Ken Holland "We protected our best goaltender"

[toby91_ca 620]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

Like I said before, it's fine to be optimistic about his potential, and no one is arguing against giving him another shot. Just that we shouldn't be saying Sproul was as good as Ouellet because we think someday he'll be better. Or that we prefer the "offensive" guy over the "defensive" guy, and criticizing the coach for doing the opposite, when in fact the defensive guy is also providing more offense. 

 

 

Perhaps you can "factually" state that Ouellet provide more offense last season (12 pts vs. 7pts), he also did in in 66 games vs. Sproul's 27 games.  I'm not really getting into the who's better argument, but I think I'd agree, right now, XO has been better.  He hasn't been better offensively though and there are factual stats to back that up (last 5 seasons in all leagues, junior, AHL and NHL):

Sproul - reg season - 321 gp, 50g, 121pts (0.16gpg, 0.38ppg), playoffs - 30gp, 6g, 19pts (0.20gpg, 0.63ppg)

Ouellet - reg reason - 329 gp, 24g, 95pts (0.07gpg, 0.29ppg), playoffs - 49gp, 10g, 26pts (0.20gpg, 0.53ppg)

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Maltby was considered a sniper/scorer in juniors. He was a bottom 6 grinder in the NHL.
Just because Sproul was an offensive D-man in other leagues doesn't mean he'll ever be one in the NHL. He might continue to try to play that style, but if he does so unsuccessfully I wouldn't considered him an NHL puckmover. 

[Jacksoni 418]

Thought this thread was about Ken Holland and goalie protection. Got derailed as many other countless threads.

Yes, I concur with KH, we protected our best goaltender. Yes, he's getting up there in age but he is certainly not old and can produce. And Mrazek seems to need a kick in the booty in order to see if he's going to wake up and play to what many of us thinks he can. I for one am looking forward to the goalie battle next season. Many a times the only thing that kept us in games were them. Mostly Howard.

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

I'm guessing that if Sproul struggles again then whatever shot he's given won't be fair in your mind. The new Jurco.

Can you say definitively that Jurco was given a fair shot? No, just like I can't say definitively that he wasn't. It's all conjecture. I do believe he was mishandled. Whether you agree with that or not means absolutely nothing to me. But for whatever reason, it bothers some people when someone says something they don't necessarily agree with, even if it is just an opinion. I think Sproul needs a solid stretch of games once he's healthy, to get into a rhythm and gain some confidence. If he's given as much rope as a guy like Ericsson has been given in regards to turnovers and poor play, and he still looks out of place, then scratch him. He's an RFA at the end of this season. If he doesn't impress by then, let him walk. Simple as that.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Maltby was considered a sniper/scorer in juniors. He was a bottom 6 grinder in the NHL.
Just because Sproul was an offensive D-man in other leagues doesn't mean he'll ever be one in the NHL. He might continue to try to play that style, but if he does so unsuccessfully I wouldn't considered him an NHL puckmover. 

No one is saying that Sproul will be a good offensive defenseman at the NHL level. All we're saying is, at this point in his career, he has always been known for his offensive ability, which gave him the label of "offensive defenseman". A 28 game stretch is not going to change that one way or another. He's still a defenseman that would like to play an offensive style game, he just hasn't been able to do it at the highest level yet. Maybe he never will.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

17 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Can you say definitively that Jurco was given a fair shot? No, just like I can't say definitively that he wasn't. It's all conjecture. I do believe he was mishandled. Whether you agree with that or not means absolutely nothing to me. But for whatever reason, it bothers some people when someone says something they don't necessarily agree with, even if it is just an opinion. I think Sproul needs a solid stretch of games once he's healthy, to get into a rhythm and gain some confidence. If he's given as much rope as a guy like Ericsson has been given in regards to turnovers and poor play, and he still looks out of place, then scratch him. He's an RFA at the end of this season. If he doesn't impress by then, let him walk. Simple as that.

No one is saying that Sproul will be a good offensive defenseman at the NHL level. All we're saying is, at this point in his career, he has always been known for his offensive ability, which gave him the label of "offensive defenseman". A 28 game stretch is not going to change that one way or another. He's still a defenseman that would like to play an offensive style game, he just hasn't been able to do it at the highest level yet. Maybe he never will.

We're saying the same thing

[Jacksoni 418]

We need more data on Sproul. I hope he's healthy and can play and is given the chance this coming season. The hockey lords know we need an(other) offensive defenseman. Our back doesn't look too sharp regarding that. Except for Green we don't have excessively offensive minded d-men.

If he blossoms he could fill that role on our second pairing. However as a tidbit, my takeaway thoughts about Sproul last season was that he looked good offensively but looked damn bad defensively. I would like to be proven wrong next season.

Edit addon: Another tidbit: he can skate. As in he can Skate. A prerequisite for offensive danger.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Jacksoni

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, toby91_ca said:

Perhaps you can "factually" state that Ouellet provide more offense last season (12 pts vs. 7pts), he also did in in 66 games vs. Sproul's 27 games.  I'm not really getting into the who's better argument, but I think I'd agree, right now, XO has been better.  He hasn't been better offensively though and there are factual stats to back that up (last 5 seasons in all leagues, junior, AHL and NHL):

Sproul - reg season - 321 gp, 50g, 121pts (0.16gpg, 0.38ppg), playoffs - 30gp, 6g, 19pts (0.20gpg, 0.63ppg)

Ouellet - reg reason - 329 gp, 24g, 95pts (0.07gpg, 0.29ppg), playoffs - 49gp, 10g, 26pts (0.20gpg, 0.53ppg)

But I'm talking about who was better this year, in the NHL. How they scored in juniors/AHL doesn't mean anything. 

Sproul had a better ppg and p/60 rate when looking at all situations, I'll give him that. However, that isn't a very fair comparison. Sproul got significant PP time and almost no SH time, while Ouellet was the exact opposite. Sproul's smaller sample size is also more subject to skewing.

5v5 scoring rates for the two were nearly identical. Sproul was more sheltered, getting much more favorable offensive deployment. Individual shot rates were similar. With Ouellet on the ice, the team took more shot attempts, more shots on net, and scored more.

That's why I say he produced more offense, not because of his total points. And that in addition to being better defensively.

[chaps80 1,591]

Howard last year was better then Mrazek. Like the move or not, it worked out.

None of the goalies would have been taken, especially after all the stuff management let fly about Mrazek's attitude. He was and is the best asset, and may have been taken if all there was for LV to worry about was a poor season, but other factors obv weighed in. With the way Holland operates, I don't think the smear he put on Mrazek was to see he gets claimed, but the opposite. Talk s*** about him, LV backs off, he keeps his asset and the potential he has in him. And, he can still be happy about the fact he gave his love Howard protected status. Don't wanna piss off a guy who's done soooo much for the franchise in his career, now do we Kenny?

Howard-Approaching mid-30's, injury prone, inconsistent, lacklustre playoff goalie.

Mrazek- Inconsistent, attitude, and a poor work ethic when he's at a crossroads and needs to work a lot harder and ditch that aggressive playing style that gets him exposed.

Coreau-Inconsistent, few holes in his game to fix, plays small for a big goalie, needs more AHL time.

Not exactly a list that would leave a GM salivating at the thought of taking one. Only one would be Petr, strictly on potential. Holland got away with not losing any though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

 

None of the goalies would have been taken, especially after all the stuff management let fly about Mrazek's attitude. He was and is the best asset, and may have been taken if all there was for LV to worry about was a poor season, but other factors obv weighed in. With the way Holland operates, I don't think the smear he put on Mrazek was to see he gets claimed, but the opposite. Talk s*** about him, LV backs off, he keeps his asset and the potential he has in him. And, he can still be happy about the fact he gave his love Howard protected status. Don't wanna piss off a guy who's done soooo much for the franchise in his career, now do we Kenny?

Howard-Approaching mid-30's, injury prone, inconsistent, lacklustre playoff goalie.

Mrazek- Inconsistent, attitude, and a poor work ethic when he's at a crossroads and needs to work a lot harder and ditch that aggressive playing style that gets him exposed.

Coreau-Inconsistent, few holes in his game to fix, plays small for a big goalie, needs more AHL time.

Not exactly a list that would leave a GM salivating at the thought of taking one. Only one would be Petr, strictly on potential. Holland got away with not losing any though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why doesn't Kronwall get the same cuddly love treatment?

[chaps80 1,591]

Why doesn't Kronwall get the same cuddly love treatment?

He does. Wasnt on the protected list, but no reason to take him at this point, unless to take on salary. I read somewhere he's projected as second pairing D this season and Holland seems to be happy that he and E are/will be ready to go. Oh the joy!

Howard would have been perfectly safe had he been unprotected, just like every other vet except Z. He has about as much value as Kronwall does right now to other teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

 

He does. Wasnt on the protected list, but no reason to take him at this point, unless to take on salary. I read somewhere he's projected as second pairing D this season and Holland seems to be happy that he and E are/will be ready to go. Oh the joy!

Howard would have been perfectly safe had he been unprotected, just like every other vet except Z. He has about as much value as Kronwall does right now to other teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But now Kronwall is pissed off after doing sooooo much for the franchise in his career

[chaps80 1,591]

But now Kronwall is pissed off after doing sooooo much for the franchise in his career

That's really too bad. Not every vet can get protection like Jimmy for no reason I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 minute ago, chaps80 said:

 

That's really too bad. Not every vet can get protection like Jimmy for no reason I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I guess there were better players that Ken needed to protect over Kronwall. Too bad we can't say the same for Howard.

[chaps80 1,591]

I guess there were better players that Ken needed to protect over Kronwall. Too bad we can't say the same for Howard.

Yep. Guess so. But, he pretty much guaranteed Mrazek's protection anyways with his mouth, so I guess it all evens out. Two for one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

 

Yep. Guess so. But, he pretty much guaranteed Mrazek's protection anyways with his mouth, so I guess it all evens out. Two for one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Free protection just by leaking a few news tid bits? Clever move Ken!

[chaps80 1,591]

Free protection just by leaking a few news tid bits? Clever move Ken!

It worked, even when many analysts said it was the biggest mind boggler on the unprotected lists. When you say a goalie has a bad attitude and an ego, ditched practice early, was at odds with the coach, got pissed about losing starts, and wouldn't take any coaching or advice on his play, then yeah, you probably hurt his value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

 

It worked, even when many analysts said it was the biggest mind boggler on the unprotected lists. When you say a goalie has a bad attitude and an ego, ditched practice early, was at odds with the coach, got pissed about losing starts, and wouldn't take any coaching or advice on his play, then yeah, you probably hurt his value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So you agree it was a good move by management?

[chaps80 1,591]

So you agree it was a good move by management?

Just cause it worked (or maybe it didn't, they just wanted a forward with Fleury a sure bet), doesn't mean it was good to talk that much s*** about him. Was kinda surprising coming from the Wings, who usually care about their players and keep things hush for the most part. I don't recall the last time I've heard Holland talk about a player like that. He must really think Mrazek has a lot of talent he's wasting and he's pissed off enough that he hasn't taken the starting job and ran with it to say those things publicly. So maybe it is good? Who the f*** knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 minute ago, chaps80 said:

 

Just cause it worked (or maybe it didn't, they just wanted a forward with Fleury a sure bet), doesn't mean it was good to talk that much s*** about him. Was kinda surprising coming from the Wings, who usually care about their players and keep things hush for the most part. I don't recall the last time I've heard Holland talk about a player like that. He must really think Mrazek has a lot of talent he's wasting and he's pissed off enough that he hasn't taken the starting job and ran with it to say those things publicly. So maybe it is good? Who the f*** knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well you got to keep your boy because of it, that has to be good to you right? 

[kickazz 5,459]

7 hours ago, chaps80 said:

 

Just cause it worked (or maybe it didn't, they just wanted a forward with Fleury a sure bet), doesn't mean it was good to talk that much s*** about him. Was kinda surprising coming from the Wings, who usually care about their players and keep things hush for the most part. I don't recall the last time I've heard Holland talk about a player like that. He must really think Mrazek has a lot of talent he's wasting and he's pissed off enough that he hasn't taken the starting job and ran with it to say those things publicly. So maybe it is good? Who the f*** knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So, what exactly is the whole "Holland talked THAT MUCH s*** about him"? Did he insult his mother, grandfather, and sisters husband or something? Seriously what kind of s*** did Holland talk about Mrazek?? Fill us in on the scoop.

I feel like you're coming up with theories in your head to justify why Mrazek wasn't selected by Vegas lol. Other than the actual fact that Mrazek didn't get selected because they had better options available...? 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by kickazz

[chaps80 1,591]

So, what exactly is the whole "Holland talked THAT MUCH s*** about him"? Did he insult his mother, grandfather, and sisters husband or something? Seriously what kind of s*** did Holland talk about Mrazek?? Fill us in on the scoop.
I feel like you're coming up with theories in your head to justify why Mrazek wasn't selected by Vegas lol. Other than the actual fact that Mrazek didn't get selected because they had better options available...? 
 

We all know what was said. Not going over it again. Holland talked some s***. No theories, I'm glad he wasn't selected. And Fleury had a bad season last year too, although he only played 28 games, but that seems to be a reasonable amount to judge a goalie by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Echolalia 2,961]

I dont know what was said

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, chaps80 said:

 

We all know what was said. Not going over it again. Holland talked some s***. No theories, I'm glad he wasn't selected. And Fleury had a bad season last year too, although he only played 28 games, but that seems to be a reasonable amount to judge a goalie by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No.. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. What did Holland say? I don't think Holland ever " talked s*** " about Mrazek you're acting like he said some awful things. So I'm asking you.. like what? I just google searched and I can't find anything. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

15 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

 

"Petr was too cocky.  The kind of cocky we don't want around here.  There's good cocky, and there's bad cocky.  Let's just say his cocky wasn't the good kind."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2017/06/red_wings_left_petr_mrazek_unp.amp

That's not Holland's words lol and even if it was that's not s*** talking unless you're a sensitive teenager. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 hours ago, kickazz said:

That's not Holland's words lol and even if it was that's not s*** talking unless you're a sensitive teenager. 

You got a problem with sensitive teenagers??