• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

ShanahanMan

Brendan Smith traded to Rangers for 2nd (2018) and 3rd (2017) Round Draft Picks

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

...Your acting childish, ...

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Look, the childish kicking and screaming isn't gonna get you anywhere with me....

Why are you so racist against children? Can you imagine a world without kids? Old men in ghost costumes running around everywhere, just getting away with it because of the lack of meddling. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Look, the childish kicking and screaming isn't gonna get you anywhere with me. Not sure why youre doubling down on it. If you truely dont want want to discuss and want to "move on" DONT DISCUSS AND MOVE ON. Ive given you that out, but you instead write a book, again exaggerating and misrepresenting my stance. You say one thing, and do another.

I've stated Babcock put Smith in a very normal position to succeed. Was he given the moon? No. Was he "mishandled"? IMO, no... Im still waiting for you to post evidence to that claim despite your repeated wails to the contrary. And no, having to play the PK as Dman is not mishandling.

I don't want to discuss it anymore because it's been beaten to death. Yeah, because you haven't purposely misrepresented my stance at all... You act as if I'm saying it's all on coaching / management, when I've clearly stated both sides are at fault. More of the onus should probably be put on the player, but coaching / management did play a factor in his development. Whether that was a positive factor (your stance), or somewhat negative factor (my stance)...

I notice you said "IMO, no". Well IMO, yes. Who's right and who's wrong? Neither because it's all just conjecture, aka opinion... The bolded is also just your opinion. My opinion is that playing an offensive minded defenseman on the penalty kill is just one example of how he was mishandled. The same way you wouldn't play a defensive defenseman on the power-play. Again, it's a dumb coaching strategy in my opinion. I also think pairing him with scrubs for his first two years in the league didn't help matters. You disagree. Cool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't want to discuss it anymore because it's been beaten to death. Yeah, because you haven't purposely misrepresented my stance at all... You act as if I'm saying it's all on coaching / management, when I've clearly stated both sides are at fault. More of the onus should probably be put on the player, but coaching / management did play a factor in his development. Whether that was a positive factor (your stance), or somewhat negative factor (my stance)...

I notice you said "IMO, no". Well IMO, yes. Who's right and who's wrong? Neither because it's all just conjecture, aka opinion... The bolded is also just your opinion. My opinion is that playing an offensive minded defenseman on the penalty kill is just one example of how he was mishandled. The same way you wouldn't play a defensive defenseman on the power-play. Again, it's a dumb coaching strategy in my opinion. I also think pairing him with scrubs for his first two years in the league didn't help matters. You disagree. Cool...

Karlsson plays on the PK and is one of the best offensive defenseman in the league. Brett Burns too. Really? you think playing on the PK is mishandling an offensive d-man? Christ. Your opinion holds no credibility on this issue because you have absolutely nothing backing your little opinion. Whereas we're GIVING you ample evidence as to why our "opinion" actually might have some credibility. 

But people once had an opinion that the Earth was the center of the universe too so I guess you're entitled to anything. Even nonsense. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't want to discuss it anymore because it's been beaten to death. Yeah, because you haven't purposely misrepresented my stance at all... You act as if I'm saying it's all on coaching / management, when I've clearly stated both sides are at fault. More of the onus should probably be put on the player, but coaching / management did play a factor in his development. Whether that was a positive factor (your stance), or somewhat negative factor (my stance)...

I notice you said "IMO, no". Well IMO, yes. Who's right and who's wrong? Neither because it's all just conjecture, aka opinion... The bolded is also just your opinion. My opinion is that playing an offensive minded defenseman on the penalty kill is just one example of how he was mishandled. The same way you wouldn't play a defensive defenseman on the power-play. Again, it's a dumb coaching strategy in my opinion. I also think pairing him with scrubs for his first two years in the league didn't help matters. You disagree. Cool...

If I have misrepresented your argument please quote it. 

I have not taken the stance that the organization was a positive factor. You have assumed and inserted that yourself. I have been neutral. I see no evidence of mishandling or of special treatment by the organization. By the looks of it he was given normal treatment just like Kindl and 99% of our prospects get. You are the one taking a stance suggesting the organization was not neutral, suggesting the organization mishandled him and was a negative in his development. 

You do know most Dmen have to play the PK right? Very rarely does a Dman never play the PK. And Smith played about 1 minute and 30 seconds on the PK a night. So, correct me if im wrong, youre saying that Smith is so heavily leaned in the offensive direction that he is the rare outlier Dman that cant or shouldnt kill penalties? And that 1 minute and 30 sec of PK each game (less than 10% of his career playing time) effectively ruined the other 90%+ of his time on the ice? I am understanding you?

 

Share this post


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

Karlsson plays on the PK and is one of the best offensive defenseman in the league. Your opinion holds no credibility. But people once had an opinion that the Earth was the center of the universe too so I guess you're entitled to anything. Even rubbish. 

Imagine the backlash if I used Karlsson as a comparison to Smith in any way, shape or form... You're comparing one of the best defensemen in the game today to Brendan Smith... There are a lot of elite defensemen that play penalty-kill. They play both special teams because the coach usually never wants them off the ice. You know who else plays PK? Subban, Doughty, etc. Smith is obviously not any of these players, nor was he ever in the conversation to be...

7 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If I have misrepresented your argument please quote it. 

I have not taken the stance that the organization was a positive factor. You have assumed and inserted that yourself. I have been neutral. I see no evidence of mishandling or of special treatment by the organization. By the looks of it he was given normal treatment just like Kindl and 99% of our prospects get. You are the one taking a stance suggesting the organization was not neutral, suggesting the organization mishandled him and was a negative in his development. 

You do know most Dmen have to play the PK right? Very rarely does a Dman never play the PK. And Smith played about 1 minute and 30 seconds on the PK a night. So, correct me if im wrong, youre saying that Smith is so heavily leaned in the offensive direction that he is the rare outlier Dman that cant or shouldnt kill penalties? And that 1 minute and 30 sec of PK each game (less than 10% of his career playing time) effectively ruined the other 90%+ of his time on the ice? I am understanding you?

Sure, if that was the only reason I've stated. It wasn't though. Do you think playing with career AHL defensemen coming into the league was the best situation for your highly touted first round pick? I don't.

If Cholowski or Hronek make the team in the next year or two and are paired with the equivalent of Doug Janik / Brian Lashoff for their first couple years and play penalty kill and see very little power-play opportunity, I will say the same thing; they're being mishandled. Maybe they overcome that, like others have in this league, or maybe they fade out because of a lack of mental toughness. I would hope it would be the former, but then again, I hope they're never put in that sort of situation to find out. Put your players (especially your high draft picks) in the best situation to succeed early on in their careers. That's all I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Imagine the backlash if I used Karlsson as a comparison to Smith in any way, shape or form... You're comparing one of the best defensemen in the game today to Brendan Smith... There are a lot of elite defensemen that play penalty-kill. They play both special teams because the coach usually never wants them off the ice. You know who else plays PK? Subban, Doughty, etc. Smith is obviously not any of these players, nor was he ever in the conversation to be...

Sure, if that was the only reason I've stated. It wasn't though. Do you think playing with career AHL defensemen coming into the league was the best situation for your highly touted first round pick? I don't.

If Cholowski or Hronek make the team in the next year or two and are paired with the equivalent of Doug Janik / Brian Lashoff for their first couple years and play penalty kill and see very little power-play opportunity, I will say the same thing; they're being mishandled. Maybe they overcome that, like others have in this league, or maybe they fade out because of a lack of mental toughness. I would hope it would be the former, but then again, I hope they're never put in that sort of situation to find out. Put your players (especially your high draft picks) in the best situation to succeed early on in their careers. That's all I ask.

Ah the shifting of the argument to his partners. Now its their fault i assume for not propping up Smith?

Doug Janik played all of 7 games for the Wings while Smith was here. And I got in an argument with you about Brian Lashoff about a month ago where you defended the great influence that Brian Lashoff is on our young D. So which is he?

Never the less your claim that he always had bad partners is false, Smith spent plenty of time up and down the lineup with different partners. The organization even partnered him with Lidstrom his first 7 games. Im not aware of another Dman who recieved that special courtesy in their first stint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith did really well in his first stints with Lidstrom and Kronwall.

i don't think it's particularly anyone's fault, but of course it is a lot easier to adjust to the NHL for a new player if they have better and more experienced linemates and defensive partners.

Part of the problem with smith is that by the time he was ready to make a decent fist if the NHL on a team that demands 2 way play, there was a dearth of candidates qualified to take care of the new guy. 2 years earlier he could have got significant time on a really deep, high quality and smart defence. 

As it happens he had mediocre partners when he needed good ones because the cupboard was suddenly rather bare.

Sadly he remained a player who needed a bit of babysitting which is probably just a reflection of him not being the cleverest by comparison.

Edited by lomekian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ah the shifting of the argument to his partners. Now its their fault i assume for not propping up Smith?

Doug Janik played all of 7 games for the Wings while Smith was here. And I got in an argument with you about Brian Lashoff about a month ago where you defended the great influence that Brian Lashoff is on our young D. So which is he?

Never the less your claim that he always had bad partners is false, Smith spent plenty of time up and down the lineup with different partners. The organization even partnered him with Lidstrom his first 7 games. Im not aware of another Dman who recieved that special courtesy in their first stint. 

Ah the stating false information. Smith never got the "special courtesy" to play with Lidstrom in his first 7 games. Smith played 14 games in Lidstrom's last season and played a whopping 0.5% of his time paired with Lidstrom. His most consistent partner was Janik, which he played 48.4% of his time with.

I never once said it was any of his D partners fault (misrepresentation), nor did I say he always had bad partners (again, misinterpretation). For the first year or two, he spent the better chunk of his time with scrubs. No Janik was not supposed to prop Smith up. Janik wasn't even an NHL quality defenseman. It's on the coaching staff to put the highly touted kid with a partner that would benefit him. Maybe Babcock thought that was Janik. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that wouldn't disagree with that though.

Lashoff has consistently been paired with Russo, but I'd be completely okay with him being paired with Hronek down in Grand Rapids. Playing with Lashoff down in GR, who is a top pair defenseman down there, and playing with Lashoff in Detroit, who shouldn't be near the NHL, is two completely different things...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact correction: In his career, Smith played fewer than 4 minutes with Lidstrom.

Logic correction: Teams need more than 4 defensemen playing pk. Smith was only ever a tertiary option, which is fine. Also, he was sheltered early (and most of his time here), which is better than the alternative. Playing him in a higher role, with a better partner, would have been more defensive responsibility and far more likely to damage a young player's confidence as well as hurt the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Ah the stating false information. Smith never got the "special courtesy" to play with Lidstrom in his first 7 games. Smith played 14 games in Lidstrom's last season and played a whopping 0.5% of his time paired with Lidstrom. His most consistent partner was Janik, which he played 48.4% of his time with.

I never once said it was any of his D partners fault (misrepresentation), nor did I say he always had bad partners (again, misinterpretation). For the first year or two, he spent the better chunk of his time with scrubs. No Janik was not supposed to prop Smith up. Janik wasn't even an NHL quality defenseman. It's on the coaching staff to put the highly touted kid with a partner that would benefit him. Maybe Babcock thought that was Janik. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that wouldn't disagree with that though.

Lashoff has consistently been paired with Russo, but I'd be completely okay with him being paired with Hronek down in Grand Rapids. Playing with Lashoff down in GR, who is a top pair defenseman down there, and playing with Lashoff in Detroit, who shouldn't be near the NHL, is two completely different things...

 

Janik played 9 games in Detroit while Smith was here...where are u getting the fact that Janik was his most consistent partner? From their time in GR? You honestly think playing in GR with Janik ruined Smith?

You say im misrespresenting your argument but then go on to talk about how Janik was a low quality partner lol very similar to the "im done done discussing"... but then you keep discussing.

I like that weve abandoned the silly PK argument at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Janik played 9 games in Detroit while Smith was here...where are u getting the fact that Janik was his most consistent partner? From their time in GR? You honestly think playing in GR with Janik ruined Smith?

You say im misrespresenting your argument but then go on to talk about how Janik was a low quality partner lol very similar to the "im done done discussing"... but then you keep discussing.

I like that weve abandoned the silly PK argument at least

No, in Detroit, not Grand Rapids. Again, misrepresentation or misinterpretation... As I said, Smith played 14 games in his first NHL season. Janik played 9 games? Well Smith must have played upwards of 90% of those 9 games with Janik. You don't think "Janik was a low quality partner"? "lol"

I haven't abandoned the PK argument. I still think that is one of the reasons Smith was mishandled early in his career. The same way I would think putting Hronek on the PK in his first season or two would be a blunder by the coaching staff.

I'm still discussing because you're still telling me my opinion is "wrong", which I find ridiculous. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for you to accept an opinion (as stupid as you may think it is), and move on...

I agree with a lot of your hockey views / opinions, but one I do disagree with is your opinion of Babcock being the best coach in the NHL. However, I'm not going to spend countless hours trying to prove your opinion wrong...

Share this post


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

Imagine the backlash if I used Karlsson as a comparison to Smith in any way, shape or form... You're comparing one of the best defensemen in the game today to Brendan Smith... There are a lot of elite defensemen that play penalty-kill. They play both special teams because the coach usually never wants them off the ice. You know who else plays PK? Subban, Doughty, etc. Smith is obviously not any of these players, nor was he ever in the conversation to be...

Sure, if that was the only reason I've stated. It wasn't though. Do you think playing with career AHL defensemen coming into the league was the best situation for your highly touted first round pick? I don't.

If Cholowski or Hronek make the team in the next year or two and are paired with the equivalent of Doug Janik / Brian Lashoff for their first couple years and play penalty kill and see very little power-play opportunity, I will say the same thing; they're being mishandled. Maybe they overcome that, like others have in this league, or maybe they fade out because of a lack of mental toughness. I would hope it would be the former, but then again, I hope they're never put in that sort of situation to find out. Put your players (especially your high draft picks) in the best situation to succeed early on in their careers. That's all I ask.

download.jpg.73e0da0d0e869a39d79f0936f8981539.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

download.jpg.73e0da0d0e869a39d79f0936f8981539.jpg

Hold your Hogans. The whole "mishandled" thing is just a pile of excuses being made because certain people just can't admit they were wrong in they're predictions about some players, or ever admit anything negative about players they like. Have to have someone to blame for making them wrong.

Saying Smith was mishandled is the exact same baseless conjecture that fuels most criticism: Imagine some hypothetical world where something was done differently, then assume the end result would have been better. Doesn't actually matter what was done, and people often don't even understand what the reality was anyway. Had a player been handled in the exact way they suggest, and still failed, that way would then be "mishandling". Can't really argue against it, as these people will just hide behind "opinion", and say you can't prove it wrong. If you debunk their version of reality, they'll just ignore it or maybe think up some new excuse.

Some stats:

  TOI CF/60 CA/60 CF% Rel CF% GF/60 GA/60 GF% Rel GF% xGF/60 xGA/60 xGF% Rel xGF% ZSR
KYLE.QUINCEY 718.43 54.87 46.6 54.07 1.52 2.17 1.84 54.17 2.79 2.11 1.8 54.06 3.65 55.11
NIKLAS.KRONWALL 469.88 57.72 45.84 55.73 2.7 2.17 2.17 50 -1.85 2.22 2.16 50.68 -1.19 51.62
BRIAN.LASHOFF 286.52 49.21 45.23 52.11 -0.08 1.68 2.51 40 -9.57 1.78 1.82 49.48 -1.59 64.24
JAKUB.KINDL 166.51 54.05 42.52 55.97 3.8 3.24 1.8 64.29 5.89 2.06 1.6 56.3 4.34 63.29
DOUG.JANIK 95.43 57.84 37.72 60.53 7.46 2.51 1.89 57.14 1.59 2.68 1.97 57.65 9.46 60.47
                             

That's Smith's most frequent defense partners 5v5 from 2011-12 through 2013-14. Aside from Lashoff, he actually did better the more sheltered he was. His individual numbers were good with Kronwall, but the team was worse. Wasn't good with Lashoff overall, but much of that time was due to other players being injured, then one stretch when we were using Q-Deke as a shutdown pair. 

There's no foundation to complain about the partners he was given. Yeah, sucks for him (and everyone else) that we didn't have infinite Lidstroms to give everyone, but considering our reality he fared well enough.

  GP TOI G/60 P/60 P1/60 iCF/60 iSF/60 CF/60 SF/60 GF/60 xGF/60
BRENDAN.SMITH 119 75.46 0.8 3.18 1.59 23.06 7.95 85.87 36.58 3.98 5.14
DANNY.DEKEYSER 76 108.29 0.55 2.77 1.66 14.41 8.87 84.77 49.31 5.54 4.65
IAN.WHITE 102 289.92 0 2.07 0.83 29.39 12.42 103.89 49.46 4.35 6.42
JAKUB.KINDL 162 274.14 0.22 2.63 0.88 24.95 12.04 93.67 49.46 4.16 5.82
KYLE.QUINCEY 190 237.11 1.01 2.53 1.27 27.33 12.91 86.04 46.31 5.82 6.31
NIKLAS.KRONWALL 209 660.11 1.18 4.64 2.45 26 11.45 104.26 55.26 7.82 7.55

That's some individual and on-ice PP stats over the same period. The time for White was mostly in 11-12. Dekeyser mostly in 13-14. About half of Quincey's was with Colorado. After Lidstrom left (and took the good part of White with him), finding someone for the 2nd PP unit was a struggle. Smith had his chance, he just wasn't that good. Kindl and Dekeyser weren't much better, and worse in some ways, but no good cause for complaint about Smith's lack of PP time, other than to shake your fist at the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around Brendan Smith.

Didn't dig up any PK stats, aside from Smith being 5th or lower in the PK order. He wasn't a regular. He was only used when the regulars weren't available, and the other options were worse. Unless it's "mishandling" to allow your regular Pkers to take penalties, get injured, or be tired from just taking their shift this isn't a legitimate complaint either. 

Bottom line is there was no mishandling, other than the world being imperfect and the Wings not existing for the sole purpose of making Brendan Smith look good. It's just certain someones being upset that a player they liked didn't turn out that good, and it makes them feel better to blame it on someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even bother reading what @Neomaxizoomdweebie was quoting when he used his Hogan "Amen Brother!" meme? It had absolutely nothing to do with Smith, but rather Cholowski and Hronek. Since you responded to his quote though, how would you respond if they made the NHL playing with AHL quality defensemen? What about if they were deployed on the penalty kill and not the power-play? What about if they were constantly in and out of the lineup due to "rookie mistakes"? You'd obviously say that was the best situation for them, nothing should have been done differently... I'd say they were being mishandled, the same way I've said from day one that Smith was being mishandled. That's the thing, I could understand people saying "he's just looking for an excuse", if I wasn't vocal about his misusage from the beginning. If I acted like his usage was fine 5 years ago, and after he failed to meet expectations, all of a sudden said "well he was mishandled", I'd understand the backlash. That's far from the case though.

"Pile of excuses being made because certain people just can't admit they were wrong in they're predictions about some players". LOL except for the fact that I admitted many, many times that I was wrong about my prediction of Smith. You guys continuously say that I won't admit I was wrong, when I have several times, or say that I think it was all on management, when I've said continuously that it was partially on management. I've admitted several negative things about Smith, mainly his inability to fight through adversity. To be a good pro athlete, you have to be mentally strong, Smith obviously wasn't. You guys just can't admit that Smith's failures may have had something to do with this organization...

You can disagree, but that doesn't make either opinion right or wrong. This is about how we believe high end prospects should be developed / transitioned into the NHL. I think these types of players, especially the highly skilled, offensive guys, should be handled much differently then your average prospect. You think it's okay to play them with scrubs, in a role they've never played in their entire hockey career, constantly in and out of the lineup. I don't.

You're right about one thing though. I have no idea if Smith would have turned out better if he had been handled differently, just like you guys have no idea that he wouldn't. One thing's for sure though, I wouldn't have said s*** if I truly believed he was put in an optimal situation to succeed. He wasn't. Anyway, it's all conjecture, which is why it's beyond ridiculous that this is still being discussed. Get over yourselves. Everything is NOT black and white. There is room for interpretation on the way individual players were handled. Not everyone is going to agree. For most people, that's okay. For the few that always have to be "right", differing opinions scare them...

 

Share this post


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

Krsmith, Buppy, CRL and Kickazz

Bunch of annoying “always gotta be right” posters that just refuse to move on.

We’re all brothers from another mother.

Yup, I always have to be right, despite the fact that I said I was wrong... It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last.

I could be wrong that any sort of change in the way Smith (or any other player) was developed, would have made any real difference in the player he is today as well. I think he could have been used differently, and maybe been a better player because of that. Again, I could be wrong on that, but there's no real way to know for sure. But for you, CRL and Buppy to say I'm wrong based on something so subjective, something there's absolutely no way to determine to be true or false, is asinine.

Share this post


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

Did you even bother reading what @Neomaxizoomdweebie was quoting when he used his Hogan "Amen Brother!" meme? It had absolutely nothing to do with Smith, but rather Cholowski and Hronek. Since you responded to his quote though, how would you respond if they made the NHL playing with AHL quality defensemen? What about if they were deployed on the penalty kill and not the power-play? What about if they were constantly in and out of the lineup due to "rookie mistakes"? You'd obviously say that was the best situation for them, nothing should have been done differently... I'd say they were being mishandled, the same way I've said from day one that Smith was being mishandled. That's the thing, I could understand people saying "he's just looking for an excuse", if I wasn't vocal about his misusage from the beginning. If I acted like his usage was fine 5 years ago, and after he failed to meet expectations, all of a sudden said "well he was mishandled", I'd understand the backlash. That's far from the case though.

"Pile of excuses being made because certain people just can't admit they were wrong in they're predictions about some players". LOL except for the fact that I admitted many, many times that I was wrong about my prediction of Smith. You guys continuously say that I won't admit I was wrong, when I have several times, or say that I think it was all on management, when I've said continuously that it was partially on management. I've admitted several negative things about Smith, mainly his inability to fight through adversity. To be a good pro athlete, you have to be mentally strong, Smith obviously wasn't. You guys just can't admit that Smith's failures may have had something to do with this organization...

You can disagree, but that doesn't make either opinion right or wrong. This is about how we believe high end prospects should be developed / transitioned into the NHL. I think these types of players, especially the highly skilled, offensive guys, should be handled much differently then your average prospect. You think it's okay to play them with scrubs, in a role they've never played in their entire hockey career, constantly in and out of the lineup. I don't.

You're right about one thing though. I have no idea if Smith would have turned out better if he had been handled differently, just like you guys have no idea that he wouldn't. One thing's for sure though, I wouldn't have said s*** if I truly believed he was put in an optimal situation to succeed. He wasn't. Anyway, it's all conjecture, which is why it's beyond ridiculous that this is still being discussed. Get over yourselves. Everything is NOT black and white. There is room for interpretation on the way individual players were handled. Not everyone is going to agree. For most people, that's okay. For the few that always have to be "right", differing opinions scare them...

The Amen was based on a false premise, so I debunked that premise. That's what you're not getting. It's not about your opinion that things might have been better if things had been done differently. I think that's a ridiculous thing to say, because you can literally say that about anything, but whatever.

My main objection though is that the things you are saying were done wrong either didn't happen in the way you present or are perfectly normal.

You complained that he shouldn't have started 12-13 in GR, because you forgot about the lockout. You were digging for something to complain about, so you didn't do your due diligence.

You say "played with AHL quality defensemen", when that is not an accurate depiction of what really happened. He played ~70% with Quincey or Kronwall his first couple full years. Had some sheltered time with worse partners, but mostly did well in that role. You're greatly exaggerating.

You say "deployed on the penalty kill and not the power-play". From 11-12 through 13-14 he played ~102 minutes on the PK, and ~76 on the PP. take out 13-14 and it's 44 PK, 64 PP. The only regular to play less on the PK was Kindl, with White around the same. Didn't get much PP opportunity, but he had his chance. Again you are greatly exaggerating. There was never any attempt to mold him into something he wasn't.

You say "constantly in and out of the lineup due to "rookie mistakes"". That's so exaggerated as to basically be outright false. His first year he was scratched three times late in the year. 2nd year had four consecutive games early, then one late. 3rd year was only scratched the last game of season (and first couple playoff games).

That's why I suggest you're just making excuses. You're not looking at anything even close to objectively. And some people thought he'd be a Calder candidate in 12-13, then he had 1 assist in his first 19 games. So the excuses started immediately.

Could things have been better if done differently? Maybe. Or maybe even worse. But second guessing in hindsight is not a valid foundation for saying the organization mishandled him. 

Share this post


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

Smitty was a +4 last game.  I think what frustrates us all is that we all know he could be really good if he had a hockey iq.  His toolset is enormous.  But he's like frankenstein when it comes to hockey smarts.  He just doesn't have that it.  

I dont think the +/- matters, but I agree with the rest of this. When you watch him play you can tell he is talented, but it just rarely led to production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2017 at 9:23 PM, Jonas Mahonas said:

How is using a first round pick, spending 7 years developing him into a capable defenseman in his prime, and then trading him away for a 2nd and 3rd a "good job"?  The Wings are in a bad way right now.  They could have every 1st round pick next year, and it wouldnt matter.  I guess most people still haven't come to realize that our GM has no idea what he's doing.  Cleary, Miller, long term contract after long term contract.  You'd think everybody would realize that Holland is the biggest problem we have.  

 

Oh well, just sucks for us.  I'm sure Smith isn't shedding any tears.  Getting traded from the Red Wings must feel like breaking out of prison.

Because where a player is drafted is irrelevant to how they develop.  Being drafted in the first round just means scouts feel you have the potential to be good.  Lots of players never hit their potential.  In fact, a lot of players who are drafted int he bottom 3rd of the first round never turn out as good as Smith or Sheahan.

 

Or are you saying they should have traded him after 2 or 3 years?

Edited by DickieDunn

Share this post


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

Did you even bother reading what @Neomaxizoomdweebie was quoting when he used his Hogan "Amen Brother!" meme? It had absolutely nothing to do with Smith, but rather Cholowski and Hronek. Since you responded to his quote though, how would you respond if they made the NHL playing with AHL quality defensemen? What about if they were deployed on the penalty kill and not the power-play? What about if they were constantly in and out of the lineup due to "rookie mistakes"? You'd obviously say that was the best situation for them, nothing should have been done differently... I'd say they were being mishandled, the same way I've said from day one that Smith was being mishandled. That's the thing, I could understand people saying "he's just looking for an excuse", if I wasn't vocal about his misusage from the beginning. If I acted like his usage was fine 5 years ago, and after he failed to meet expectations, all of a sudden said "well he was mishandled", I'd understand the backlash. That's far from the case though.

"Pile of excuses being made because certain people just can't admit they were wrong in they're predictions about some players". LOL except for the fact that I admitted many, many times that I was wrong about my prediction of Smith. You guys continuously say that I won't admit I was wrong, when I have several times, or say that I think it was all on management, when I've said continuously that it was partially on management. I've admitted several negative things about Smith, mainly his inability to fight through adversity. To be a good pro athlete, you have to be mentally strong, Smith obviously wasn't. You guys just can't admit that Smith's failures may have had something to do with this organization...

You can disagree, but that doesn't make either opinion right or wrong. This is about how we believe high end prospects should be developed / transitioned into the NHL. I think these types of players, especially the highly skilled, offensive guys, should be handled much differently then your average prospect. You think it's okay to play them with scrubs, in a role they've never played in their entire hockey career, constantly in and out of the lineup. I don't.

You're right about one thing though. I have no idea if Smith would have turned out better if he had been handled differently, just like you guys have no idea that he wouldn't. One thing's for sure though, I wouldn't have said s*** if I truly believed he was put in an optimal situation to succeed. He wasn't. Anyway, it's all conjecture, which is why it's beyond ridiculous that this is still being discussed. Get over yourselves. Everything is NOT black and white. There is room for interpretation on the way individual players were handled. Not everyone is going to agree. For most people, that's okay. For the few that always have to be "right", differing opinions scare them...

 

Correct. My meme was in response to the idea that hopefully the team puts the kids in the best possible situation to succeed. How is that a false premise? I bolded the entire paragraph because I agree with the overall message, not necessarily the exact verbage. Maybe I should only bold specific words next time? I guess I can't like some of what you say without agreeing with everything you say? Do I have that right?

Nowhere was I implying that Smith WAS mismanaged (don't care), or that the kids WILL BE. But it is possible to mismanage a player, is it not? Whether or not Smith was, has nothing to do with it. I, like you, am hoping that the team does what is in the best interests of their development. Shouldn't we all hope for that?

I don't care who Smith's D partners were, cuz it has nothing to do with the kids. Different coach now. But, is it not reasonable to believe that a prospect will develop better when he is partnered with a better quality Dman? Again, whether or not Smith was is irrelevant to that premise. This team has some low quality defensemen on it, and I hope that none of the kids are partnered with them, but instead with guys like Green, Daley, Kronner, etc cuz they just might learn more! I know, crazy right? 

I have no dog in this fight. I have said before that I always thought that Smith had the tools to be a 4/5 guy. In reality, he's not. I don't know whether he was mismanaged or not, I simply don't know and it would be arrogant of me to say otherwise. What I can say is that I BELIEVE that in the end its irrelevant, because he was never going to be more than a 3rd pairing defenseman regardless of how he was developed. Can we please move on?

Not angry with YOU at all BTW, and I appreciate your response. 

 

6 hours ago, Buppy said:

The Amen was based on a false premise, so I debunked that premise. That's what you're not getting. It's not about your opinion that things might have been better if things had been done differently. I think that's a ridiculous thing to say, because you can literally say that about anything, but whatever.

My main objection though is that the things you are saying were done wrong either didn't happen in the way you present or are perfectly normal.

You complained that he shouldn't have started 12-13 in GR, because you forgot about the lockout. You were digging for something to complain about, so you didn't do your due diligence.

You say "played with AHL quality defensemen", when that is not an accurate depiction of what really happened. He played ~70% with Quincey or Kronwall his first couple full years. Had some sheltered time with worse partners, but mostly did well in that role. You're greatly exaggerating.

You say "deployed on the penalty kill and not the power-play". From 11-12 through 13-14 he played ~102 minutes on the PK, and ~76 on the PP. take out 13-14 and it's 44 PK, 64 PP. The only regular to play less on the PK was Kindl, with White around the same. Didn't get much PP opportunity, but he had his chance. Again you are greatly exaggerating. There was never any attempt to mold him into something he wasn't.

You say "constantly in and out of the lineup due to "rookie mistakes"". That's so exaggerated as to basically be outright false. His first year he was scratched three times late in the year. 2nd year had four consecutive games early, then one late. 3rd year was only scratched the last game of season (and first couple playoff games).

That's why I suggest you're just making excuses. You're not looking at anything even close to objectively. And some people thought he'd be a Calder candidate in 12-13, then he had 1 assist in his first 19 games. So the excuses started immediately.

Could things have been better if done differently? Maybe. Or maybe even worse. But second guessing in hindsight is not a valid foundation for saying the organization mishandled him. 

To be fair, krsmith is not second guessing in hindsight. He has questioned how Smith was being developed for years, from the very beginning of his pro career That's not hindsight. If it was, I would agree with you.

One thing I will say tho is that you always have the stats/figures and such to back up what you say. Respect. Even if I don't always agree with you.

Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie

Share this post


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

Yup, I always have to be right, despite the fact that I said I was wrong... It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last.

I could be wrong that any sort of change in the way Smith (or any other player) was developed, would have made any real difference in the player he is today as well. I think he could have been used differently, and maybe been a better player because of that. Again, I could be wrong on that, but there's no real way to know for sure. But for you, CRL and Buppy to say I'm wrong based on something so subjective, something there's absolutely no way to determine to be true or false, is asinine.

:ok:

Whatever you say man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Correct. My meme was in response to the idea that hopefully the team puts the kids in the best possible situation to succeed. How is that a false premise? I bolded the entire paragraph because I agree with the overall message, not necessarily the exact verbage. Maybe I should only bold specific words next time? I guess I can't like some of what you say without agreeing with everything you say? Do I have that right?

Nowhere was I implying that Smith WAS mismanaged (don't care), or that the kids WILL BE. But it is possible to mismanage a player, is it not? Whether or not Smith was, has nothing to do with it. I, like you, am hoping that the team does what is in the best interests of their development. Shouldn't we all hope for that?

I don't care who Smith's D partners were, cuz it has nothing to do with the kids. Different coach now. But, is it not reasonable to believe that a prospect will develop better when he is partnered with a better quality Dman? Again, whether or not Smith was is irrelevant to that premise. This team has some low quality defensemen on it, and I hope that none of the kids are partnered with them, but instead with guys like Green, Daley, Kronner, etc cuz they just might learn more! I know, crazy right? 

I have no dog in this fight. I have said before that I always thought that Smith had the tools to be a 4/5 guy. In reality, he's not. I don't know whether he was mismanaged or not, I simply don't know and it would be arrogant of me to say otherwise. What I can say is that I BELIEVE that in the end its irrelevant, because he was never going to be more than a 3rd pairing defenseman regardless of how he was developed. Can we please move on?

Not angry with YOU at all BTW, and I appreciate your response. 

 

To be fair, krsmith is not second guessing in hindsight. He has questioned how Smith was being developed for years, from the very beginning of his pro career That's not hindsight. If it was, I would agree with you.

One thing I will say tho is that you always have the stats/figures and such to back up what you say. Respect. Even if I don't always agree with you.

Yeah. So let's say I say I hope our prospects are never kidnapped, dressed up like leprechauns, and taken to the LCA basement for our management group to shoot baby snapping turtles at them with slingshots. Can I get an Amen? Or is your first response going to be something normal, like "That's a weird thing to say.", then question whether or not it's a valid concern. 

Replying the way you did implicitly lends some bit of credence to the original complaint, even if that isn't what you intended. You should take my reply as something along the lines of, "That's not something we should even be worried about. Here's why:...". 

Regarding your comments on partners, while a fair enough statement on it's own, it is inherently ideological. You have to allow for reality. The reality is we may not have a great situation to offer a prospect, but that doesn't mean that prospect is being mismanaged. 

Like Forrest Gump said, "Life is like a box of chocolates; sometimes one of them is Brian Lashoff." Sure, you hope for a cherry, and you'd settle for nougat, but sometimes you bite into a Lashoff. It's gross, but you rinse your mouth out and move on. You don't go to the confectioner and complain about him making Lashoff truffles, do you? OK, bad analogy, but I think you get the point. If we have bad players, someone has to play with them. I don't think you can call it mishandling if that were to be a good prospect at times, nor would I expect that to have any impact on the prospect.

Maybe it's just a matter of how we want to define "mismanagement/mishandling". For any prospect or player, mistakes will be made. Teams are going to try things that don't work out or there will be situations where you just have to bite the Lashoff for lack of any good options. I think before you can label something as mismanagement, it has to fall some degree below whatever baseline you define as normal, rather than just below whatever you want to imagine would have been optimal.

And hindsight is hindsight, whether the complaints come immediately after whatever event or 5 years later. Of course it didn't start out as being about Smith not developing as well as was hoped, it just evolved into that. Started out more as excuses for why he wasn't producing. I do find it a bit amusing that the fact that Smith was disappointing pretty much from the start is being used as evidence that he should have turned out better. But that's kind of beside the point. Main point is that the complaints are being driven by the negative result, and the specific examples are just a conscious effort to interpret reality in a way that fits his hypothesis. While I can't say with absolute certainty that, if Smith had been handled in the exact manner he would now suggest and still failed to reach his potential, he would now be nitpicking that manner as "mishandling", but...

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Buppy said:

Yeah. So let's say I say I hope our prospects are never kidnapped, dressed up like leprechauns, and taken to the LCA basement for our management group to shoot baby snapping turtles at them with slingshots. Can I get an Amen? Or is your first response going to be something normal, like "That's a weird thing to say.", then question whether or not it's a valid concern. 

Replying the way you did implicitly lends some bit of credence to the original complaint, even if that isn't what you intended. You should take my reply as something along the lines of, "That's not something we should even be worried about. Here's why:...". 

Regarding your comments on partners, while a fair enough statement on it's own, it is inherently ideological. You have to allow for reality. The reality is we may not have a great situation to offer a prospect, but that doesn't mean that prospect is being mismanaged. 

Like Forrest Gump said, "Life is like a box of chocolates; sometimes one of them is Brian Lashoff." Sure, you hope for a cherry, and you'd settle for nougat, but sometimes you bite into a Lashoff. It's gross, but you rinse your mouth out and move on. You don't go to the confectioner and complain about him making Lashoff truffles, do you? OK, bad analogy, but I think you get the point. If we have bad players, someone has to play with them. I don't think you can call it mishandling if that were to be a good prospect at times, nor would I expect that to have any impact on the prospect.

Maybe it's just a matter of how we want to define "mismanagement/mishandling". For any prospect or player, mistakes will be made. Teams are going to try things that don't work out or there will be situations where you just have to bite the Lashoff for lack of any good options. I think before you can label something as mismanagement, it has to fall some degree below whatever baseline you define as normal, rather than just below whatever you want to imagine would have been optimal.

And hindsight is hindsight, whether the complaints come immediately after whatever event or 5 years later. Of course it didn't start out as being about Smith not developing as well as was hoped, it just evolved into that. Started out more as excuses for why he wasn't producing. I do find it a bit amusing that the fact that Smith was disappointing pretty much from the start is being used as evidence that he should have turned out better. But that's kind of beside the point. Main point is that the complaints are being driven by the negative result, and the specific examples are just a conscious effort to interpret reality in a way that fits his hypothesis. While I can't say with absolute certainty that, if Smith had been handled in the exact manner he would now suggest and still failed to reach his potential, he would now be nitpicking that manner as "mishandling", but...

First bold: No, because that would be ridiculous and unrealistic. Apples and oranges. The possibility that krsmith laid out is a very real possibility, yours is not.

2nd bold: Fair enough, but I am basing my concern on what I am already seeing. I see Frk, a still developing forward, being placed on the 4th line. I BELIEVE that that is not the best way to manage him. I know there a lot of others who would agree with that. I think he would be better off off playing with better caliber forwards farther up in the lineup. If I believe that Frk is being mishandled, would it not also be reasonable to think that other prospects could be as well? A very real possibility based on a combination of both fact and opinion. You can disagree if you want, but that doesn't mean that my opinion/concern is without merit. It's insulting to say otherwise.

3rd bold: I agree to some extent. However, this team has SOME defensemen on it that would make better partners for developing players. Not all of them are bad. So, why not pair the better ones with the kids? Seems logical, right? What's not logical is to argue that a student will always turn out the same regardless of who the teacher is. If you're a parent, would you rather have your kid taught in the classroom with the "Teacher of the Year" with a proven track record of success or a teacher whose history shows them to be mediocre at best? Would you expect the same outcome by that analogy? I wouldn't, but based on your analogy there has to be some bad teachers, right? So I guess we shouldn't care what teacher our kids get then because they're going to turn out however they turn out no matter what? And if they get bad grades, it can't be the teacher, right? They're just a dumb kid. And maybe that's not "mismanaging", but I know I would be p****d if my kid didn't get the best teacher they could and their "development" suffered for it. Why should I feel any differently about the "kids" on this team?

 

Share this post


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

First bold: No, because that would be ridiculous and unrealistic. Apples and oranges. The possibility that krsmith laid out is a very real possibility, yours is not.

2nd bold: Fair enough, but I am basing my concern on what I am already seeing. I see Frk, a still developing forward, being placed on the 4th line. I BELIEVE that that is not the best way to manage him. I know there a lot of others who would agree with that. I think he would be better off off playing with better caliber forwards farther up in the lineup. If I believe that Frk is being mishandled, would it not also be reasonable to think that other prospects could be as well? A very real possibility based on a combination of both fact and opinion. You can disagree if you want, but that doesn't mean that my opinion/concern is without merit. It's insulting to say otherwise.

3rd bold: I agree to some extent. However, this team has SOME defensemen on it that would make better partners for developing players. Not all of them are bad. So, why not pair the better ones with the kids? Seems logical, right? What's not logical is to argue that a student will always turn out the same regardless of who the teacher is. If you're a parent, would you rather have your kid taught in the classroom with the "Teacher of the Year" with a proven track record of success or a teacher whose history shows them to be mediocre at best? Would you expect the same outcome by that analogy? I wouldn't, but based on your analogy there has to be some bad teachers, right? So I guess we shouldn't care what teacher our kids get then because they're going to turn out however they turn out no matter what? And if they get bad grades, it can't be the teacher, right? They're just a dumb kid. And maybe that's not "mismanaging", but I know I would be p****d if my kid didn't get the best teacher they could and their "development" suffered for it. Why should I feel any differently about the "kids" on this team?

Yeah, that was kind of the point...I was suggesting that the idea of our prospects being mishandled is unrealistic. Though I guess that depends on how you want to define it. 

Larkin 51.78
Nielsen 50.17
Helm 48.87
Mantha 40.43
Wilson 29.68
Glendening 25.66
Athanasiou 20.6
Tatar 16.31
Zetterberg 11.12
Abdelkader 7.97
Nyquist 5.66
Witkowski 3.96
Sheahan 3.91

 

Those are Frk's linemates this year 5v5. If you think he's being mismanaged, I'd suggest your standards are unrealistic. I'd say if you applied that same standard consistently throughout the league you'd find that "mismanagement" would be by far the most common treatment of prospects. Personally I think that would be ridiculous, so I would look for a standard that makes some more sense.

You're acting like it's a reasonable fear to think a good prospect is going to get stuck exclusively with s*** partners. It is not reasonable. Look at Smith...2nd most common partner was our best defenseman. Most common was another top 4, arguably 2nd best at times. Frk: good amount of time with good players, even some of our best. Any other player you want to look at is going to show similar results. So the answer to "why not pair the better ones with the kids?" is that they will be, just not likely all the time. It won't always be possible or in the best interest of the team.

Furthermore, a prospect isn't only learning/developing from their partner while on the ice. The whole team, and the coaches, and the trainers are all teachers, and class is still in session off the ice. So I would argue that it is completely logical to suggest that a prospect will develop the same even if they have to spend some of their icetime with weak linemates.

At the risk of making this too much about the analogy, what you're arguing is more like trying to blame your kids D average throughout high school on having a s***ty substitute history teacher for a month in 10th grade, ignoring all the good teachers he had and all the A students who took the same class.

Sorry if you find it insulting, but I have to say I think your opinion/concern is without merit.

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