Conflict in the Crease

[joesuffP 1,746]

http://19ftw.in/MdCsnZ

[e_prime 1,936]

5 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

http://19ftw.in/MdCsnZ

I don't see how you get three way deal with Leafs and Ducks from that article... Looks like two possible separate deals.

No surprise that teams especially the Ducks are scouting Mantha.  He was being scouted and asked for in trades last year too. 

Trading Howard would free up the cap space we need to say... acquire Fowler... but are the Leafs or Flames really looking at Jimmy? 

...and to swing this thread back to on topic:   I'm going to assume that if you're trading Howard you're upgrading your D. In turn you'd alleviate your crease conflict, solidify Mrazek as your number one -- because well, he'd have to be, and you're going with the sink or swim approach.  Does anyone/everyone feel comfortable trading Jimmy right now?

[LeftWinger 4,963]

I'd hate to lose Mantha, but if we're clearing Howard's cap in order to get Fowler back, that's cool. I would imagine we'd be getting a pick for Jimmy. Interesting, thanks for posting!

[krsmith17 7,191]

I'd trade Howard now for sure, but only if it's part of a bigger deal including a defenseman to upgrade our defense. The Leafs defense is just as bad as ours so I don't really see a fit there. No way they trade Rielly. Calgary could be an option, but I doubt they're willing to trade Hamilton. I'd consider a Howard for Wideman swap, with him being on an expiring contract.

Unless we can get Lindholm in a trade including Mantha (we can't), I don't have much interest there either. I personally wouldn't want to trade Mantha in a package for Fowler or Vatanen...

[joesuffP 1,746]

Seems like a salary dump to acquire Fowler for Mantha

[krsmith17 7,191]

I'd hate that trade... I'd personally rather trade Tatar.

[joesuffP 1,746]

You and me both. Trading Mantha is a really risky move I just think nobody wants Tatar and Nyquist. Been watching Fowler he looks solid. Bomb from the point and real poise with the puck. Something our backend needs badly

[LeftWinger 4,963]

If traded Howard to clear cap, then traded Mantha for Fowler, so be it, but we already have 8 D-Men on the roster, I think we'd have to move one at least one to make room for Fowler. In that case, trading, lets say, XO and Mantha for Fowler is way overpayment.  Not unless we're getting at least a 2nd round pick back.  I guess I'd be ok with Mantha for Fowler (since Mantha doesn't seem to be getting his fair chance here) but even that is a bit of an overpayment.

Just now, joesuffP said:

You and me both. Trading Mantha is a really risky move I just think nobody wants Tatar and Nyquist. Been watching Fowler he looks solid. Bomb from the point and real poise with the puck. Something our backend needs badly

Ya, nobody wants Nyquist or Tatar. It seems their trade value has plummeted.  To most teams Nyquist is overpaid.  He only has two more years left though, so that could be a bit enticing...too bad a NTC kicks in next season.

 

This would most surely make Mrazek the work horse, because I don't think neither Coreau or Pasquele would get very many starts.

[e_prime 1,936]

I hate the thought of trading Mantha because I don't think he's been given a fair shake at sticking with the team, but he is probably our strongest asset right now. 

Nyquist's value isn't that diminished.  He's just been off to a slow start, which MOST of our forwards have been.  He's on pace to generate about the same amount of points -- 17 goals 35 assists -- as last year. The guy's a playmaker not a scorer anyway.   Not that it really matters as his NTC becomes voided if he's traded tho' so teams have a lot of flexibility when it comes to Nyquist.  The Goose is getting traded now or never essentially.

Trade Howard to Calgary for Chad Johnson and a pick.  Johnson is the type of veteran backup you want when you give your young future netminder the workhorse status

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by e_prime

[e_prime 1,936]

Every time I type three way, I'm all Bevis and Butthead "Yeah, Lulz, I just said three-way."

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by e_prime

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

Not much of a conflict anymore...

[Richdg 267]

Is it possible..... Blashill MIGHT have figured out that you play the hot hand? Maybe..........

[Jacksoni 418]

1 hour ago, F.Michael said:

So - Jimmy getting the start in Montreal on Saturday night?

He has earned that right if you ask me. A pleasant surprise coming in to this season for sure.

[chaps80 1,591]

Jimmy has been great, but you can't let your starter sit for too long. Mrazek needs to play. Unless management saying they were headin in with Mrazek as the guy was only sort of a tentative thing and they intended to play the better goalie, then cool. Have at er Jimmy. But if Mrazek is indeed supposed to be the #1 goalie right now, then they have to show their confidence in him and play him. You always need to get your starter back in sooner than later. Can't hand the backup the reigns for a good period of time while the starter is healthy and ready to go just because he's playing better without giving the starter a good chance to come back, like Jimmy got many times the past couple years. I think seeing Howard rise up will prove to be a good thing for Mrazek in a few ways and he'll come back more than ready to go.

As for Howard to Calgary rumours, why would they wan him when they just traded for Elliott this summer? Elliott is the better, more consistent goalie.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Exactly, gotta let your starter play. Which is why they need to roll with Howard.

[chaps80 1,591]

7 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Exactly, gotta let your starter play. Which is why they need to roll with Howard.

That makes a lot of sense when Howard is the backup (supposedly). If they were just going to go with who was playing better, then why designate a starter and backup going into the season? The starter should play, and be given chances to, regardless of how his backup is doing. Cam Talbot was doing better than Lundqvist at one point (not comparing Mrazek to Lundqvist, just an example). Should he have taken over? Hell no.

[kliq 3,755]

15 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

That makes a lot of sense when Howard is the backup (supposedly). If they were just going to go with who was playing better, then why designate a starter and backup going into the season? The starter should play, and be given chances to, regardless of how his backup is doing. Cam Talbot was doing better than Lundqvist at one point (not comparing Mrazek to Lundqvist, just an example). Should he have taken over? Hell no.

The kid needs to learn some accountability. Its not a good message to send that if he plays bad he get rewarded with more starts. Its no different then what Montreal did with Price when they had Halak and look how that turned out.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

That makes a lot of sense when Howard is the backup (supposedly). If they were just going to go with who was playing better, then why designate a starter and backup going into the season? The starter should play, and be given chances to, regardless of how his backup is doing. Cam Talbot was doing better than Lundqvist at one point (not comparing Mrazek to Lundqvist, just an example). Should he have taken over? Hell no.

But like you said, this isn't Lundquist

[kickazz 5,459]

40 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

That makes a lot of sense when Howard is the backup (supposedly). If they were just going to go with who was playing better, then why designate a starter and backup going into the season? 

Have they actually said Mrazek is the starter lately? I know Blashill said it in the summer but have they said anything the since the season started?

4 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

But like you said, this isn't Lundquist

Lol exactly. 

[chaps80 1,591]

19 minutes ago, kliq said:

The kid needs to learn some accountability. Its not a good message to send that if he plays bad he get rewarded with more starts. Its no different then what Montreal did with Price when they had Halak and look how that turned out.

I agree totally. But at what point does he get a start? He's started 9 games, and some were great. Then some he allowed 4 goals in, but they weren't necessarily bad games. Some of those goals were def stoppable, but some he had no chance on. When your teammates can't clear the puck after you make three saves in a row on a play, or allow breakaways that start before the opposing player even crosses the blue line, you can't blame those on your goalie. I don't think that's enough games played to lose his starting job, even if Howard is playing better. Sure, let him sit for a bit, give Howard some starts, let him see what happens when you don't play your best. But regardless of how Howard is doing, you gotta get him back in eventually for another go at it. 

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

According to this article, Jimmy gets the start against Montreal.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/11/red_wings_jimmy_howard_canadie.html#incart_river_index

[chaps80 1,591]

25 minutes ago, kickazz said:

 

Lol exactly. 

Lundqvist was an example. I could have used other starters as examples. The point was the starter designation. You don't just give the job away because your backup has suddenly learned how to play to the best of his ability again after 2-3 years of forgetting how to.

Either way, it seems only one person gets what i'm trying to say here. Forget it. Lol

5 minutes ago, MabusIncarnate said:

According to this article, Jimmy gets the start against Montreal.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/11/red_wings_jimmy_howard_canadie.html#incart_river_index

As expected.

[kliq 3,755]

17 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

I agree totally. But at what point does he get a start? He's started 9 games, and some were great. Then some he allowed 4 goals in, but they weren't necessarily bad games. Some of those goals were def stoppable, but some he had no chance on. When your teammates can't clear the puck after you make three saves in a row on a play, or allow breakaways that start before the opposing player even crosses the blue line, you can't blame those on your goalie. I don't think that's enough games played to lose his starting job, even if Howard is playing better. Sure, let him sit for a bit, give Howard some starts, let him see what happens when you don't play your best. But regardless of how Howard is doing, you gotta get him back in eventually for another go at it. 

Mrazek will start again and of course he should, I am sure it will be soon as its not like Jimmy is going to play every game.

Right now Jimmy is hot, and we are a team that needs every point we can get. With Howard playing 1.22 GAA hockey, I say you start him until he comes back down to earth, obviously that number is not sustainable, it will happen. The reason why we need to let Jimmy play, especially if he is playing good, and even more so if he continues to pay good is because it is better for us as it just increases his trade value. 6 months ago we were talking about "will a team take Howard without retaining salary for a low round pick" imagine if his value could raise to a point where a team wont just take all of his salary, but they will actually give us something of value in return. Jimmy and Mrazek playing great is best case scenario for us.

[kickazz 5,459]

15 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Lundqvist was an example. I could have used other starters as examples. The point was the starter designation. You don't just give the job away because your backup has suddenly learned how to play to the best of his ability again after 2-3 years of forgetting how to.

Either way, it seems only one person gets what i'm trying to say here. Forget it. Lol

As expected.

I get what you're saying. But what I'm saying is he no longer is the starter by the looks of it. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

There are #1s because they have a proven track record, and there are #1s because someone labeled them that for other reasons. You go back to a guy in group A quicker than a guy in group B because one is proven, the other is not.