• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Andy Pred 48

Opening night roster v Wild.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

i was huge on sproul as anyone but i lost all types of confidence in him watching him get owned in his own end time after time in the nhl 

 

what i think is halarious is our 4th line (provided we go with abs glen helm) is close to 10mil 

anyone know the league average salary per person is? looks like the wings is around 4 mil per player. just wait til we have to sign larkin and mantha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brett said:

i was huge on sproul as anyone but i lost all types of confidence in him watching him get owned in his own end time after time in the nhl 

 

what i think is halarious is our 4th line (provided we go with abs glen helm) is close to 10mil 

anyone know the league average salary per person is? looks like the wings is around 4 mil per player. just wait til we have to sign larkin and mantha 

If you divide their caphit by number of players then that is the answer. We are second in the league in caphit goes, so considering our roster size is the same as everyone elses, we would be second in that as well.

Today's caphit is $79,417,472 and we have 25 players under contract so the answer is $3,176,698 per player. Though that number could be slightly effected by bonus's from last year and buyouts (ie. Weiss).

Share this post


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

I'm not the only one that believes certain players may have been mismanaged over the past few years. But because you don't believe in that sort of thing, we're wrong? Yeah, okay bud...

Really? Your argument is, "Other people believe it too!"?

And no, it's not a matter of me "not believing in that sort of thing", but rather the mountain of evidence to the contrary that makes me think you're wrong.

By objective analysis, we have been above average in our drafting success...even through more recent years where we have not had any lucky home run picks to bolster the numbers. Our team consists mostly of players we have drafted and developed, and despite a few notable holes and popular opinion, many of them are pretty good. I can't reconcile that success with the notion that we are so bad at development that you feel it's appropriate to make sarcastic "imagine that" comments. 

You might then say that we aren't bad at it, and it's just a few individual exceptions. But then I would have to question the extraordinary coincidence of this supposed mismanagement only afflicting a few prospects that you happened to be notably excited about. 

I also can't agree with what few specifics you have given regarding how and why these players were mishandled. Sproul was bad in pretty much every way you can measure last year. His usage rather perfectly reflected the level of his play. Jurco was worse than every player used above him. Smith never demonstrated any notable scoring ability. There was never anything more than your belief in their potential to justify a different usage. And this myth that the Wings prefer defense, and that "offensive" players are suppressed based on defensive deficiencies doesn't jive with the usage and success of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Larkin, AA, and Vanek (among others in the past), nor with the fact that the offense of these players thus far is really nothing more than, again, your belief in their potential. Nor does the alleged bias against offensive defensemen fit with all the offensive defensemen we've drafted, or the Green signing. 

And now we have some evidence from different organizations, where Smith and Jurco were used basically the same way, with the same results, Jurco has apparently washed out and cleared waivers, Sproul clears waivers...that does undeniably suggest that at least some actual professionals around the league beyond just the Wings have drawn the same conclusions.

So given all the logical incongruity I would have to accept in order to believe your theory, I find it infinitely more plausible that you just made some inaccurate predictions, and these players are just a few more among the dozens upon dozens of prospects each year that fail to meet their more optimistic expectations.

But hey, at least you can still say it's all just your opinion, and I can't actually prove you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Buppy said:

But hey, at least you can still say it's all just your opinion, and I can't actually prove you're wrong.

You leave his wrong opinions alone Buppy. 

32 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Really? Your argument is, "Other people believe it too!"?

And no, it's not a matter of me "not believing in that sort of thing", but rather the mountain of evidence to the contrary that makes me think you're wrong.

By objective analysis, we have been above average in our drafting success...even through more recent years where we have not had any lucky home run picks to bolster the numbers. Our team consists mostly of players we have drafted and developed, and despite a few notable holes and popular opinion, many of them are pretty good. I can't reconcile that success with the notion that we are so bad at development that you feel it's appropriate to make sarcastic "imagine that" comments. 

You might then say that we aren't bad at it, and it's just a few individual exceptions. But then I would have to question the extraordinary coincidence of this supposed mismanagement only afflicting a few prospects that you happened to be notably excited about. 

I also can't agree with what few specifics you have given regarding how and why these players were mishandled. Sproul was bad in pretty much every way you can measure last year. His usage rather perfectly reflected the level of his play. Jurco was worse than every player used above him. Smith never demonstrated any notable scoring ability. There was never anything more than your belief in their potential to justify a different usage. And this myth that the Wings prefer defense, and that "offensive" players are suppressed based on defensive deficiencies doesn't jive with the usage and success of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Larkin, AA, and Vanek (among others in the past), nor with the fact that the offense of these players thus far is really nothing more than, again, your belief in their potential. Nor does the alleged bias against offensive defensemen fit with all the offensive defensemen we've drafted, or the Green signing. 

And now we have some evidence from different organizations, where Smith and Jurco were used basically the same way, with the same results, Jurco has apparently washed out and cleared waivers, Sproul clears waivers...that does undeniably suggest that at least some actual professionals around the league beyond just the Wings have drawn the same conclusions....

I disagree, all the professionals from the 30 teams (GMs, coaches, assistants and player directors) are wrong about Sproul and Jurco (and Pulk, Smith). We at the LGW.com in this case are right. 

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The Red Wings haven't drafted a good D-man since 2000 with Kronwall. Let that sink in.

No.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


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

You leave his wrong opinions alone Buppy. 

I disagree, all the professionals from the 30 teams (GMs, coaches, assistants and player directors) are wrong about Sproul and Jurco (and Pulk, Smith). We at the LGW.com in this case are right. 

No.

Mike Mckee is the next Brian McGrattan

Share this post


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

Really? Your argument is, "Other people believe it too!"?

And no, it's not a matter of me "not believing in that sort of thing", but rather the mountain of evidence to the contrary that makes me think you're wrong.

By objective analysis, we have been above average in our drafting success...even through more recent years where we have not had any lucky home run picks to bolster the numbers. Our team consists mostly of players we have drafted and developed, and despite a few notable holes and popular opinion, many of them are pretty good. I can't reconcile that success with the notion that we are so bad at development that you feel it's appropriate to make sarcastic "imagine that" comments. 

You might then say that we aren't bad at it, and it's just a few individual exceptions. But then I would have to question the extraordinary coincidence of this supposed mismanagement only afflicting a few prospects that you happened to be notably excited about. 

I also can't agree with what few specifics you have given regarding how and why these players were mishandled. Sproul was bad in pretty much every way you can measure last year. His usage rather perfectly reflected the level of his play. Jurco was worse than every player used above him. Smith never demonstrated any notable scoring ability. There was never anything more than your belief in their potential to justify a different usage. And this myth that the Wings prefer defense, and that "offensive" players are suppressed based on defensive deficiencies doesn't jive with the usage and success of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Larkin, AA, and Vanek (among others in the past), nor with the fact that the offense of these players thus far is really nothing more than, again, your belief in their potential. Nor does the alleged bias against offensive defensemen fit with all the offensive defensemen we've drafted, or the Green signing. 

And now we have some evidence from different organizations, where Smith and Jurco were used basically the same way, with the same results, Jurco has apparently washed out and cleared waivers, Sproul clears waivers...that does undeniably suggest that at least some actual professionals around the league beyond just the Wings have drawn the same conclusions.

So given all the logical incongruity I would have to accept in order to believe your theory, I find it infinitely more plausible that you just made some inaccurate predictions, and these players are just a few more among the dozens upon dozens of prospects each year that fail to meet their more optimistic expectations.

But hey, at least you can still say it's all just your opinion, and I can't actually prove you're wrong.

No, my argument isn’t that other people believe it too. I’m just pointing out that I’m not the only one that thinks players may have been mishandled at some point over the past few years.


“Mountain of evidence”? So because we’ve drafted well and other players have developed well in our organization, that proves that no players have been mismanaged in this organization? Yeah, okay… Why are you talking about our drafting success anyway? I’m well aware of our success at drafting and developing players. That doesn’t mean we’ve done a great job at developing every player we’ve drafted though.

A player being brought up too early or too late, constantly in and out of the lineup, asked to change their game, etc. All things that could hamper a player’s development, and coincidentally, things that happened with Jurco and Sproul. The fact that Jurco has gone on to do nothing in a different organization has nothing to do with anything here. His confidence was already shot.

It’s not like Jurco and Sproul were my two favorite prospects, and I wanted them to succeed above anyone else. I just thought they were mishandled early on in their development. I was one of the few (along with Jesusberg) that said back then that Jurco should spend another season in Grand Rapids. The same way I believe that another season in Grand Rapids is best for Svechnikov’s development. If Svech starts this season in Detroit playing 10-12 minutes a night on the 4th line, constantly in and out of the lineup because he’s not altering his game to suit a 4th line, grinding role, rather than playing 20+ minutes a night in all situations in Grand Rapids, and he ends up struggling, you’re damn right I’ll say he’s been mishandled.

I don’t get why you get so bent out of shape about differing opinions, or opinions in general. Not everything is black and white or stats driven. I can’t prove for certain that Jurco or Sproul would have had any more success if handled differently, just like you can’t prove that they wouldn’t have. It is an opinion. For whatever reason that bothers you…

Share this post


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

He had to sit a few games

What's the issue here, according to his game log he played pretty consistently even if he sat out a couple here and there. Interestingly, Niklas Kronwall got to play less games (20) in his first year and was sent back down the GR. Was he mismanaged too now? 

MC1k657.png?1

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


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

What's the issue here, according to his game log he played pretty consistently even if he sat out a couple here and there. 

MC1k657.png?1

Yes but even the few times he was forced to sit out made him sad. That sadness consumed him. And now he can't hockey anymore :unhappy:

Share this post


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

Yes but even the few times he was forced to sit out made him sad. That sadness consumed him. And now he can't hockey anymore :unhappy:

So he doesn't have a back bone. f*** em. 

@DickieDunn curious about what you think about Jurco clearing waivers with Chicago, I know you thought highly of him as well. So is he a bust or.. some other reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe Sproul was given a legit shot thus far. You guys do and think he's a bust. That's fine. I think he will eventually make his way back.

1 hour ago, Wingnut1989 said:

where does witkowski fit in this team, i get his gritty but nothin more, waste of a roster spot. Hope he can change my mind

This was my biggest beef with Sproul being waived. Witkowski sucks and costs $125K more than Sproul. Why did he make the cut? Because he can play defense and wing? Unfortunately, he's terrible at both...

Share this post


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

I don't believe Sproul was given a legit shot thus far. You guys do and think he's a bust. That's fine. I think he will eventually make his way back.

This was my biggest beef with Sproul being waived. Witkowski sucks and costs $125K more than Sproul. Why did he make the cut? Because he can play defense and wing? Unfortunately, he's terrible at both...

Cause he hits people in the face

Share this post


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

I just think Jurco and Sproul are apples and oranges. Sproul has been developing in GR for a long time. He's almost 25. Jurco was 21 when he started with the Wings. 

I agree. They are apples and oranges, but both were mishandled (in my opinion) in different ways. One was brought up too early, the other was left down too long. Let's not forget that Jensen was waived twice, and finally made the team at the tender age of 26. He went from looking like a complete bust, to being one of the three defensemen protected in the expansion draft. Sproul is more skilled than Jensen. The question is, does he want it as bad as Jensen? I'm not saying Sproul is still a highly regarded prospect. He's not. However, I do believe he could still be a capable bottom 4 defenseman, that can skate and make plays out of the defensive zone. Whether or not he gets there is up to him...

Share this post


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

No, my argument isn’t that other people believe it too. I’m just pointing out that I’m not the only one that thinks players may have been mishandled at some point over the past few years.


“Mountain of evidence”? So because we’ve drafted well and other players have developed well in our organization, that proves that no players have been mismanaged in this organization? Yeah, okay… Why are you talking about our drafting success anyway? I’m well aware of our success at drafting and developing players. That doesn’t mean we’ve done a great job at developing every player we’ve drafted though.

A player being brought up too early or too late, constantly in and out of the lineup, asked to change their game, etc. All things that could hamper a player’s development, and coincidentally, things that happened with Jurco and Sproul. The fact that Jurco has gone on to do nothing in a different organization has nothing to do with anything here. His confidence was already shot.

It’s not like Jurco and Sproul were my two favorite prospects, and I wanted them to succeed above anyone else. I just thought they were mishandled early on in their development. I was one of the few (along with Jesusberg) that said back then that Jurco should spend another season in Grand Rapids. The same way I believe that another season in Grand Rapids is best for Svechnikov’s development. If Svech starts this season in Detroit playing 10-12 minutes a night on the 4th line, constantly in and out of the lineup because he’s not altering his game to suit a 4th line, grinding role, rather than playing 20+ minutes a night in all situations in Grand Rapids, and he ends up struggling, you’re damn right I’ll say he’s been mishandled.

I don’t get why you get so bent out of shape about differing opinions, or opinions in general. Not everything is black and white or stats driven. I can’t prove for certain that Jurco or Sproul would have had any more success if handled differently, just like you can’t prove that they wouldn’t have. It is an opinion. For whatever reason that bothers you…

Lol, called it. 

First of all, you're the one who gets upset when people challenge your opinions. I'm just trying to have a discussion. I have no interest in figuratively standing around high-fiving my bros because we all think alike, so naturally I lean toward debating those with contrary opinions. I welcome those contrary opinions. You give the impression that everyone who disagrees with you should leave you alone, because it's just your opinion.

To address your points: No, obviously I do not think that our development record alone proves anything, else I wouldn't have bothered saying any of the other stuff. But being generally good at it (which you seem to agree with now, contrary to your previous sarcastic post) does make it less likely that any specific player has been mishandled. 

As I said, every year dozens of players around the league fail to meet their more optimistic expectations. Are they all mishandled? I'm sure you could dissect each case individually and come up with some hypotheticals that might have served a player better. Each player is a special snowflake and all that. But even ignoring the complete impracticality of that kind of focus, all you would really be doing is nitpicking in hindsight based on completely unsubstantiatable assumptions that something different would have been better. 

Your problem is that you are basing your opinion on whether or not a player is mishandled on whether or not the player is successful, ignoring the possibility that a player can be handled properly and still fail. So every time a prospect you like fails to live up to your predictions, you start hunting around for someone else to blame. So you end up distorting reality to make it fit your theory.

In regards to Jurco; he was originally called up as an injury replacement. Performed decently well at first. That, and also some injuries we had at the start of the following year was enough to put him on the roster. Had a bit of a slow start, sat a few games when we were healthy, but apparently did enough that the team thought he was a better option than Nestrasil. He got back in the lineup, produced very nicely for handful of games on lower lines (Helm and Cleary, then Miller and Glendening), slowed down for a while (ironically after being moved up with Zetterberg and Nyquist), then got hurt. After coming back, he struggled to produce in a lower role, and so couldn't justify moving him up. The following year, he was passed on the depth chart by Larkin and Pulkkinen (and later AA, and Mantha's first stint). In the opportunities he had, he was unable to win back a spot.

He was never asked to change his game, he was just played on lower lines because the higher lines were full of better players. He wasn't in and out of the lineup, or expected to do anything amazing. The few times he did do some decent scoring, it resulted in an opportunity on a higher line. I can't agree that he was called up to early, because the majority of success he had came in the earliest parts of his career here. Even if he had started the 14-15 in GR, he would have almost certainly been called up after Franzen was hurt. I can't believe half a year in GR would have done more for his confidence than making an NHL team, and having a stretch scoring 9 points in 12 games. 

On Sproul, he has had every opportunity to earn a spot. He was just never good enough. Having better players is not mishandling. He was never able to separate himself from the pack. Looked like he was going to early on, I agree, but his development stalled. And I'm not saying he can't still develop into something. Unlikely I'd say, but possible.

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't believe Sproul was given a legit shot thus far. You guys do and think he's a bust. That's fine. I think he will eventually make his way back.

...Whether or not he gets there is up to him...

So you admit that it's up to him, and that his career hasn't been permanently ruined. 

I assume then that if he moves to another organization, fails there as well, you won't continue to blame it all on the Wings?

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