• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
kliq

Jimmy Howard.......All-Star!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2015/01/17/mrazeks-puckhandling-skills-asset-red-wings/21942697/

Detroit — The conspicuous difference in the Red Wings play, depending on whether Petr Mrazek or Jimmy Howard is in net, is puckhandling.

Mrazek does it.

Howard occasionally shuns it, and it clearly is not his strong point.

The difference is "huge," Mike Babcock said before the Red Wings' 5-2 defeat of the Nashville Predators on Saturday.

"They're not getting forechecks on you and wearing on your D, because (Mrazek) can play the puck," Babcock said. "It's a real skill set. It's part of his game that we give up less chances with Mrazek in net, because of the way he plays the puck."

Mrazek, who stopped 34 of 36 shots, said the skill is a result of liking to do it, inspiration and training.

"I always like to move the puck, play it behind the net and if it's transferred," he said. "When I stop it, and it's a transfer play, I'm trying to get the game faster, so we are not spending so much time in our zone."

"You have to practice, for sure," Mrazek said. "I had great goalie coaches in the Czech Republic, and in juniors in Ottawa, and Jimmy Bedard, as well.

"When you are practicing, then you get used to it and get much confidence in every game."

His inspiration was Martin Brodeur, who has stepped away from the Blues this week to consider the course of his long career.

"Marty Brodeur was outstanding at that," Mrazek said. "Every time I watched him when I was a kid, I watched how he played the puck. I was trying to be like him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what Howard struggled with early in his career too.

Ideally, I want Howard to mentor him for a couple years, while bedard teaches him to control his rebounds.

Maybe sign him to a two year backup deal after his first contract is up, and if jimmy doesn't take us deep in the playoffs then we can look to trade Jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up some goalie retirement ages. Seems most were around 37-39 years old (of course some are older, but I suspect that isn't the norm)

So a couple points here.

(DISLAIMER: These numbers are just guesses based on league patterns. I understand that it may not actually play out this way. The points remain the same.)

1. Jimmy turn 31 in a couple months. I'd say Howie has about 6,7, maybe 8 seasons left in his career. Of those years, maybe 3-4 are still good production years, with declining production after that.

-We could keep him until he retires, which would almost certainly mean mrazek gets moved (and yeah we would probably get a good package back for him).

2. Mrazek turns 23 next month. That gives him maybe 14-16 years left in a normal career, with perhaps 11 give or take in the pre-decline years (yeah I made that up, pre-decline years aren't an official league stat track by professionals trackers. go ahead throw a fit about).

-We could keep mrazek and trade Howie

-Howie's trade value is never going to be higher than it is right now. With each passing year his value will decline exponentially

-Peak production years are usually 25-28 or maybe 24-29.

-I'd presonally like to have him ready to compete for cups at 24-25 with a longer prime window to compete for cups, instead of getting his feet under him playing his first full season as a starter or worse splitting time (or even worse backing up) at 25

Z & Pav were both playing full seasons with the wings when they were 22-23 years old, held their own while getting used to the NHL, and then their production really picked up a few years later right on track.

So I guess the question is,

Is 6-8 more seasons of Howie (who isn't going to get any better and doesn't have the intangibles) worth losing 14-16 seasons of Mrazek?

Or should we get mrazek going soon, get a good 11-12 seasons out of him, and lose the tail end (6-8) seasons of Howie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goalies that last that long and still play at an elite level are greats, usually.

And were not going to get rid of Mrazek, unless howie leads us to a cup, but they're going to over season him before giving him the reigns.

Which is fine.

He's still young.

Let him have a year backing up getting around 30% of the games, if he flourishes, have a goaltending duo with him and Howard, well be able to pay petr like a backup for two-three years after his rookie contract. Then after that hell probably get paid to be the number one, in which case Howie will be traded, or the cap will be high enough that we can afford him as a backup.

There's plenty of options.

And Mrazek isn't ready for a full time starter job.

He's got a lot to learn.

We can't just abandon jimmy because Mrazek has looked good(before today).

Jimmy will have two more seasons of being the number one guy heading into the playoffs, and either he plays well enough to take us to the cup, or we start looking at Mrazek tosee if he can.

We've got time, and howard was playing like a top ten goalie, which well need in the playoffs.

Edited by jimmyemeryhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

roboturner ... U mad bro. Stop already. Mrazek plays a few good games and you want to trade Howie ... You can tell from these past few games that you want to commit to Mrazek for the next 11-12 years? Or you'd trade him as soon as his backup puts in a few good games in a row?

Do you have any idea what respect, loyalty, and class means in an organization. If Kenny did what you suggested, no one would want to sign here ever again.

Edited by RedWingsRox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up some goalie retirement ages. Seems most were around 37-39 years old (of course some are older, but I suspect that isn't the norm)

So a couple points here.

(DISLAIMER: These numbers are just guesses based on league patterns. I understand that it may not actually play out this way. The points remain the same.)

1. Jimmy turn 31 in a couple months. I'd say Howie has about 6,7, maybe 8 seasons left in his career. Of those years, maybe 3-4 are still good production years, with declining production after that.

-We could keep him until he retires, which would almost certainly mean mrazek gets moved (and yeah we would probably get a good package back for him).

2. Mrazek turns 23 next month. That gives him maybe 14-16 years left in a normal career, with perhaps 11 give or take in the pre-decline years (yeah I made that up, pre-decline years aren't an official league stat track by professionals trackers. go ahead throw a fit about).

-We could keep mrazek and trade Howie

-Howie's trade value is never going to be higher than it is right now. With each passing year his value will decline exponentially

-Peak production years are usually 25-28 or maybe 24-29.

-I'd presonally like to have him ready to compete for cups at 24-25 with a longer prime window to compete for cups, instead of getting his feet under him playing his first full season as a starter or worse splitting time (or even worse backing up) at 25

Z & Pav were both playing full seasons with the wings when they were 22-23 years old, held their own while getting used to the NHL, and then their production really picked up a few years later right on track.

So I guess the question is,

Is 6-8 more seasons of Howie (who isn't going to get any better and doesn't have the intangibles) worth losing 14-16 seasons of Mrazek?

Or should we get mrazek going soon, get a good 11-12 seasons out of him, and lose the tail end (6-8) seasons of Howie?

Mrazek will sign a RFA deal, when Howard's contract is up they'll keep whichever is the best at that point. There is zero reason to trade either. I don't get why you seem to think it's an either/or proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

roboturner ... U mad bro. Stop already. Mrazek plays a few good games and you want to trade Howie ... You can tell from these past few games that you want to commit to Mrazek for the next 11-12 years? Or you'd trade him as soon as his backup puts in a few good games in a row?

Do you have any idea what respect, loyalty, and class means in an organization. If Kenny did what you suggested, no one would want to sign here ever again.

I realize you added "ever again", however, right now no one does want to sign here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

I think someone forgot to tell DeKeyser that no one wants to sign here.

I can't even believe this discussion is even taking place. What in the Red Wings/Holland's history would give any indication whatsoever that they would trade anyone away to bring up a 22 year old goaltender? Howard spent 4 seasons in the minors and I don't think he became a regular until he was like 25 or 26. Like it or not, the "over ripen" philosophy has been very successful for the most part and I don't see it changing anytime soon, most especially with this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more Playmaker. +10

Also, in regards to the Mrazek vs Howard debate... Before last night I wanted to sign Mrazek to a mega deal and trade Howard, but after last nights performance, I think we should probably trade or maybe even waive Mrazek. We probably wouldn't get much in return after last nights performance anyway. I mean 3 goals allowed on 7 shots? That's aaaawful. He will never ever get it done at the NHL level, unless of course he has a bounce back game next game. Then, we should probably trade Howard. I mean, no team wants to have two capable goaltenders at one time, that would be what they call a "goalie controversy", bad news... I'm not sure, am I doing this right?... f***in LGW... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more Playmaker. +10

Also, in regards to the Mrazek vs Howard debate... Before last night I wanted to sign Mrazek to a mega deal and trade Howard, but after last nights performance, I think we should probably trade or maybe even waive Mrazek. We probably wouldn't get much in return after last nights performance anyway. I mean 3 goals allowed on 7 shots? That's aaaawful. He will never ever get it done at the NHL level, unless of course he has a bounce back game next game. Then, we should probably trade Howard. I mean, no team wants to have two capable goaltenders at one time, that would be what they call a "goalie controversy", bad news... I'm not sure, am I doing this right?... f***in LGW... :lol:

Only if we're getting a conditional draft pick as part of the trade. It'll be a 2nd rounder at first. If he plays super awesome for one game, they have to bump it up to a 1st rounder, if he plays poorly, we can knock it down to a 3rd. No biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys understand that I have no influence whatsoever on what the actual management of the Wings does, Right? It's just one more fans opinion.

roboturner ... U mad bro. Stop already. Mrazek plays a few good games and you want to trade Howie ... You can tell from these past few games that you want to commit to Mrazek for the next 11-12 years? Or you'd trade him as soon as his backup puts in a few good games in a row?

Do you have any idea what respect, loyalty, and class means in an organization. If Kenny did what you suggested, no one would want to sign here ever again.

No I'm not mad, WTF haha. Again, this isn't just a reaction to a couple of games, it's about their playing styles.

And you really missed the boat thinking I'm just going for the flavor of the month. That whole thing was meant to combat that idea. When I say we should get Mrazek going it's because of this long term plan.

But yeah you're right, I forgot about how those Wings teams of yesterday never traded. We didn't trade people to get Shanahan, Chelios, and Hasek. WTH am I thinking here? Those guys we (didn't) traded to get them were signed to play with us and by god we honored that, out of pure loyalty! (that was sarcasm)

I think someone forgot to tell DeKeyser that no one wants to sign here.

I can't even believe this discussion is even taking place. What in the Red Wings/Holland's history would give any indication whatsoever that they would trade anyone away to bring up a 22 year old goaltender? Howard spent 4 seasons in the minors and I don't think he became a regular until he was like 25 or 26. Like it or not, the "over ripen" philosophy has been very successful for the most part and I don't see it changing anytime soon, most especially with this situation.

DeKeyser is a special case seeing as how he grew up around here.

I understand the over ripe philosophy. Which is why I understand none of what I said will ever happen. But there need to be exceptions to this rule when it's called for. Like I pointed out with Hank and Pav. Petr might be over ripe already.

I just looked up a bunch of other goalies (the good ones anyway) to see when they started starting.

Anywhere from 21-25, with a bunch starting about 22-23. seems a pretty standard age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys understand that I have no influence whatsoever on what the actual management of the Wings does, Right? It's just one more fans opinion.

No I'm not mad, WTF haha. Again, this isn't just a reaction to a couple of games, it's about their playing styles.

And you really missed the boat thinking I'm just going for the flavor of the month. That whole thing was meant to combat that idea. When I say we should get Mrazek going it's because of this long term plan.

But yeah you're right, I forgot about how those Wings teams of yesterday never traded. We didn't trade people to get Shanahan, Chelios, and Hasek. WTH am I thinking here? Those guys we (didn't) traded to get them were signed to play with us and by god we honored that, out of pure loyalty! (that was sarcasm)

DeKeyser is a special case seeing as how he grew up around here.

I understand the over ripe philosophy. Which is why I understand none of what I said will ever happen. But there need to be exceptions to this rule when it's called for. Like I pointed out with Hank and Pav. Petr might be over ripe already.

I just looked up a bunch of other goalies (the good ones anyway) to see when they started starting.

Anywhere from 21-25, with a bunch starting about 22-23. seems a pretty standard age

You can't say dekeyser is a special case cause he grew up here but not mention that almost every fa we were after that didn't sign here went where they grew up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys understand that I have no influence whatsoever on what the actual management of the Wings does, Right? It's just one more fans opinion.

No I'm not mad, WTF haha. Again, this isn't just a reaction to a couple of games, it's about their playing styles.

And you really missed the boat thinking I'm just going for the flavor of the month. That whole thing was meant to combat that idea. When I say we should get Mrazek going it's because of this long term plan.

But yeah you're right, I forgot about how those Wings teams of yesterday never traded. We didn't trade people to get Shanahan, Chelios, and Hasek. WTH am I thinking here? Those guys we (didn't) traded to get them were signed to play with us and by god we honored that, out of pure loyalty! (that was sarcasm)

You're right. Trading for star players, and luring free agents is exactly the same as it was before the salary cap came into place. Holland has the freedom he did when he was able to move assets and spend whatever he wanted on free agents. (That was sarcasm, too.)

Today's NHL is all about parity - every one having the same amount of money to spend, and similar assets. It's all about development now, so you hang onto the proven assets you have until the unproven ones develop properly. (This isn't sarcasm.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't say dekeyser is a special case cause he grew up here but not mention that almost every fa we were after that didn't sign here went where they grew up

Even more to my point. It didn't have to do to those other teams being more loyal to the their players, it had to do with their geographical location.

You're right. Trading for star players, and luring free agents is exactly the same as it was before the salary cap came into place. Holland has the freedom he did when he was able to move assets and spend whatever he wanted on free agents. (That was sarcasm, too.)

Today's NHL is all about parity - every one having the same amount of money to spend, and similar assets. It's all about development now, so you hang onto the proven assets you have until the unproven ones develop properly. (This isn't sarcasm.)

I know it isn't the same. That was addressing the "we don't trade players because we are loyal to them" claim which is bogus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

You guys understand that I have no influence whatsoever on what the actual management of the Wings does, Right? It's just one more fans opinion.

No I'm not mad, WTF haha. Again, this isn't just a reaction to a couple of games, it's about their playing styles.

And you really missed the boat thinking I'm just going for the flavor of the month. That whole thing was meant to combat that idea. When I say we should get Mrazek going it's because of this long term plan.

But yeah you're right, I forgot about how those Wings teams of yesterday never traded. We didn't trade people to get Shanahan, Chelios, and Hasek. WTH am I thinking here? Those guys we (didn't) traded to get them were signed to play with us and by god we honored that, out of pure loyalty! (that was sarcasm)

DeKeyser is a special case seeing as how he grew up around here.

I understand the over ripe philosophy. Which is why I understand none of what I said will ever happen. But there need to be exceptions to this rule when it's called for. Like I pointed out with Hank and Pav. Petr might be over ripe already.

I just looked up a bunch of other goalies (the good ones anyway) to see when they started starting.

Anywhere from 21-25, with a bunch starting about 22-23. seems a pretty standard age

The Shanahan trade was only able to happen because Keith Primeau had demanded a trade. The Wings did not want to trade him, but he insisted. Paul Coffey had openly criticized Bowman publicly. It was just good timing that Shanny had demanded a trade at about the same time.

Chelios was traded for the Pillsbury Doughboy, aka, Max Kuznetsov. Hardly a potential star or a roster regular. His poor play and conditioning was a sore spot. It was more like trading a pick. Not to mention, we got Chelios for a hell of a lot longer than anyone could have foreseen.

The only actual trade where they gave up an active roster player was Kozlov for Hasek. I think it's important to note also, that Bowman seems to have a quicker trigger finger than anyone currently in the Wings organization. Remember, he wanted to trade Yzerman?

The general MO for trades in the Wings organization is trading picks or ow level prospects who they don't see materializing here. Rare to trade a current member of the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shanahan trade was only able to happen because Keith Primeau had demanded a trade. The Wings did not want to trade him, but he insisted. Paul Coffey had openly criticized Bowman publicly. It was just good timing that Shanny had demanded a trade at about the same time.

Chelios was traded for the Pillsbury Doughboy, aka, Max Kuznetsov. Hardly a potential star or a roster regular. His poor play and conditioning was a sore spot. It was more like trading a pick. Not to mention, we got Chelios for a hell of a lot longer than anyone could have foreseen.

The only actual trade where they gave up an active roster player was Kozlov for Hasek. I think it's important to note also, that Bowman seems to have a quicker trigger finger than anyone currently in the Wings organization. Remember, he wanted to trade Yzerman?

The general MO for trades in the Wings organization is trading picks or ow level prospects who they don't see materializing here. Rare to trade a current member of the roster.

Agreed. One trade, however, that I do wish they would have made especially in hindsight was the rumored Fedorov for Filppula trade.

And I'm sure I'm the only one who laments that not happening :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think someone forgot to tell DeKeyser that no one wants to sign here.

I can't even believe this discussion is even taking place. What in the Red Wings/Holland's history would give any indication whatsoever that they would trade anyone away to bring up a 22 year old goaltender? Howard spent 4 seasons in the minors and I don't think he became a regular until he was like 25 or 26. Like it or not, the "over ripen" philosophy has been very successful for the most part and I don't see it changing anytime soon, most especially with this situation.

They wanted Howard up earlier, but he kept blowing his chances. He wasn't in good shape at least once if not several times heading into camp, and even when he made the team, it was because they were out of options for him and it was his last chance. His later age of entry into the NHL had nothing to do with wanting him to "over-ripen" and everything to do with the fact that he failed to make the cut earlier.

Bear in mind though that I'm not saying we should promote Mrazek to starter and trade Howard now. As I've said whenever this has come up, this is something that will need to be sorted out in 1-2 years. Mrazek will no doubt make the team next year and I don't doubt that Babcock will give him every opportunity to win the starting job from Howard. If he can do it, well, then we have a good problem, because Howard at the very least is a very good goalie, one of the better ones in the game when he's on. It'll be no small feat, but Mrazek is likely capable of it, and if he does so, something will have to be sorted out. Again, it'll be a good problem to have ultimately.

I couldn't agree more Playmaker. +10

Also, in regards to the Mrazek vs Howard debate... Before last night I wanted to sign Mrazek to a mega deal and trade Howard, but after last nights performance, I think we should probably trade or maybe even waive Mrazek. We probably wouldn't get much in return after last nights performance anyway. I mean 3 goals allowed on 7 shots? That's aaaawful. He will never ever get it done at the NHL level, unless of course he has a bounce back game next game. Then, we should probably trade Howard. I mean, no team wants to have two capable goaltenders at one time, that would be what they call a "goalie controversy", bad news... I'm not sure, am I doing this right?... f***in LGW... :lol:

I dreaded coming on here last night due to this. One rough ******* game and people lose their s***. It's absurd. But as noted above, Playmaker's statements are a bit off-base and don't account for certain realities of the Howard situation specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more Playmaker. +10

Also, in regards to the Mrazek vs Howard debate... Before last night I wanted to sign Mrazek to a mega deal and trade Howard, but after last nights performance, I think we should probably trade or maybe even waive Mrazek. We probably wouldn't get much in return after last nights performance anyway. I mean 3 goals allowed on 7 shots? That's aaaawful. He will never ever get it done at the NHL level, unless of course he has a bounce back game next game. Then, we should probably trade Howard. I mean, no team wants to have two capable goaltenders at one time, that would be what they call a "goalie controversy", bad news... I'm not sure, am I doing this right?... f***in LGW... :lol:

You understand that it's not really fair to take the opinions of like 50 people and then mash them into one statement like they were all just one schizophrenic individual, right?

And to be honest, maybe I missed a couple, but I don't really recall any non sarcastic overreactions like that from anybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand that it's not really fair to take the opinions of like 50 people and then mash them into one statement like they were all just one schizophrenic individual, right?

And to be honest, maybe I missed a couple, but I don't really recall any non sarcastic overreactions like that from anybody

Are you calling me a sarcastic schizophrenic?

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