more help behind him down the middle. Those two things combined, and Larkin is near a point per game, two-way center. Different expectations, sure. What's your point. Nielsen is very clearly expendable. Larkin is not. MoRe StRaWmEn... I've never said that Larkin is or should concentrate on defense in the offensive zone. Of course he's trying to produce in the offensive zone, but when you spend more time chasing the play, than controlling the play, you should be concentrating on defending / getting the puck back. 70 point pace (0.85 points per game), if he misses games, or if the NHL doesn't play a full 82 next season.

It's flawed because those 3rd and 4th line forwards are on the list. You choosing to remove them doesn't change the stat line. I said it was flawed when you said he was ranked 51st from that list. You then agreed with me, and said he's actually in the late 20's, with those players removed. I then agreed with that. I'm not sure what you're finding so confusing about that... I'm not going to sit here and explain all the advanced metrics used in hockey. If you're interested, look into. If not, don't. I would have presented one by now? I just presented three, but you didn't understand them. Therefore they don't exist... Not in so many words no, but you've said he sucks and we should trade him... Again, who would you replace him with? Let's say it is Tavares' line. Do you think every team matches their best center and defense pairing against Tavares? No. Some teams would choose to match their best against Tavares, other teams would choose Matthews. Some nights Tavares has it easier than Matthews, and vice versa. I didn't think that would be such a hard concept to understand... No, you're right. We shouldn't write off a 35 year old veteran, that played below replacement level this past season. That's the exact same as a 23 year old, that struggled, and still lead the team in points... What the f*** does this have to do with anything? Where are you pulling this bulls*** about Larkin thinking about D in the offensive zone? It makes no sense. More defensive responsibility on Larkin? LOL Back it up with what?

LOL I don't know how to interpret the stat? I'm the one that explained to you how it works, and why Larkin wasn't the 51st ranked center, based on the flawed stat that you were posting... Imagine thinking that a 23 year old on the worst NHL team assembled in the modern era is tapped out, is what he is... Individual Corsi, Fenwick and expected goals. There are many other stats out there that rank Larkin in the top 31 as well. What's your point? We both rank him around the same then. So does most of the hockey world. The difference is, I see him improving as he continues to develop. You apparently don't. I'd rather keep our best players, and build around them, adding better players. You apparently wouldn't. If you have two top lines, like the Leafs (as much as I hate to say it), some nights are going to be easier than others because you can get away from certain matchups. It's that much harder with only one good line. It's also not just about the other team matching against you. Again, with only one good line, Larkin is being matched against the other teams best as well. Huge difference between criticizing a player for poor play, and writing him off as a top line center because of a bad season. Criticism was warranted last season, especially the midway point of the season. He struggled. It happens. You're advocating Larkin as the 2C. Where are we getting his 1C replacement? There are none available... What the f*** are you even talking about? Because Larkin gets offensive zone starts (name a top line center that doesn't...), that means he hasn't been asked to concentrate on defense? LOL You forget the massive dropoff in points Yzerman had when Bowman told him to concentrate on defense do you? I would say it was a combination of a lot of things, but if I were to point to one thing specific, probably the fact that the team was MUCH worse overall. Nothing. I'm sure nothing and being right is more important to you than Larkin bouncing back, and you having to admit you were wrong...

No, 3rd and 4th line centers ranking in the top 20 doesn't prove that it's a flawed stat at all... iCF - 3rd, iFF - 4th, ixG - 23rd, among others. I'm sure you can do a quick google search on advanced stats... Speaking of doing a quick google search, I just came across this list from corsicahockey, where Larkin is ranked number 25 amongst all centers with a 76.44 rating. I'm not sure exactly how they do their calculations, but they say they "distill all statistical information that is available into one single number using machine learning algorithms. The rating captures all contributions made by skaters - offensive, defensive, even strength or special teams". You can take that as you may, but I personally agree with most of the rankings. corsicahockey.com/nhl/players/nhl-player-ratings-ratings I already explained it in a previous post, but basically, opposing teams have one line to match against. They shut down the Larkin line, more often than not they win the game. If we had another dangerous, or even capable line, it would take a ton of pressure off Larkin, and the rest of the top line. Pretty straightforward stuff... So basically, players are not allowed to have down (half) seasons. We get it, your boy Bertuzzi had a fantastic season. Is he better than Larkin? Not even close. LOL you can't be serious... You don't actually think that because Larkin had a lot of the offensive zone starts, that he wasn't asked to concentrate on defense? Of course Larkin's line got a ton of offensive zone starts. What other option was there? Here's a quote from Blashill from a few months ago... "The challenge that Dylan has, is he wants this and we want him to become a great two-way center. A guy who is great defensively, so that even when you are not producing offense, you're still doing a real good job of eliminating the other team's offense." From the same article... "Coach Blashill prefers to look at Larkin's two-way game, Larkin's defensive work, and the fact that at age 23, Larkin continues to mature and grow into the type of player on and off the ice that will be a foundation piece for the Wings' organization." Still only willing to look at specific stats in a specific window... It was a down year for Larkin. He will bounce back. Larkin was on pace to have 61 points this season. Even more if you think he could have kept the hot streak rolling. He had 73 points in 76 games the season before. That's s 65-75 point center, handling all the tough matchups, on the worst team in the NHL, at the age of 22-23. But yeah, Larkin is the problem... Yes, I could've, but probably didn't, because not a single person was arguing how good Dylan Larkin was after last season... Yet, here we are... Down season. It happens. He'll hit 70+ points next season. Mark it.

Larkin would obviously be more effective as a 2C. That goes without saying. Larkin grades out as a (lower end) 1C right now though, and will only get better. That's the point so many of us are trying to make here...

I do consider defense to be extremely important, but even if you just want to stick with offense, you can't just use one arbitrary stat. I've already pointed out how flawed PTS/60 can be, and there are hundreds of other stats out there, a lot of which have Larkin ranked in the top 31 or higher. I think it is though, and legitimate one. The Red Wings need an elite player (like Lafreniere) to add to that top line. Larkin and Mantha are both high end players, but neither are elite. The problem with this team, isn't the high end players. It's the lack of elite players. The Red Wings also need to upgrade the rest of their roster, from their 2nd line, down to the 4th line, defense, and obviously goaltending. The lack of talent on the entire roster is affecting the production from each and every player. Larkin never steps foot on the ice with Filppula or Nielsen, but them being terrible 2nd / 3rd line center options, affects Larkin and his line as well. If we had the sort of depth that teams need to win, it would take some of the pressure off that top line, and Larkin in particular. So yes, Larkin does level out to be a lower end 1C, which is what I, and many others have been saying. But again, you also have to consider age, and total lack of talent on this team, and there's no reason to doubt Larkin can become a legit (top 20) center in the league over the next few seasons. I believe he will, as this team improves, and goes from joke of the league, to playoff contender. Regarding the bold, I agree. The key there is the "last 3 seasons" though. Larkin will get better as he enters his prime. That's a guarantee. I don't think there's a single center in this upcoming draft that would displace Larkin as the 1C for the next 5-7 years. It would be great to add a Byfield to give us that much needed boost at center, but he would be our 2C, for the foreseeable future. We've already been over this. We don't agree. I believe Larkin was asked by Yzerman / Blashill to concentrate more on the defensive side of the puck, which would explain his offensive numbers being down. Also, consider the fact that he had 13 points in his last 10 games. Maybe he was starting to find a balance between defense and offense. Also, also, can't a player have a down season without fans saying the player sucks and should be traded? Apparently not... That's an extreme example. I've already proven why PTS/60 can be, and often is a flawed stat, like any stat used on it's own. I agree. Larkin has already proven that he can produce at a 1st line level. Larkin has already proven that he can match up, and even shut down some of the leagues best. Now he just needs to be able to put it all together, and if the end of last season was any indication, I think he'll be able to do it. Don't write him off. He's just now entering his prime FFS...

Never said it was cherry picking. What I am saying is that you're not weighing all variables because doing so would break your theory. Larkin is far from the best center in the league. That, we agree on. I would rank him in the lower end of the top 30. At this point, maybe around 20-25. Let's say Larkin is the worst top line center in the league (for arguments sake). Let's also say the Wings have the worst top line in the league (for arguments sake). If Larkin, and his line are going up against other (better) top lines in the league every night, would that not be an extremely tough task? Let's say the 32nd best center in the league is playing mostly against 2nd line competition, but since he's likely one of the better 2nd line centers in the league, he's racking up points. Does that mean he's better than Larkin? No. Adjusting for TOI, there are several 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th line centers, that very clearly aren't better than Larkin, but because their QoC is so much lower, they're able to put up points in limited roles. Solely using any stat is extremely flawed, and that includes PTS/60. Yes, he consistently centers the best wingers on the team, but does he consistently center the best wingers in the league? No, and that's what we're comparing him to. The best centers in the league. Not the best center, or player on the team. I'm not quoting total points. I'm quoting total points per game. How is that any more or less flawed than points per 60? It's not. Yeah, 51st ranked based on PTS/60, but again, like any stat, it has it's flaws. Unless of course, you believe that Domi is the 4th best center in the league, Nic Dowd is 21st, Travis Boyd is 24th, Nyquist (who has never played center) is 33rd, etc... I think there are easily 20 centers on that list that I would rank below Larkin. Again, you also need to take age into consideration. Most centers on that list, are established, well in the prime of their career. Larkin is just hitting his prime, and will presumably only get better. I was referring to points in general. You need to consider other things than just offensive output, especially when looking at players on the worst team in the NHL. I disagree. I disagree. Good ol' trusty points per 60. All of the players on that list are clearly better hockey players than Larkin...

LOL Wut? So, let me get this straight... My Datsyuk and Zetterberg comparisons at the same age doesn't make sense to you, but you using Yakupov's rookie season stats as the reason Zadina will be a "bust" makes perfect sense... LOL Also comparing two players at the age of 23 isn't at all the same as comparing two players at the age of 8... playing in house league... I never omitted any stats. We've already been over this. Also, CRL literally just did that, "omitting" Larkin's previous season stats, because the previous season, where he was very clearly projecting to be a legit top line center, didn't fit his narrative... Yeah, Larkin is definitely "part of the overall problem"... LOL are you really this dumb? Sorry for "attacking you" again, but c'mon...

You're adjusting for the things that support your argument, but completely ignoring the things that would go against it. QoC definitely plays a factor, one that you're clearly not considering here. Larkin goes up against all the top centers and defensemen in the league every single night. Despite this, he still grades out to be a borderline 1st / 2nd line center. He's doing this on the league worst team, in every statistical category, with very little support. You're also only looking at one season, one that was very clearly a down season for the team and player. Larkin was ranked 21st amongst all centers in total points just one year ago. This season, the team was historically bad, so you can't really expect every player to grade out well. Some did. Most didn't. You're also only looking at total points, when defense has to be taken into account in any of these debates. Like I mentioned, Larkin went up against the leagues best every single night, so while it was tough to score against these players, it was even tougher to defend these players. Yet, Larkin did about as well as he could have, all things considered. You also have to consider age, and that Larkin is only now entering his prime years. No one knows how Larkin's career will play out, but to right him off as a middle six center at this point, is just plain dumb. At the same age, Datsyuk was a rookie, playing 3rd line center with a hall of fame winger, on a Stanley Cup champion team, and still only managed to put up 35 points in 70 games. Zetterberg was playing his 2nd season, on Datsyuk's wing, in which he put up 43 points in 61 games. I'm not saying that Larkin will be Datsyuk or Zetterberg, but I think he will be much closer to that level of player, when it's all said and done, than your average 2nd (or 3rd LOL) line center...

Attacking you? LoL, you literally called me dumb in your previous post... Bullying you? LOL You've definitely voiced your opinion. You voice your opinion on Larkin and Zadina every time their names are mentioned. You voice your opinion on Larkin and Zadina, even when their names aren't mentioned... You definitely haven't supported your opinion with any real "facts". Unless of course you consider posting Yakupov's stats -> Yakupov = bust, therefore Zadina = bust, as facts... You are not "likely right". In fact, you are very unlikely to be right. Sure, there's an small chance Larkin's play up until now has been a complete fluke, and he *regresses* to an average 2C, but it's definitely not likely... Sure, there's an small chance Zadina breaks both arms and both legs, and never recovers, and goes back to Russia next season, but it's definitely not likely... I don't think you really are sick and tired of my s***. If you were, why do you continue to argue back and forth with me, but won't engage with anyone else that is challenging your dumb opinions? Call me a homer all you want. Doesn't bother me a bit. I'd prefer to be overly optimistic about the team I cheer for, rather than overly pessimistic about the team you supposedly cheer for...

There is zero evidence that supports either of your dumbass claims that "Larkin is at best, a 2nd line center", or "Zadina is a bust". Zero. Larkin has performed as an average to below average top line center the past two seasons. He's still only 23 years old, and will most definitely improve in all areas of the game. He will be considered a legit 1C through his prime years. Zadina performed as a top six winger this past season, on a terrible team. He's still only 20 years old, and has played less than half an NHL season. He will also only get better, and be considered a legit top six (at worst) winger through his prime years. Of course there's no proof to back up a projection, but there is proof on how they have performed thus far. Look at basic stats, advanced stats, try watching a game, listen / read the opinions of NHL players, coaches, general managers, hockey analysts, etc. You (and a handful of idiots) are the only ones that don't see what the rest of us see. No matter how much you hope to be right on Larkin and Zadina failing to meet expectations, they won't...

I agree with this. However, there will be no need to strip Larkin of the C. He will be a great captain. Seider will be a great alternate captain. Like you've been saying, the captain does not necessarily need to be your best player, but in this case, Larkin will be the 1C and Seider will be the 1D. The question is, who will be the other A? Who knows? Who cares? Maybe Bertuzzi. Maybe Mantha. Maybe upcoming draft pick... Hey everyone, I disagree with *almost * everything mackel has to say hockey related. Larkin is / will be a 1C Zadina is / will be a 1W (not a bust). Blashill is a good (not great) coach. LOL You backed out of that debate because you knew how dumb and wrong you were... Larkin tracks as a very good 2C, borderline 1C, right now. No way he improves beyond his 23 year old season though...

Keep hoping man... Fairytales DO come true...

Seriously, how much is it going to pain you when Larkin proves to be a legit 1C and Zadina proves to be a legit top line winger? It's like you're trying to hope them falling short into existence... Sad...

I personally hate not having a captain, but if I didn't think there was a logical choice (Larkin) already on the team, I'd probably agree. Larkin being named captain isn't really a question of if, but a question of when. And now we know he will be named before the start of next season. He's been being groomed for it ever since his rookie season, playing on Zetterberg's wing, and sitting next to him in the room.

WhenPeopleSayDumbs***.img

Not only is Larkin not going to be named captain, but Yzerman is also going to strip him of his A...

LOL Yup.

Lol at suggesting Bertuzzi or Glendening as the captain over Larkin. Larkin will be named captain, and for good reason. Get over it. Larkin is the leader of this hockey team, on and off the ice. Like or not. Glendening is a good alternate, but I wouldn't even consider Bertuzzi that... yet.