Dabura

The vibe I'm getting is that he never expressed the slightest bit of interest in Detroit. I'd thought maybe he'd planned on meeting with the Wings and ultimately decided his heart was in Tampa and so the meeting "was canceled." But, more and more, I'm thinking the Wings were never actually in the picture in the first place. Is that surprising? No. Does it reflect well on the organization? No. Would it be nice if the Wings legitimately tried to improve and got back to being a team that top players want to play for? Yes. (This can be done without tanking. But you need a special kind of GM at the helm.)

I officially want this man to be out of a job.

Red Wings' forward depth means young guys must earn their spots Helene is a glorified sock puppet. "Young guys must earn their spots" is the real reason why we're carrying extra forwards. It has nothing to do with a trade. Holland just wants to make sure all the kids have extremely limited upward mobility on the organizational depth chart. It's sort of like building (and, every year, rebuilding/fortifying) a giant wall to keep barbarians out of your kingdom.

Prime-years Sergei Fedorov was the most complete player I have ever seen play the game of hockey.

Shoveling s*** builds character! srsly tho...I think all of the Wings' problems come down to one problem: a faulty conception of time. Specifically, they think everyone on Earth is 3-5 years younger than everyone on Earth actually is.

https://twitter.com/NicholsOnHockey/status/751076882993385472 COOL STORY BRO

Knowing that Holland won't get That Defenseman (prove me wrong, Ken. No, seriously. Please. I need this), all I want for Christmas is Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, and Svechnikov all on the Wings roster by January at the latest.

http://kuklaskorner.com/a2y/comments/exposed1 Search your hearts. You know it to be true.

You know what I mean.

Granted, that was with Mike Babcock at the helm.

I think it's going to come down to coaching and roster management.

KIRE FOLLAND

Barrie and Landeskog are, for my money, two of the best players in the league. They have, I feel, been held back by Roy and, in a different way, by Sakic. They're possession monsters on an awful, awful, awful possession team. They put up points. They're proven top-end talents. I'm not convinced that DeKeyser is more than a second-pairing defenseman. But Roy thinks Barrie is a #5 defenseman, because Roy is that kind of moron person, so he probably looks at DeKeyser and goes, "Oh, he's real good defensively. Great defenseman." Ouellet isn't a big loss. Losing Tatar, Nyquist, and Mantha...obviously that's hard to justify. But, honestly, we'd be getting the two best players in this deal. (And I say this as a defender of Tatar, Nyquist, Mantha.) Here is DeKeyser's chart:

Hypothetical trade: Tatar + Nyquist + DeKeyser + Mantha + Ouellet FOR Landeskog + Barrie. Yes? No? Maybe so?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news/la-kings-news-darryl-sutter-quotes-corsi-for-definition-sidney-crosby/1ty2k6440ww8213spqckr4u09n http://archive.azcentral.com/sports/coyotes/articles/2012/04/06/20120406phoenix-coyotes-dave-tippett-perfect-fit.html

Pulkkinen's possession numbers are sparkling. Know why? He creates offense. Because that's what he is -- a point-producer. You can isolate a few examples where he flat-out turned the puck over. That's fine. But you have to realize that Miller and Glendening never have the freaking puck. You also have to realize that the best players in the league tend to turn the puck over a lot. (Few turn it over more than Subban, Doughty, Karlsson.) Does this make them terrible possession players? No. What it's reflecting is the fact that they have the puck a lot more than 97% of their peers do and they're always looking to move the puck, make a play, generate offense -- create. All Drew Miller and Luke Glendening and Steve Ott do is react, endure, defend. They chase the puck. Contrary to popular belief, they're not helping our cause. Now that we have Frans Nielsen, who's one of the game's best two-way centermen, we really, really, really need to get past this "you need a fourth line that's real good defensively" bulls***. The Penguins! They slaughtered all comers, and they did it the way it's supposed to be done -- by simply and utterly overwhelming them. Not by waiting them out. Not by enduring. Not by defending. The Penguins took the fight to everyone, and they were the last ones standing. The Penguins are one Cup-winner that the Wings really could learn a thing or two (or twelve) from. In the year 2016, Mike Sullivan's brand of aggressive possession hockey is The Right Way.

We have Frans Nielsen now. He can and does and will play brutal minutes. We also have Darren Helm. And Dylan Larkin. And Andreas Athanasiou. And Riley Sheahan. And Justin Abdelkader. And Henrik Zetterberg. And yet, we totally need a "gritty, defensive" fourth line of grinders. It adds so much to our arsenal!

A line of Pulkkinen-Sheahan-Jurco would outperform a line that features the possession black holes that are Drew Miller and Luke Glendening. Ken Holland and Jeff Blashill and Mike Babcock would say, "Not good enough defensively." And therein lies the problem. This organization fetishizes defending, fetishizes playing without the puck, fetishizes a fundamentally flawed brand of hockey.

"Toughness" (whatever that is) is not something we desperately need. We didn't beat Anaheim in 2013 because we were "tougher" than them. Chicago didn't beat us in 2013 because they were "tougher" than us. Boston didn't beat us in 2014 because they were "tougher" than us. Tampa didn't beat us in 2015 because they were "tougher" than us. Tampa didn't beat us this year because they were "tougher" than us. Not a single one of these teams was "tougher" than us. We can't score to save our playoff lives, mainly because we lack elite talent at the top of our lineup. That's the big problem we're facing. Neither Miller nor Ott is going to help that cause. Using a "gritty, defensive" fourth line is an outdated strategy. You win with skill and by scoring goals. We need more goals. We need more skill, talent.

Our fourth line could be a scoring line. There's no law against it. Pulkkinen-Sheahan-Jurco?

I believe Larkin and Athanasiou are future cornerstone centermen. At the same time, though, I don't think Larkin or Athanasiou is ready to play the kind of role that Frans Nielsen has been playing for years. This is a case where, in terms of pure positional primacy and experience, the tie truly ought to go to the vereran. Nielsen can be hard-matched against anyone in the league and hold his own. He can center a top PP unit and a top PK unit. He can start a lot of his shifts in the defensive zone -- against elite players -- and still find a way to drive possession in the right direction. He can win key faceoffs. These are things that Larkin and Athanasiou haven't proven they can do as top-six bus-driving NHL centermen. (Which, yeah, is kind of an unfair statement. But it is what it is.) Expecting them to do so, straight away, in 2016-17 helps neither the team nor the two players' respective development paths.

Yeah, same here. I think Nielsen will get the brutal matchups (which is why I don't think Vanek will be on his wing) while Larkin has it easier. So, I guess the way I see it, Nielsen will be our 1A. If that distinction even matters.

HSJ seems to believe Larkin will be our 1C in 2016-17. There's no hockey store! We like our team! You gotta be able to play without the puck! Real good!

I hate that Holland comment with all of my heart and soul. It's stupid on so many levels. It encapsulates everything that's wrong with the state of the Wings. Just for starters (I'm only going to launch one complaint here, but please know that I could write an entire essay about this quote), "Why does anyone think he is going to be the answer in Detroit?" is a straw man argument, one Holland has trotted out before when attempting -- and failing -- to convincingly rationalize a decision to hold a younger player back, i.e. keep him in the minors when it's obvious to anyone and everyone not named Ken Holland that the player in question should be playing in the National Hockey League. People don't want Anthony Mantha in the lineup because they feel he's The Answer. They don't feel he's The Answer. What people feel is that Anthony Mantha brings certain elements to the lineup that are sorely lacking and sorely needed, e.g. size, high-level vision/thinking, scoring prowess, playmaking ability. It's like a Wings fan saying, "Thomas Vanek is 32, slow-footed, poor defensively, and he doesn't drive possession. He was at the center of a gambling scandal. He was bought out by the Wild (i.e. they are literally paying him to not play for them). Why does anyone think he is going to be the answer in Detroit?" Holland didn't sign Thomas Vanek because he feels he's The Answer. Holland doesn't think he's The Answer. What Holland feels is that Thomas Vanek brings certain elements to the lineup that are sorely lacking and sorely needed, e.g. size...high-level vision/thinking...scoring prowess...playmaking ability....

Personally, I'm not sure I'd put Vanek on Nielsen's wing. Vanek is slow, not a great possession player, and poor defensively; he needs easy even-strength minutes and prime PP time if he's to be an effective point-producer for us. Nielsen, on the other hand, needs to be winning matchups against top players.