Echolalia

No I am Ken Holland.

Yzerman >> Lidstrom=Zetterberg

I never thought that was a viable argument for replacing Babcock with Blashill, considering most of the younger guys coming up had little to no experience with Babcock's message and way of doing things, but had spent a couple years already with Blashill in the AHL.

Anyone that has Miller in their top 5 is an obvious troll. He's the life force of this squad.

Which one is the fact, and which one is the alternative fact?

I gotta say I've never been able to get on the starwars bandwagon. I saw Rogue One in theaters and fell asleep :/

Its actually probably even more pitiful than the numbers indicate. The cost of daily living is a much larger percentage of someone's total salary who makes 60k vs someone who makes 5M (unless you're living a ridiculously expensive lifestyle), so that $120 becomes a relatively larger chunk of the remaining free money of a 60k salary than the 10k that Marchand is losing.

0.2% of his current salary. 0.2% of someone making 60k/year is 120 dollars. edit: decimal moves

I don't disagree that this roster needs work also. We are lacking a franchise defensman, we are lacking a franchise forward (or two), and if people want to move Howard, we are also lacking a franchise goalie. I would pursue these pieces regardless of the coaching situation, but my point (which I surmise you agree with) is that the talent we do have isn't playing up to their abilities, and if they were we would be in the thick of the playoff race. Hell, if the Wings had an average powerplay and nothing else changed we'd be in the thick of the playoff race.

Yeah I dunno if I buy that there's some ulterior motive for playing certain guys over others. I just think Blashill is genuinely lost and may not recognize it. As for Holland wanting him as a coach, I can't blame the guy cuz Blashill has had amazing success at every level hes competed at, has studied under Babcock directly, and has worked with most of our team in some capacity prior to his hiring. It seemed like a good fit. But it clearly isn't. No fault for Holland on putting him in place initially, but a good GM knows when to change plans when the current one isn't working. Holland needs to find a new solution sooner rather than later.

During the game they posted a graphic that showed they have 8 rookies on the team responsible for something like 170 of their team's points this year.

The roster became significantly less productive when Blashill took over. I stated it before but I think this roster if coached right would have a better chance of going deeper in the playoffs than the team that took Tampa Bay to seven games in Babcock's last season here. Since then we've added long sought after R handed QB in Mike Green, we added wunderkids Larkin, Mantha, and AA, Tatar and Nyquist and Sheahan should be in the prime of their careers right now, we have Vanek who's way more productive than most people were expecting, Zetterberg has lost a step, but not by all that much compared to two years ago (on pace to score within 11 points of his totals from that year). We don't have Weiss taking up dead weight. The biggest minus is that we don't have Datsyuk, but he's been increasingly injured in later years and Franz Nielson is just about sufficient alone to replace his point total for a season. On paper this team has a lot of talent on it. Certainly enough to get into the playoffs.

sigh I miss babcock

Jurco was getting some time with Vanek and Nielson

lol some people here know less that it would seem. Don't confuse loudness with knowledge.

Its definitely easier to get a franchise player from the draft if you're picking in the top 5, probably moreso these days because they don't get traded or go to free agency the way they used to in the 90s, but you can certainly find franchise guys deeper down. Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Perry, Keith, Chara, Bergeron, were all drafted outside the top 10, and that's hardly an exclusive list. Of course there's a certain amount of luck that also goes into finding hidden gems, but the more times you roll the better your odds are. That's why I generally approve of trading down for multiple second round picks in deeper drafts. Imagine if the Wings ended up hitting that diamond in the rough this upcoming draft in the second or third round and pick up the next Duncan Keith or Shea Weber. That team three years down the road with veterans Larkin, Mantha, and whoever else you want to pick up to compliment the team has the potential to be real solid. And there's no requirement that the Wings even miss the playoffs this year in this scenario.

Where does Detroit rank in man games lost over the past decade? It seems were always having this discussion.

These are all the top 5 draft picks that have played for championship teams dating back to the 1998 draft, that were relevant in some way to the Stanley Cup winning teams (that means some guy who was drafted in the top five but didn't contribute the year the team won the cup OR the players he was traded for didn't contribute the year the team won the cup I didn't include in the list). Usually when talking about tanking we think top 1 or 2 picks but I'll be a bit more generous with my definition and look at top 5. Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Jordan Staal, Ryan Whitney (traded for Kunitz) Chicago: Toews, Kane, Cam Barker (traded for Kim Johnson and Nick Leddy) LA: Schenn, Doughty Bruins: Kessel(traded for Seguin, Knight, Hamilton.) (Seguin was the only one to play in Boston's championship year. He scored 22 points in regular season, 7 points in playoffs.) Carolina: Andrew Ladd (scored 11 points in regular season, 5 in playoffs), Eric Staal Anaheim: Vishnevskiy (traded for Carl Stewart) Tampa Bay: Vinny Lecavalier, Alexander Svitov (Traded for Sydor) Detroit: none Looking at the above, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Carolina, and Tampa Bay all had at least one self-drafted top 5 pick making an impact for their respective teams, although Carolina and Tampa Bay were essentially one top 5 pick and a supporting cast established from other sources, while the other three were multiple top picks. Anaheim, Boston, and Detroit all didn't have much top 5 representation in their cup championship rosters. So at least in recent history its definitely possible to construct a Stanley cup team without relying on tanking. Three teams tanked hard and long (lol) and drafted guys that all became core players. They won multiple cups. Two teams may have tanked long and hard, but only ended up with one difference maker, and only won once each. Three teams had essentially no self-drafted top five help and won once each. So Stanley Cup winning teams are a bit more likely to have come from the result of tanking. Having said that, its hardly a guarantee, as Edmonton, Toronto, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Columbus, Islanders, Colorado, Vancouver, Florida, Nashville, Calgary, Buffalo, and Arizona can tell us. Out of all the teams to tank in the time frame I looked at there was a 5/17 success rate (So ~29% of teams to tank won a cup). Those teams who didn't have any representation in the top 5 had a 3/13 success rate (~23% of teams to not tank in recent history won a cup). Again it slightly favors tanking. And to be fair, you can break down the data in a bunch of different ways and get different results. Maybe tanking is only top 1 or 2 picks. Maybe its 10. Maybe tanking just means missing the playoffs. Maybe you want to look at all players drafted since 1990. Maybe you want to look at just post salary cap. So take the above with a grain of salt cuz I imagine the numbers will sway when you tinker with the variables. TL;DR: At least in recent history the data seems to favor tanking, but not by a whole lot.

Unfortunately underperforming has been a universal truth for this organization the last two years. I wouldn't be surprised to see either Tatar or Nyquist put up 30 and 30 if they were on Chicago or Pittsburgh.

The guy definitely found his niche and ran with it

Yeah i'm convinced LGW is running the show

This is the way the Wings should be playing at baseline. I'm encouraged that these performances are becoming more commonplace, though.

When getting a top 5 draft pick was looking like reality for the Wings, I wasn't nearly as excited about it as I was expecting. That's not to say I want this team to fail, but in previous years I always assumed there's a certain hopeful thrill that comes with getting a top draft pick. That thrill has been nonexistent for me. At this point I'd rather the Wings squeak into the playoffs and get swept than get a top 5 pick in the draft. At least for me, the thrill of continuing the playoff streak and being able to say the last year the Joe didn't host a playoff game was in 1990 is way more exciting. I'm also not convinced anyone from the draft will be a Red Wing savior and take us to a Stanley cup.

Haha that's awesome

His name always made me lol