• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
krsmith17

Pulkkinen claimed by Minnesota Wild

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

 

Except he didn't have any trade value.  If a team could get him for free, great, otherwise, why spend an asset?

Which is why you trade him when he's waiver ineligible rather than being forced to put him on waivers and get claimed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kickazz said:

Which is why you trade him when he's waiver ineligible rather than being forced to put him on waivers and get claimed. 

You'd still have people complaining of course....giving up on someone.  Hindsight is easy to say that now, but as I said above, the only way you trade someone at that point is to pick up someone you are targeting, not to dump a guy for an asset...the asset you get back is highly likely to be no better than what you've got....if you've already figured out you don't want him and he isn't going to develop into much, other teams are going to likely conclude the same (although you do have GMs out there that think they can turn someone into something)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

You'd still have people complaining of course....giving up on someone.  Hindsight is easy to say that now, but as I said above, the only way you trade someone at that point is to pick up someone you are targeting, not to dump a guy for an asset...the asset you get back is highly likely to be no better than what you've got....if you've already figured out you don't want him and he isn't going to develop into much, other teams are going to likely conclude the same (although you do have GMs out there that think they can turn someone into something)

I'm not saying we should have traded him for someone better. That's not really possible. Why would GM trade for a downgrade? I've said before that he clearly wasn't fit for our system, a trade for someone equal in value that fits our needs likely would have been the only option for us.

He was the leading AHL scorer, which is no joke by the way. But he was also a small forward that couldn't play defense. He's doesn't fit the "Red Wing" philosophy. At best, a one for one trade for someone bigger, more defensive (which is what Holland/Blash/Babs are proponents of)  in the depth chart would have been suitable. But yeah, then people would have said "lol we gave up the leading AHL scorer for player X" 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I'm not saying we should have traded him for someone better. That's not really possible. Why would GM trade for a downgrade? I've said before that he clearly wasn't fit for our system, a trade for someone equal in value that fits our needs likely would have been the only option for us.

He was the leading AHL scorer, which is no joke by the way. But he was also a small forward that couldn't play defense. He's doesn't fit the "Red Wing" philosophy. At best, a one for one trade for someone bigger, more defensive (which is what Holland/Blash/Babs are proponents of)  in the depth chart would have been suitable. But yeah, then people would have said "lol we gave up the leading AHL scorer for player X" 

I'm not sure they concluded he wasn't a fit earlier, otherwise, perhaps they would have made a trade.  Also, it's entirely possible that they have been trying to trade him for a while.  For every trade that happens, I'd bet there are 20 that don't work out.

In terms of AHL, it's literally meaningless.  My friend lead the AHL in scoring one year, was the top goal scorer in another year (scoring almost 60 goals) and was an AHL MVP.  He also led the NHL in scorer during pre-season (again, meaningless).  He finished his career having played a total of about 40 NHL games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except scouts and GMs don't watch the stat sheet, they look at things like size, speed, acceleration, how quick they get a shot off, whether an NHL goalie would have likely stopped a lot of his goals, etc.  Fans see "booming slapper" and a punch of goals and assume he's a top flight prospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we lose so many players for nothing on waivers is because this organization takes way too long to determine what they have in a player. Why is that? Because for the most part, they refuse to bring them up until they're waiver eligible. None of our scouts are able to tell before year 5 after a player is drafted whether or not they have a future with this organization? Forget about the players we've lost, they're gone, whatever... What if we end up losing Sproul without giving him a real shot? How has this kid been with the organization for five years and he's only played one game three years ago? That to me is what I see as the real problem with this team and their inability to manage their assets...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, toby91_ca said:

Exactly, I don't get why so many don't understand this.  Nobody wanted him bad enough to give up an asset for him.  There was a good chance the Wings wouldn't want him on the roster, so he's have to hit waivers, then another team could grab him....take a chance at a very low cost (just salary).  There's no guarantee in getting the player that way though as several teams could put in claims.  If teams really want a guy, they'd make a trade for them.  He literally had no trade value, if he did, one would have been made.  Now you could complain that he could have been traded at some earlier point when he had trade value, but that's hindsight.  You have an asset that you are hoping develops into something, the only way you trade someone that you think has potential is to get another player you have your eye on, you don't just give someone like that up to get a pick.

It's not like he was a high potential guy when they drafted him.  He was a long shot to develop into anything when they got him.  You draft people in later rounds in hopes they develop into something beyond what they projected on draft day.  More often than not, they don't.

Well said! Pulks had zero trade value at this point. He might have fetched something earlier when he was coming off a season in which he won the AHL scoring title, but now he's worth nothing. He even got passed over to the point where Minny could claim him. That's 13 other teams that passed. He's no big loss. I don't see the big deal with him. He's got a hard shot and can hit the net. That doesn't do you any good if you can't get it off in time or from a good enough spot to make it dangerous. He still needs work, and Minny is gonna put him on a top line with Koivu? Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got to think as well, if the Wings saw any real value in him they could have just waived Ott and kept him on the roster. I look at this move as the Wings essentially giving up on him.

With hindsight being 20/20, I do wish the Wings traded him right after his big AHL year, but at that time they must have still had hope in him rounding out his game. They were obviously wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

The reason we lose so many players for nothing on waivers is because this organization takes way too long to determine what they have in a player. Why is that? Because for the most part, they refuse to bring them up until they're waiver eligible. None of our scouts are able to tell before year 5 after a player is drafted whether or not they have a future with this organization? Forget about the players we've lost, they're gone, whatever... What if we end up losing Sproul without giving him a real shot? How has this kid been with the organization for five years and he's only played one game three years ago? That to me is what I see as the real problem with this team and their inability to manage their assets...

I agree. Things do need to change as far as signing veterans instead of bringing up overripe guys in the minors. ELCs save A LOT of money in this cap era, and the guys in the minors are better than some guys on the big club. If you don't give your young guys a chance, why even draft at all? Holland needs to get away from what worked in the late 90's. The Wings must be the only team to still run a 4th line of veteran grinders. As for Sproul, Holland might be clueless at times, but he won't be losing him to waivers. Something will be worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

The reason we lose so many players for nothing on waivers is because this organization takes way too long to determine what they have in a player. Why is that? Because for the most part, they refuse to bring them up until they're waiver eligible. None of our scouts are able to tell before year 5 after a player is drafted whether or not they have a future with this organization? Forget about the players we've lost, they're gone, whatever... What if we end up losing Sproul without giving him a real shot? How has this kid been with the organization for five years and he's only played one game three years ago? That to me is what I see as the real problem with this team and their inability to manage their assets...

As was pointed out earlier, the number of players we've lost isn't all that unusual. The recent surge is really the result of having a better than normal level of drafting success. 

Also, and I've said this many times, but normally when we have actual good prospects, they are on the team before running out of exemptions. Filppula, Hudler, Helm, Abby, Smith, Nyquist, Sheahan, Jurco, Larkin, Mrazek, Marchenko, and now AA. Sometimes they make it from camp, some have had to wait for injuries. Tatar was more aberration than norm. Fringe players like Mursak, Ritola, Emmerton, Andersson, Nestrasil, and Frk would have been in the minors in pretty much any organization. Two years ago, Frk wasn't even able to stick with GR all year. If we'd made a decision on him before this summer, he'd be in Europe.

Ouellet, Sproul, and Pulk probably would have been on the team earlier if we hadn't had so many other young guys. Losing Pulk and Frk was as much about keeping AA, Ouellet and Sproul as it was about Miller and Ott. Pulk's injury probably cost us. If he'd stayed healthy and continued to produce as he had been, we probably don't look at Vanek. If he'd stayed healthy and stopped producing, lost his spot that way, he'd probably be in GR right now, or Europe (and no one would care). 

As for Sproul, if he was that good, I have to believe he would have been up by now. It's not like Marchenko is that high a bar to get over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2016 at 11:59 PM, DickieDunn said:

But are Frk and Pulk really better as reserves than 
Miller and Ott?  They're certainly not cheaper, at least not enough to make any kind of difference.  And in a reserve forward, if have a vet who can come in and play smart hockey and not hurt you, that's decent value.  Pulkkinen and Frk really need to be playing on a scoring line to have any value at all, plugging one of them on the 4th line when someone else is hurt isn't really going to do much positive.

 

Ott, Miller, and Glendening DO hurt us.  They're terrible players.  Watch how often they get trapped in the defensive zone.  Their corsi against is abysmal.  I'd MUCH rather have two cheap kids sitting on the bench, and the fourth line populated with guys who can actually get the puck out of the d-zone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Ott, Miller, and Glendening DO hurt us.  They're terrible players.  Watch how often they get trapped in the defensive zone.  Their corsi against is abysmal.  I'd MUCH rather have two cheap kids sitting on the bench, and the fourth line populated with guys who can actually get the puck out of the d-zone. 

Ott and Miller maybe, though it's debatable. And I think AA is good enough that he'll keep one of them out when we're healthy. 

Glendening though, while a bad possession player, isn't hurting us. All that negative possession isn't turning into goals against, which is what actually matters. And despite a lack of shots for, offensive production with him on the ice hasn't been bad. Over the last two years, we have more GF than GA with him on the ice 5v5. While he's not an elite PKer, neither are any of our other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buppy said:

Ott and Miller maybe, though it's debatable. And I think AA is good enough that he'll keep one of them out when we're healthy. 

Glendening though, while a bad possession player, isn't hurting us. All that negative possession isn't turning into goals against, which is what actually matters. And despite a lack of shots for, offensive production with him on the ice hasn't been bad. Over the last two years, we have more GF than GA with him on the ice 5v5. While he's not an elite PKer, neither are any of our other options.

I'm not convinced that over the long haul of a season the negative possession won't result in substantial goals against, especially if their ice time starts sneaking up relative to the rest of the team.  Remains to be seen, but certainly negative possession isn't good regardless of how many goals are scored against.  At the very least it's substantial time each game in which we're not likely to score either. 

I'm not really that interested in railing against these guys to be honest.  My biggest argument is that I believe we can ice a better lineup and aren't currently doing it.  As I said in another thread, based on everyone's play so far I'd do the following for the 3rd and 4th lines:

Z-AA-Mantha

Glendening-Helm-Sheahan

You could shelter the 3rd line, especially until Zetterberg is up to speed, and the fourth line I proposed is one that I wouldn't mind seeing play more minutes than your typical bottom line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the defense is so bad right now the forwards aren't getting a shot to show what they can do offensively. Having said that I think all 5 men need to be better in their own end getting the puck back and exiting the zone efficiently. We may need to get back to dumping the puck in and forechecking hard. We looked good in the first period against Tampa doing this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not convinced that over the long haul of a season the negative possession won't result in substantial goals against, especially if their ice time starts sneaking up relative to the rest of the team.  Remains to be seen, but certainly negative possession isn't good regardless of how many goals are scored against.  At the very least it's substantial time each game in which we're not likely to score either. 

I'm not really that interested in railing against these guys to be honest.  My biggest argument is that I believe we can ice a better lineup and aren't currently doing it.  As I said in another thread, based on everyone's play so far I'd do the following for the 3rd and 4th lines:

Z-AA-Mantha

Glendening-Helm-Sheahan

You could shelter the 3rd line, especially until Zetterberg is up to speed, and the fourth line I proposed is one that I wouldn't mind seeing play more minutes than your typical bottom line. 

Well, it's not something that requires convincing. It's not an opinion, it's factual data. But my point was just that Glendening shouldn't be lumped in with Miller and Ott, which you seem to agree with anyway. 

I'm not sure replacing Miller with Mantha, regardless of how the lines are put together, would really change anything, but I'm not opposed to it. And I'm sure Mantha will see a fair number of games this year anyway. I assume AA, as long as he's healthy, will be in more often than not, and every game if he looks like he did last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2016 at 5:22 PM, Buppy said:

Well, it's not something that requires convincing. It's not an opinion, it's factual data. But my point was just that Glendening shouldn't be lumped in with Miller and Ott, which you seem to agree with anyway. 

I'm not sure replacing Miller with Mantha, regardless of how the lines are put together, would really change anything, but I'm not opposed to it. And I'm sure Mantha will see a fair number of games this year anyway. I assume AA, as long as he's healthy, will be in more often than not, and every game if he looks like he did last year.

I'm not suggesting that your facts are wrong.  I'm saying that, in general, negative corsi tends to yield more goals against over a full season regardless of what happened in our instance last season.  Not much different that saying good corsi numbers tend to be associated with playoff teams.  Sure the Avalanche made it two years ago with terrible possession numbers, but that's generally an anomaly.  My only point is that if you can ice a roster that would likely yield better possession why wouldn't you?  And I think we can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Pulkkinen scored his first as a MInnesota Wild last night.

On a tip in.

Hossa scored his 500th last night. Letting him walk to keep Franzen sure looks great. I know no one could have predicted his career would be cut way short, but anyone could have predicted Hossa would remain a major scoring threat. Remember when he scored 40 goals in his one season in Detroit? That was nice.

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