• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Jonas Mahonas

Taking Out the Trash

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On February 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, kliq said:

Personally I would rather trade Tatar then Nyquist because I think with the right coach in the right system, Nyquist has a higher ceiling then Tatar. Plus I have never heard anything about Nyquist wanting out, which is something I can't say about Tatar.

The reason why some want him traded is because through translation it appears he wants out, and because people dont want him and Nyquist in our top 6 as some people view them as both being smaller easily pushed around players.

I missed the news about Tatar wanting out (presumably), when was this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 1:54 AM, DickieDunn said:

An article from Europe that was poorly translated.  It's more that he understands it's a business and he wouldn't be angry if he was traded.

 

On 2/14/2017 at 9:53 PM, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

I missed the news about Tatar wanting out (presumably), when was this?

Nah don't listen to Dickie, he's playing the typical American 1st world egocentric card (us americans are oh so spoiled!) of assuming that we know better about the Slovak language/interview than someone who is actually a native Slovak speaker and happened to translate the meaning of the interview for us. 

Here is the thread and it's been talked about by one of our members named "Jukiltz" who is a native Cazech and speaks fluent Slovak. I'd take a natives word over american lol. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


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

I know you're kidding but I think there may be an element of truth to this

I actually believe it as well.  In fact while I'm just speculating now, I wouldn't be surprised if Holland and Babcock had a discussion about this possibility when they were trying to extend his contract.  Its been clear we don't have any superstars in the pipeline for a few years, so they both knew the decision to try to battle and continue to slip into the playoffs vs tank for a complete rebuild would be fast approaching.  I don't see Babcock as the type to want to tank.  Meanwhile Blashill has continued to give Mrazek and Sheahan and all these other under-performers plenty of ice time without doing anything to really improve their play.  The PP is almost historically low.  Players who we know are decent/good are playing poorly.  There isn't a whole lot of cohesion on the ice between players. The Wings are last in the East.  This is the organization tanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a quote from Babcock from 2015 season end when he said "If you asked me before the season stated I would have said we wouldn't make the playoffs"

Of course he admitted to being wrong but you are right that Holland and Babcock must have both known it was coming. 

If it realy is a tank it's a very strategic one. Some of Blashill's decisions are WHAT THE F ARE U DOING?? But it makes you wonder if it's all done on purpose.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


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

I remember a quote from Babcock from 2015 season end when he said "If you asked me before the season stated I would have said we wouldn't make the playoffs"

Of course he admitted to being wrong but you are right that Holland and Babcock must have both known it was coming. 

If it realy is a tank it's a very strategic one. Some of Blashill's decisions are WHAT THE F ARE U DOING?? But it makes you wonder if it's all done on purpose.

How many teams go from playoff spot to last in the conference in a season?  I can't imagine its all that common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Blashill is trying to win, he's just that inept.  I jokingly suggested that Holland made the moves he did and is keeping Blashill to tank without letting ownership know he's tanking awhile back.  The longer this goes on, the more I wonder if it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite tanking, but I think some of Blashill's make more sense if he was told that he should be most concerned with long-term development of players.

For instance, you only put Sheahan on the powerplay if you're trying to get a struggling young player going. For immediate team success that can only hurt us.

Also, keeping Larkin on the 3rd line for so long make sense if you're trying to develop a player who can run a line himself, but he would have had more success and helped the team more with Z or Nielson, i think.

Also, Vanek's limited use could make sense if the team doesn't view him as part of our future. And AA's limited use could make sense if they consider him rounding out his game more important in the long run to the amount he helps the team currently.

There is problems with that theory, though, since players like Miller and Ott were used despite the fact that they won't be part of the future. 

I think they've been trying to balance preparing for the future with some success right now (which obviously hasn't come this year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all on the same page here. I don't mean "tank" in the general sense where you don't play 60 minutes of hockey and try to win. I mean "tank" in the sense of focusing on long term things, experimenting weird ideas and not being overly concerned of the short term. You could tell that when we were desperately trying to win games Babcock would put his best players together on one line to make it happen. He would always reunite D and Z. But Blashill on the other hand has maintained keeping Vanek on line 2 or 3, even though it would probably be better to have Vanrk on the top line with Mantha and Z. And if not then even Larkin with Mantha and Z.

It's a bit unusual to not hear harsh criticisms from Blashill, unusual to not hear about it from Holland, unusual for Z to do almost every post game interview instead of the assistants. It's the same trend every game and it's the same things said by the same people.

Like it seems like they're "worried" but at the same time very "calm" about it. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively we could all be in denial at how much we suck and are coming up with excuses to feel better about it. 

3 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Not quite tanking, but I think some of Blashill's make more sense if he was told that he should be most concerned with long-term development of players.

For instance, you only put Sheahan on the powerplay if you're trying to get a struggling young player going. For immediate team success that can only hurt us.

Also, keeping Larkin on the 3rd line for so long make sense if you're trying to develop a player who can run a line himself, but he would have had more success and helped the team more with Z or Nielson, i think.

Also, Vanek's limited use could make sense if the team doesn't view him as part of our future. And AA's limited use could make sense if they consider him rounding out his game more important in the long run to the amount he helps the team currently.

There is problems with that theory, though, since players like Miller and Ott were used despite the fact that they won't be part of the future. 

I think they've been trying to balance preparing for the future with some success right now (which obviously hasn't come this year).

Well, Miller was used but immediately waived when it seemed like playoffs were out of the picture. Idk I feel like there really is a trend. Pure speculation but I feel like they knew bad days were coming but tried to win if they could and as soon as s*** was hitting the  fan they waived Miller and scratched Ott at times and started actively using certain players in positions they prefer to develop them around. 

Share this post


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

Alternatively we could all be in denial at how much we suck and are coming up with excuses to feel better about it. 

Well, Miller was used but immediately waived when it seemed like playoffs were out of the picture. Idk I feel like there really is a trend. Pure speculation but I feel like they knew bad days were coming but tried to win if they could and as soon as s*** was hitting the  fan they waived Miller and scratched Ott at times and started actively using certain players in positions they prefer to develop them around. 

Came here to post this.

In regards to the rest of your post, I think that's exactly what we're seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the team went into the season trying to disguise a tank, they'd have never traded Datsyuk's cap hit to begin with. They wouldn't have locked up players to the long-term contracts that they have. Vanek was the only right move for a tank due to the fact he may net a late first rounder at the deadline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Echolalia said:

I actually believe it as well.  In fact while I'm just speculating now, I wouldn't be surprised if Holland and Babcock had a discussion about this possibility when they were trying to extend his contract.  Its been clear we don't have any superstars in the pipeline for a few years, so they both knew the decision to try to battle and continue to slip into the playoffs vs tank for a complete rebuild would be fast approaching.  I don't see Babcock as the type to want to tank.  Meanwhile Blashill has continued to give Mrazek and Sheahan and all these other under-performers plenty of ice time without doing anything to really improve their play.  The PP is almost historically low.  Players who we know are decent/good are playing poorly.  There isn't a whole lot of cohesion on the ice between players. The Wings are last in the East.  This is the organization tanking.

I agree with the Sheahan underperforming comment, but not Mrazek ( I know, surprising huh?). He's been playing well for awhile now that Blash has just let him play and work out the kinks on his own. Not much he can do about bad defence and no goal scoring. There was def some bad blood between Blash and Mrazek for awhile. Hopefully that's behind them. 

5 hours ago, HadThomasVokounOnFortSt said:

Just heard a beautiful joke that I even had to laugh.

What does the titanic and red wings have in common? They both are at the bottom of the Atlantic. 

Haha mannn. I've been laughing at those kind of jokes about the Leafs for a long time. There's an endless list of them. Dark times indeed when the Wings are starting to fall victim to the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Echolalia said:

How many teams go from playoff spot to last in the conference in a season?  I can't imagine its all that common.

It's the cap era, things like that happen. Teams go from Cup winners to missing the playoffs the next season. Carolina did it in 2007 and LA in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HadThomasVokounOnFortSt said:

Just heard a beautiful joke that I even had to laugh.

What does the titanic and red wings have in common? They both are at the bottom of the Atlantic. 

Living around Sabres fans my whole life, I have heard this joke directed at them a lot. I never thought it would be used at the Wings expense lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chaps80 said:

It's the cap era, things like that happen. Teams go from Cup winners to missing the playoffs the next season. Carolina did it in 2007 and LA in 2015.

What about from playoffs to dead last in the conference?  Honestly curious, I haven't looked.

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