• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Dabura

Are the Wings a Contender?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

No you dope... try to follow along... I'm saying that if a team wants to contend, they need to have their lineup intact. A team like the Wings needs to have ALL of their top tier players healthy. EVERYBODY knows Zetterberg has had serious lower back issues and when an opposing team targets that area, you need to send a message to the other teams who would love to see Hank sidelined down the stretch. Doing nothing in this case is unacceptable... More to the point was my comment about Hank and Pav playing embarrassingly bad of late and our lack of scoring. Part of that could be because you have a world class player in Datsyuk playing with a good defensive forward like Helm WTF? SURPRISE we aren't scoring! Babcock is a good coach but he's overrated and doesn't make a change until it's way too late and the game is over.

Sooooooo does "sending a message" all of a sudden magically make Zetterberg's back healthy after he gets cross-checked? Because it sure as hell doesn't prevent players from targeting our guys in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we can send them a message on some nice red wings stationary, maybe written in a fancy font.

"Dear Toronto, our jimmies were quite rustled in your attempts to injure our leader, captain Henrik zetterberg.......

...

...

(Fanciful wording of our disgust with their Ill intent and hopes of more noble, honest competition next time we meet."

That's a pretty stern message.

Send it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending a message, lol.

"HEY MAN. YOU CROSS-CHECKED MY CAPTAIN AND I AM REALLY MAD ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHY I'M GETTING ALL UP IN YOUR FACE. TELL YOUR FIGHTER I WANT TO FIGHT HIM TO SHOW HOW MAD I AM."

Sounds like BoS may get a job with the Wings. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably not sure how to quantify it because it's an opinion. There is no way to quantify it. But you're stating it as if it were fact that the Wings are sacrificing a massive amount of offense to play this way. Clearly they're focusing on defense and that probably does cost some offensive opportunities. How much? Who knows.

The charts in the article show that Detroit is slightly below middle of the pack in generating shots for. They generate almost as many shots as Pittsburgh. More than the Rangers and Columbus. By that evidence alone, they are nowhere near the worst offender of playing for the loser point. By the numbers that looks like it would be New Jersey.

I'm being combative, I'm just pointing out that you took an article complimenting Babcock and turned it into proof he's playing for the loser point. Which the article doesn't support. And it doesn't even make a ton of sense given the Wings record in the shootout and how Babcock clearly feels about the event.

If it's an opinion, it's an opinion that the coach of the team shared as recently as November 30th when he said...

"We have more players than we've had probably since '09 that can score," Babcock said. "It didn't look like it early, but it does now."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/11/theres_no_shortage_of_power_in.html

Apparently we've got more people who can score, and they're shooting less that previous Red Wings teams. However, they're keeping opponents' shots WAY below what previous Red Wings teams did (per the charts in the article).

The theory I'm proposing, is that Babs' strategy to keep opponents' shots so low, stifles our teams offensive potential. Potential that the coach himself acknowledges. It's a deliberate willingness to subordinate our offense in order to limit scoring chances by the opposition, which (as we have seen) results in lots of overtimes and shootouts. And I think Mike Babcock is smart enough to realize that this is the likely outcome of his preferred strategy.

And it makes perfect sense if you think Mike Babcock already assumes we'll make the playoffs, where there is no shootout. And since he recently said verbatim "in the end they still don't have the shootout in the playoffs", I don't think it's a stretch to believe that's the case.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/12/tomas_tatar_mike_babcock_say_d.html

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's an opinion, it's an opinion that the coach of the team shared as recently as November 30th when he said...

"We have more players than we've had probably since '09 that can score," Babcock said. "It didn't look like it early, but it does now."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/11/theres_no_shortage_of_power_in.html

Apparently we've got more people who can score, and they're shooting less that previous Red Wings teams. However, they're keeping opponents' shots WAY below what previous Red Wings teams did (per the charts in the article).

The theory I'm proposing, is that Babs' strategy to keep opponents' shots so low, stifles our teams offensive potential. Potential that the coach himself acknowledges. It's a deliberate willingness to subordinate our offense in order to limit scoring chances by the opposition, which (as we have seen) results in lots of overtimes and shootouts. And I think Mike Babcock is smart enough to realize that this is the likely outcome of his preferred strategy.

Just a thought. But what if he is doing this to uo the value of our defense to get a trade going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought. But what if he is doing this to uo the value of our defense to get a trade going?

I don't think so. It would be contrary to each and every single thing he's ever said about roster management since he's been the coach. Which can be summed up by "Ken Holland manages the roster, I put the best team on the ice that I can with the players I have" [my words, not Babcock's].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. It would be contrary to each and every single thing he's ever said about roster management since he's been the coach. Which can be summed up by "Ken Holland manages the roster, I put the best team on the ice that I can with the players I have" [my words, not Babcock's].

But don't you think Holland may have said something along the lines of if you can make the defense look really good I can swing a trade for a top 4 rh shooting dman and keep ouellet up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't you think Holland may have said something along the lines of if you can make the defense look really good I can swing a trade for a top 4 rh shooting dman and keep ouellet up.

I don't mind speculating about the team, but I usually do it based on things the GM or coach have actually said (like I did above). I wouldn't want to speculate about showcasing the defense in order to make a trade, because nothing much has been said on that topic.

Not to mention, the guy that the management would prefer to trade (Kindl) has been scratched lately, so they're certainly not showcasing him. I don't t know who else they'd be willing to trade. Babs' loves Kronwall, Ericsson, Dekeyser, and Quincey. I think Smith is tradeable, but everyone else says I'm wrong and he's awesome so I'll take their word for it. So it would come down to Kindl and Lashoff, and they've both been scratched in favor of Quellet the last couple games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind speculating about the team, but I usually do it based on things the GM or coach have actually said (like I did above). I wouldn't want to speculate about showcasing the defense in order to make a trade, because nothing much has been said on that topic.

Not to mention, the guy that the management would prefer to trade (Kindl) has been scratched lately, so they're certainly not showcasing him. I don't t know who else they'd be willing to trade. Babs' loves Kronwall, Ericsson, Dekeyser, and Quincey. I think Smith is tradeable, but everyone else says I'm wrong and he's awesome so I'll take their word for it. So it would come down to Kindl and Lashoff, and they've both been scratched in favor of Quellet the last couple games.

I'd be ok for trading Smith for an upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be ok for trading Smith for an upgrade.

Well my thoughts on him are pretty public at this point, but it seems like we're in the minority. However, if he's half as good as everyone else acts like he is then he's not going anywhere. So the only guys likely to be moved are Kindl and Lashoff and they aren't exactly being showcased right now.

Although, to his credit Kindl does have roughly as many points as Tyler Myers has lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Smith but if he can be traded for an upgrade - well, it needs to be done.

On D I would keep:

Kronwall, DeKe, XO and Sproul (he can still be dealt for the better D)

E, Q, Smith, Kindl and all other prospects should be available.

At this point I wouldn't mind :

Bogosian, Myers, Green or Wideman (he's been solid ao far this season).

I wouldn't go after Petry as he remainds me of upgraded version of right hand Kindl.

What about Bieksa as a 5th D?

Edited by Dominator2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

In a package for yandle. I would trade him in a heartbeat

I don't think I would for yandle. I'd want a righty if I was moving smith.

I also think we could acquire yandle without having to move smith or dekeyser. Just further improving our defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would for yandle. I'd want a righty if I was moving smith.

I also think we could acquire yandle without having to move smith or dekeyser. Just further improving our defense.

Yandle can play on the right side.

He still shots left. They don't need a d that can play the right side they need one who shoots right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would for yandle. I'd want a righty if I was moving smith.

I also think we could acquire yandle without having to move smith or dekeyser. Just further improving our defense.

Yandle is what everyone hopes Smith might become one day. Why wouldn't want to trade Smith for him. Smith isn't a righty either. So your opinion is stick with a worse lefty because the better option isn't a righty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would for yandle. I'd want a righty if I was moving smith.

I also think we could acquire yandle without having to move smith or dekeyser. Just further improving our defense.

I sort agree, but you could get that RH shot elsewhere. If it took Smith in a package for Yandle I think we'd have to do it. Then you could trade Kindl (and maybe a low pick) for Petry. Edmonton will lose Petry at the end of the season and need they need Dmen. Kindl might not even seem as an overpayment after what they payed Nikitin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people still think that other teams would want our trash or take quantity for quality ? Yandle > Smith and Maloney for sure would ask for a bigger piece to be added to even listen to that deal. I like Yandle but if we are looking at the Phoenix Coyotes I'd rather try to get OEL incredible underrated player who could flourish under Babs.

Things the Wings need (have needed for years now):

1. top 4 physical defenseman with some offensive touch...luckily for us one will be available come July 1

2. big bodied sniper who can create room for Z, Goose and Tatar

both positions are hard to fill but GMs are paid the big bucks to make it happen. With Z and Pasha aging this team needs to react or else we might be the Oilers in a few years

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people still think that other teams would want our trash or take quantity for quality ? Yandle > Smith and Maloney for sure would ask for a bigger piece to be added to even listen to that deal. I like Yandle but if we are looking at the Phoenix Coyotes I'd rather try to get OEL incredible underrated player who could flourish under Babs.

Pretty sure everyone here has been talking about Smith as part of a package

I like OEL, but since Arizona is a rebuilding team, I don't know why they'd be trading their talented 23 year old player. Yandle is still pretty young at 28, but they're building for the future and he seems a more likely sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people still think that other teams would want our trash or take quantity for quality ? Yandle > Smith and Maloney for sure would ask for a bigger piece to be added to even listen to that deal. I like Yandle but if we are looking at the Phoenix Coyotes I'd rather try to get OEL incredible underrated player who could flourish under Babs.

Pretty sure everyone here has been talking about Smith as part of a package

I like OEL, but since Arizona is a rebuilding team, I don't know why they'd be trading their talented 23 year old player. Yandle is still pretty young at 28, but they're building for the future and he seems a more likely sacrifice.

Wow he is still that young thought he would be around 28 :( so probably untouchable then

Smith Jurco/Mrazek for Yandle might be enough to entice them to finally move him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this