Opening night roster v Wild.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Cause he hits people in the face

It's been scientifically proven that hockey fights are correlated with more females attending hockey games.  More females at anything means more alcohol sales.  More alcohol sales means more revenue for the team.

Not sure what's hard to understand about this concept.  

[krsmith17 7,191]

17 minutes ago, Buppy said:

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.

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?

I don't get upset or have any issue with debating or challenging opinions. What I do have an issue with is when people say that an opinion as simple as player management is "wrong". Like I said, I can't prove that the way any player was handled is right or wrong, and neither can you. It's an opinion. You think Jurco and Sproul were handled properly. I don't share that same view. I also think Jensen was mishandled. He managed to overcome that. Something that Jurco and Sproul have yet been able to do.

Of course it's up to them. There's no question the skill is / has been there, they just need to overcome the obstacles. I'm not blaming it all on the Wings. The players are obviously responsible, but it's tough when you're not put in situations to succeed.

[kickazz 5,459]

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't get upset or have any issue with debating or challenging opinions. What I do have an issue with is when people say that an opinion as simple as player management is "wrong". Like I said, I can't prove that the way any player was handled is right or wrong, and neither can you. It's an opinion. You think Jurco and Sproul were handled properly. I don't share that same view. I also think Jensen was mishandled. He managed to overcome that. Something that Jurco and Sproul have yet been able to do.

Of course it's up to them. There's no question the skill is / has been there, they just need to overcome the obstacles. I'm not blaming it all on the Wings. The players are obviously responsible, but it's tough when you're not put in situations to succeed.

Do you think opinions can be wrong? 

Edited October 4, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

23 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Do you think opinions can be wrong? 

In this case, no, and not because it's 'my' opinion, but because it's all about "what-if's". There's no way to determine whether a player would have been better if X, Y and Z happened. It's not like I'm saying a player scored X amount of points, which can obviously be proven right or wrong. 

[kickazz 5,459]

22 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

In this case, no, and not because it's 'my' opinion, but because it's all about "what-if's". There's no way to determine whether a player would have been better if X, Y and Z happened. It's not like I'm saying a player scored X amount of points, which can obviously be proven right or wrong. 

How is this case any different though. To be honest, it sounds like Buppy is giving solid evidence. I don't even think he's speaking his opinion. It's like saying "well the sky is blue and it's because molecules in the air scatter blue light more than red blah blah blah" and you're responding with "well my opinion is that it's green and there's no way to tell otherwise because I define green this way". 

Regardless of when Sproul or Jurco came into the league, they just weren't good enough compared to their teammates and ended up being the odd men out. There's tons of prospects that come into the league who are given a certain amount of games to play and if they don't pan out, get waived or benched. This isn't a "Red Wing" thing. 

I also find it interesting that it's now become a problem when in fact the Wings have treated their prospects similarly even back in the 90s and 00s (I referred to Kronwall only getting 20 games and being sent down for another year as an example). But back then it was okay because we were still cup contenders. Now, with a decline, it seems as though the fan base is looking to nitpick issues in the organization. I get it, these are frustrating times. But this is nothing new. It's just another organization doing what they've been doing for decades. 

I think what does seal the deal though is that Sproul wasn't taken for free by 30 other teams. That's evidence enough that this guy is not considered to be that good by the entire league. 

Edited October 4, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, kickazz said:

How is this case any different though. To be honest, it sounds like Buppy is giving solid evidence. I don't even think he's speaking his opinion. It's like saying "well the sky is blue and it's because molecules in the air scatter blue light more than red blah blah blah" and you're responding with "well my opinion is that it's green and there's no way to tell otherwise because I define green this way". 

Regardless of when Sproul or Jurco came into the league, they just weren't good enough compared to their teammates and ended up being the odd men out. There's tons of prospects that come into the league who are given a certain amount of games to play and if they don't pan out, get waived or benched. This isn't a "Red Wing" thing. 

I also find it interesting that it's now become a problem when in fact the Wings have treated their prospects similarly even back in the 90s and 00s (I referred to Kronwall only getting 20 games and being sent down for another year as an example). But back then it was okay because we were still cup contenders. Now, with a decline, it seems as though the fan base is looking to nitpick issues in the organization. I get it, these are frustrating times. But this is nothing new. It's just another organization doing what they've been doing for decades. 

I think what does seal the deal though is that Sproul wasn't taken for free by 30 other teams. That's evidence enough that this guy is not considered to be that good by the entire league. 

It's not like that at all actually. Not even close. It's more like if you were offered two jobs, you take one and it doesn't work out. Years later you wonder if you would have been better off taking the other job. You can speculate that maybe the other job would have worked out, but maybe it wouldn't have.

It is somewhat of a telling sign when you go unclaimed by 30 teams, hence why I was somewhat surprised. But there are countless players that pass through waivers and go on to have productive NHL careers. Like I said, Jensen is a prime example. 

The thing is, if Sproul doesn't work out, I'll be a little disappointed, but nothing more than that. The only time this bulls*** is discussed is when others bring it up. Jurco didn't work out. I've moved on. I'm not sure others can say the same...

[kickazz 5,459]

It's just a matter of prognostication given the amount of evidence or lack thereof. We all like doing it. 

[Dabura 12,207]

So, if I have my facts straight, this is what we're looking at:

5-on-5
Tatar  Zetterberg  Nyquist
Mantha  Larkin  Frk
Helm  Nielsen  Abdelkader
Booth  Sheahan  Glendening

DeKeyser  Daley
Kronwall  Green
Ericsson  Jensen

Howard
Mrazek

PP1
Abdelkader
Tatar  Zetterberg  Nyquist
Kronwall

PP2
Mantha
Frk  Nielsen  Larkin
Green

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't get upset or have any issue with debating or challenging opinions. What I do have an issue with is when people say that an opinion as simple as player management is "wrong". Like I said, I can't prove that the way any player was handled is right or wrong, and neither can you. It's an opinion. You think Jurco and Sproul were handled properly. I don't share that same view. I also think Jensen was mishandled. He managed to overcome that. Something that Jurco and Sproul have yet been able to do.

Of course it's up to them. There's no question the skill is / has been there, they just need to overcome the obstacles. I'm not blaming it all on the Wings. The players are obviously responsible, but it's tough when you're not put in situations to succeed.

You're ok with someone challenging your opinion, but not with someone saying yours is wrong? That doesn't make any sense.

And it's not like we're discussing favorite colors here. This is not a completely subjective topic. There is a right and wrong answer, we just don't have the means to say with absolute certainty which is which. You seem to think this lack of verifiability strengthens your case, when it's actually the exact opposite. At least in terms of intelligent debate. The point is less valid specifically because it can't be proven wrong (or right). It's just a hypothesis that you can't test and you're trying to use it as evidence to support a different unverifiable opinion (and sometimes vice versa). Instead of actually thinking, or analyzing what evidence we have to see if there's anything substantial that supports your conclusion, you just want to say, 'It's my opinion and you can't say I'm wrong'.  

And that's fine. Obviously, you don't have to defend your opinions or their underlying logic. Though if you won't, or can't, it would be nice if you'd be more open to the possibility of being wrong. Wishful thinking on my part, I suspect. 

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

It's not like that at all actually. Not even close. It's more like if you were offered two jobs, you take one and it doesn't work out. Years later you wonder if you would have been better off taking the other job. You can speculate that maybe the other job would have worked out, but maybe it wouldn't have. ...

... I've moved on. I'm not sure others can say the same...

Or maybe there's hope still. At least in your analogies you seem to recognize that baseless speculation doesn't justify drawing a firm conclusion.

You say you've moved on, but I think it's safe to say that your opinion of our development process, and management as a whole, has been indelibly damaged, in part, by these cases. I don't think it's justified, so I'll continue to argue my case against it.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

 

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

You're ok with someone challenging your opinion, but not with someone saying yours is wrong? That doesn't make any sense.

And it's not like we're discussing favorite colors here. This is not a completely subjective topic. There is a right and wrong answer, we just don't have the means to say with absolute certainty which is which. You seem to think this lack of verifiability strengthens your case, when it's actually the exact opposite. At least in terms of intelligent debate. The point is less valid specifically because it can't be proven wrong (or right). It's just a hypothesis that you can't test and you're trying to use it as evidence to support a different unverifiable opinion (and sometimes vice versa). Instead of actually thinking, or analyzing what evidence we have to see if there's anything substantial that supports your conclusion, you just want to say, 'It's my opinion and you can't say I'm wrong'.  

And that's fine. Obviously, you don't have to defend your opinions or their underlying logic. Though if you won't, or can't, it would be nice if you'd be more open to the possibility of being wrong. Wishful thinking on my part, I suspect. 

Or maybe there's hope still. At least in your analogies you seem to recognize that baseless speculation doesn't justify drawing a firm conclusion.

You say you've moved on, but I think it's safe to say that your opinion of our development process, and management as a whole, has been indelibly damaged, in part, by these cases. I don't think it's justified, so I'll continue to argue my case against it.

 

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

It's not like that at all actually. Not even close. It's more like if you were offered two jobs, you take one and it doesn't work out. Years later you wonder if you would have been better off taking the other job. You can speculate that maybe the other job would have worked out, but maybe it wouldn't have.

It is somewhat of a telling sign when you go unclaimed by 30 teams, hence why I was somewhat surprised. But there are countless players that pass through waivers and go on to have productive NHL careers. Like I said, Jensen is a prime example. 

The thing is, if Sproul doesn't work out, I'll be a little disappointed, but nothing more than that. The only time this bulls*** is discussed is when others bring it up. Jurco didn't work out. I've moved on. I'm not sure others can say the same...

while you two waste your lives arguing semantics to impress others on the internet, i was out in the REAL WORLD stocking investments and stimulating my bank accounts economy. Do you even know what a 400K is? Put down your keyboards, realize you are a peasant, and start generating real USDA money like me. Your internet "friends" are in the end meaningless. If you continue like this your bloodline will become weak, and your savings account will not survive the winter.

Edited October 5, 2017 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[kickazz 5,459]

55 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

 

while you two waste your lives arguing semantics to impress others on the internet, i was out in the REAL WORLD stocking investments and stimulating my bank accounts economy. Do you even know what a 400K is? Put down your keyboards, realize you are a peasant, and start generating real USDA money like me. Your internet "friends" are in the end meaningless. If you continue like this your bloodline will become weak, and your savings account will not survive the winter.

You ruined it.

You ruined it and I'm leaving. 

[kylee 727]

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

So, if I have my facts straight, this is what we're looking at:

5-on-5
Tatar  Zetterberg  Nyquist
Mantha  Larkin  Frk
Helm  Nielsen  Abdelkader
Booth  Sheahan  Glendening

DeKeyser  Daley
Kronwall  Green
Ericsson  Jensen

Howard
Mrazek

PP1
Abdelkader
Tatar  Zetterberg  Nyquist
Kronwall

PP2
Mantha
Frk  Nielsen  Larkin
Green

PP2 has some real potential. Love Green QB that unit

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

 

while you two waste your lives arguing semantics to impress others on the internet, i was out in the REAL WORLD stocking investments and stimulating my bank accounts economy. Do you even know what a 400K is? Put down your keyboards, realize you are a peasant, and start generating real USDA money like me. Your internet "friends" are in the end meaningless. If you continue like this your bloodline will become weak, and your savings account will not survive the winter.

I have a multiple 7-figure retirement fund. That's right - 14 figures. A couple still in the original packaging. Living the dream. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

You ruined it.

You ruined it and I'm leaving. 

i just wanted everyone to think i was cool

[krsmith17 7,191]

Never mind the countless posters that say a player / coach / GM sucks on a daily basis. That opinion isn't challenged. But when a poster says they believe a player may have been mishandled. That can't be let go... Nah, every player is utilized perfectly in the Red Wings organization...

Holland sucks! Blashill sucks! Nielsen sucks! Nyquist sucks! Ericsson sucks! Jurco sucks sucked! Sproul especially sucks! Am I doing it right?

[LeftWinger 4,953]

Just a quick Larkin sidenote. Although him doing great would've benefited our team and obviously we hope he becomes a star and leader on this team, but looking at Eichel' s recent extension, from a business standpoint aren't you glad Dylan didn't keep up with him stat-wise? We'd be looking at a $10M extension as well further making it hard to keep our youngsters with the cap hell Holland has us in!

[Dabura 12,207]

A piece by Gregg Krupa, Whose First Language Is Not English:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-krupa/2017/10/03/krupa-wings-years-away-contending-status/106283054/

“We’re going to continue to develop, with the thought that you’re going to turn your roster over, and three or four years or so down the road they’re going to build the core of a team that competes not only for a playoff spot, but trying to go on a playoff run.”

So Holland confirms it: we're building for three or four seasons from now.  Not a shocking revelation, but it's nice that he's come out and said it.

[kliq 3,755]

56 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Just a quick Larkin sidenote. Although him doing great would've benefited our team and obviously we hope he becomes a star and leader on this team, but looking at Eichel' s recent extension, from a business standpoint aren't you glad Dylan didn't keep up with him stat-wise? We'd be looking at a $10M extension as well further making it hard to keep our youngsters with the cap hell Holland has us in!

I see where you are coming from, but I think Eichel is being paid for his perceived potential because if not Buffalo just gave a kid 10mi/year for 113 Points in 142 Games with a plus/minus of -29.

[Dabura 12,207]

That Eichel deal is all kinds of scary.

[joesuffP 1,746]

I don’t watch Eichel very closely but he basically got paid on draft hype. And all the media reports is how he took less for the benefit of the team. He’s nowhere near a top 10 player in the league but is paid like it for the next 8 years

 

Late bloomers and unexpected stars on nice contracts is what gives you that edge when building a team

[DickieDunn 2,571]

23 hours ago, kickazz said:

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. 

I thinmk the way that he was used destroyed his confidence.  But we'll never know for sure

[kickazz 5,459]

Omg the Eichel contract.

This league is a ******* joke. Leave it to the Sabres to do stupid s*** and still suck. 

[LeftWinger 4,953]

58 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

I don’t watch Eichel very closely but he basically got paid on draft hype. And all the media reports is how he took less for the benefit of the team. He’s nowhere near a top 10 player in the league but is paid like it for the next 8 years

 

Late bloomers and unexpected stars on nice contracts is what gives you that edge when building a team

I agree. I know he was hyped to be generational, but McNHL and Matthews have actually proven they're worth the hype. I like Jack, but I'm not sure he earned that deal. Which is why I'm so glad Larkin slowed down. Although I do want him to be our star...only after he re-signs a bridge deal.

Edited October 5, 2017 by LeftWinger

[LeftWinger 4,953]

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

A piece by Gregg Krupa, Whose First Language Is Not English:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-krupa/2017/10/03/krupa-wings-years-away-contending-status/106283054/

“We’re going to continue to develop, with the thought that you’re going to turn your roster over, and three or four years or so down the road they’re going to build the core of a team that competes not only for a playoff spot, but trying to go on a playoff run.”

So Holland confirms it: we're building for three or four seasons from now.  Not a shocking revelation, but it's nice that he's come out and said it.

...and getting Tavares for 7 years will help that process!

And a top 3 pick next draft.

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Never mind the countless posters that say a player / coach / GM sucks on a daily basis. That opinion isn't challenged. But when a poster says they believe a player may have been mishandled. That can't be let go... Nah, every player is utilized perfectly in the Red Wings organization...

Holland sucks! Blashill sucks! Nielsen sucks! Nyquist sucks! Ericsson sucks! Jurco sucks sucked! Sproul especially sucks! Am I doing it right?

I don't yell at fence posts for being crooked either.