Rumors Thread

[krsmith17 7,191]

52 minutes ago, kickazz said:

First bold - your #1 won't happen

Second bold - I'm not saying the team feels anything. I'm saying that's EXACTLY what it is. The team statistically has a better chance with Howard because Howard has the better GAA. Oh my bad I should change 4-5 goals to 4 goals. 3.67 GAA rounded up. 

Third bold - Don't act like you know, you have lots of issues understanding people's context. If you think I dislike Mrazek than you've suck at abstract thinking. I  actually have zero issues with Mrazek. What I do have issues with is people talking down on Jimmy Howard and talking up Mrazek. I also have issues with people overhyping players. I thought you caught on to that by now. 

I want the team to lose for higher draft chances sure, but I also want them to have a legit chance at these games so the young forwards can keep pushing. Having the goalie that somewhat keeps them in the game is the better chance. Who gives a f*** about Mrazek as long as all of Larkin, Mantha, AA, Bertuzzi keep playing to win. As long as Jimmy provides them hope, Larkin etc will keep playing their best rather than getting complacent. 

Care to explain why it "won't happen", or is that just your opinion? I never did say it "would happen", but I do believe it is one of the possible scenarios.

Saying that playing Mrazek would "bring down the team morale" is saying the team WOULD feel a certain way. It's saying that the team feels more confident that they will win with Howard than they do with Mrazek. I don't believe that to be the case.

It's not 4-5, and it's not 4. It's 3-4. Again, I'm not trying to debate who has been the better goaltender. Howard has, and it's not even close. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Howard should get virtually every start in an already lost season. I think Mrazek should for all the reasons I previously mentioned. You disagree, and that's fine.

You have issues with people (I'm not one of them) talking down on Howard and talking up Mrazek (which is understandable). You take exception to that, and bash Mrazek any chance you get. Case in point right here. I said that selling low on Mrazek would be a mistake, and you said no one wants Mrazek and we should dump him. That would be terrible asset management. If we're trying to trade Mrazek (which I'd be okay with), we should be playing him to up his trade value.

Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Bertuzzi, etc. are not going to give up because Mrazek gets a few more starts. To say otherwise is ridiculous. 

[kickazz 5,459]

41 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

1. Care to explain why it "won't happen", or is that just your opinion? I never did say it "would happen", but I do believe it is one of the possible scenarios.

2. Saying that playing Mrazek would "bring down the team morale" is saying the team WOULD feel a certain way. It's saying that the team feels more confident that they will win with Howard than they do with Mrazek. I don't believe that to be the case.

3. It's not 4-5, and it's not 4. It's 3-4. Again, I'm not trying to debate who has been the better goaltender. 

Howard has, and it's not even close. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Howard should get virtually every start in an already lost season. I think Mrazek should for all the reasons I previously mentioned. You disagree, and that's fine.

You have issues with people (I'm not one of them) talking down on Howard and talking up Mrazek (which is understandable). 4. You take exception to that, and bash Mrazek any chance you get. Case in point right here.

I said that selling low on 5. Mrazek would be a mistake, and you said no one wants Mrazek and we should dump him. That would be terrible asset management. If we're trying to trade Mrazek (which I'd be okay with), we should be playing him to up his trade value.

6. Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Bertuzzi, etc. are not going to give up because Mrazek gets a few more starts. To say otherwise is ridiculous. 

First bold - As soon as Mrazek loses, he gets benched. String of starts not happening. 

Second bold - Nope. All I'm saying is having the goalie that gives them a better chance to stay in the game, be it Mrazek or Howard allows them to keep working hard. Nothing to do with how they feel about Mrazek or Howard. Everything to do with which goalie gives a better shot. 

Third bold - Congratulations 3-4 you make Mrazek look a tiny bit less s***tier than he has been. Still s*** GAA though. Get my point? 

Fourth bold - Not really, I've commended Mrazek when he's played well. I've even suggested (maybe 3 weeks ago?) they put Mrazek in when Howard lost 3 or whatever games in a row it was. Unlike some people who ***** at Howard even when he does well. Don't generalize me into a crowd just because you don't understand the meaning and contexts of my posts. 

Fifth bold - You think I'm talking Mrazek down because I "don't like him". Stop being so emotionally involved in your posts man. You have a knack for this.  I'm saying no one is going to want him because nobody wanted him previously, Vegas didn't want him in the expansion draft and most likely, because of his performance now, most teams won't want him for the price we ask. I'm giving you circumstantial evidence. I'm not even giving you an opinion, Mr. Opinion. Your idea is to keep playing Mrazek right? Yeah they did that and what did it do? Bring down his trade value even more. Has it occurred to you that maybe they aren't playing him to prevent more damage to his value? I get it, you're superior to Holland in your management skills, but there's actually more to it than we obviously know. 

Sixth bold - If has nothing to do with the individual players and everything to do with the situations they're put under. If you don't understand the concept then I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. I suggest looking up "complacency". It's a thing. The Detroit Pistons were suffering from it for maybe 3-4 years. Until this year when their Center finally started doing well. And the rest of the crew started heating up as well and now the pistons are 4th in the conference. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by kickazz

[LeftWinger 5,152]

It might happen, Jimmy's injury is upcoming, as it is the new calender year.

Honestly though, instead of arguing and saying it'll never happen, just say, looking back at Blashill's tendencies, the odds of a string of starts happening are slim. 

Look at that, me being a voice if reason...must be a new year!

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 hours ago, kickazz said:

First bold - As soon as Mrazek loses, he gets benched. String of starts not happening. 

Second bold - Nope. All I'm saying is having the goalie that gives them a better chance to stay in the game, be it Mrazek or Howard allows them to keep working hard. Nothing to do with how they feel about Mrazek or Howard. Everything to do with which goalie gives a better shot. 

Third bold - Congratulations 3-4 you make Mrazek look a tiny bit less s***tier than he has been. Still s*** GAA though. Get my point? 

Fourth bold - Not really, I've commended Mrazek when he's played well. I've even suggested (maybe 3 weeks ago?) they put Mrazek in when Howard lost 3 or whatever games in a row it was. Unlike some people who ***** at Howard even when he does well. Don't generalize me into a crowd just because you don't understand the meaning and contexts of my posts. 

Fifth bold - You think I'm talking Mrazek down because I "don't like him". Stop being so emotionally involved in your posts man. You have a knack for this.  I'm saying no one is going to want him because nobody wanted him previously, Vegas didn't want him in the expansion draft and most likely, because of his performance now, most teams won't want him for the price we ask. I'm giving you circumstantial evidence. I'm not even giving you an opinion, Mr. Opinion. Your idea is to keep playing Mrazek right? Yeah they did that and what did it do? Bring down his trade value even more. Has it occurred to you that maybe they aren't playing him to prevent more damage to his value? I get it, you're superior to Holland in your management skills, but there's actually more to it than we obviously know. 

Sixth bold - If has nothing to do with the individual players and everything to do with the situations they're put under. If you don't understand the concept then I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. I suggest looking up "complacency". It's a thing. The Detroit Pistons were suffering from it for maybe 3-4 years. Until this year when their Center finally started doing well. And the rest of the crew started heating up as well and now the pistons are 4th in the conference. 

As soon as Mrazek loses, he gets benched. Howard loses, we keep riding him. Makes a ton of sense. This mentality is exactly why we don't know exactly what we have in Mrazek. He hasn't been given a string of games in forever. He loses and he gets benched. Hell, he's even won and gotten benched.

I wasn't the one trying to exaggerate stats to make a goalie look better or worse, that was you. I was simply correcting you on it. And yes it is a s***ty GAA, but that shouldn't matter in the position we're currently in. That's my point.

I get it, you've given up on Mrazek. Most have, but I still think if given an opportunity (likely with another team at this point) he can be a good goalie in this league. All I'm saying is, if that's even a remote possibility (which it is), we should be doing what we can to get him going, or at least figure out if we can get him going, rather than playing the better goalie in a season that doesn't matter.

I think you're the one not understanding. I'm saying it's very clear who has been the better goalie, and you throw numbers at me. AGAIN, I'm not disputing who the better goalie is, I'm disputing what is better for the team, in the future. Like I said, maybe Mrazek continues to s*** the bed, and we let him walk this offseason. I'd be okay with that, but only if we give him one last long look this season.

I'm "emotionally involved in my posts" because I say you don't like a player? Okay...

Vegas didn't want Mrazek, not "no one" like you suggest. And really, we don't even know that for sure. There could have been a conversation between Holland and McPhee to not take Mrazek, or that McPhee really only wanted Nosek. Also, Howard was supposedly on the trade block before, and "no one" wanted him. He bounced back, so why can't Mrazek?

When have they "kept playing Mrazek" this season? They haven't. They've played him sporadically, and not surprisingly, he's struggled.

Anyway, I'm going to stop this here, and end by saying that I don't necessarily think Mrazek is or ever will be a better goaltender than Howard, I just think that in the situation we're currently in, I'd like to see Mrazek get a string of games to see what he can do. Obviously if he gets lit up, go back with Howard, but if he plays well, even if it's a loss, give him another game. Give him a string of 5 or so, assuming he's playing well, and go from there.

[krsmith17 7,191]

Looks like Bertuzzi is staying with the Wings, and deservedly so. He's been told to find a permanent residence in the metro Detroit area.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

As soon as Mrazek loses, he gets benched. Howard loses, we keep riding him. Makes a ton of sense. This mentality is exactly why we don't know exactly what we have in Mrazek. He hasn't been given a string of games in forever. He loses and he gets benched. Hell, he's even won and gotten benched.

I wasn't the one trying to exaggerate stats to make a goalie look better or worse, that was you. I was simply correcting you on it. And yes it is a s***ty GAA, but that shouldn't matter in the position we're currently in. That's my point.

I get it, you've given up on Mrazek. Most have, but I still think if given an opportunity (likely with another team at this point) he can be a good goalie in this league. All I'm saying is, if that's even a remote possibility (which it is), we should be doing what we can to get him going, or at least figure out if we can get him going, rather than playing the better goalie in a season that doesn't matter.

I think you're the one not understanding. I'm saying it's very clear who has been the better goalie, and you throw numbers at me. AGAIN, I'm not disputing who the better goalie is, I'm disputing what is better for the team, in the future. Like I said, maybe Mrazek continues to s*** the bed, and we let him walk this offseason. I'd be okay with that, but only if we give him one last long look this season.

I'm "emotionally involved in my posts" because I say you don't like a player? Okay...

Vegas didn't want Mrazek, not "no one" like you suggest. And really, we don't even know that for sure. There could have been a conversation between Holland and McPhee to not take Mrazek, or that McPhee really only wanted Nosek. Also, Howard was supposedly on the trade block before, and "no one" wanted him. He bounced back, so why can't Mrazek?

When have they "kept playing Mrazek" this season? They haven't. They've played him sporadically, and not surprisingly, he's struggled.

Anyway, I'm going to stop this here, and end by saying that I don't necessarily think Mrazek is or ever will be a better goaltender than Howard, I just think that in the situation we're currently in, I'd like to see Mrazek get a string of games to see what he can do. Obviously if he gets lit up, go back with Howard, but if he plays well, even if it's a loss, give him another game. Give him a string of 5 or so, assuming he's playing well, and go from there.

First of all, I'm not exaggerating anything. He's let in 4 goals once this season and 5 goals twice this season. I spoke truth. You tried using his GAA (which is an average not reality). 

Now as for Mrazek's performance. The more he plays the more his value has kept dropping. It's at the point now that maybe they don't want to make it worse. And if you thought outside the box a little bit instead of being so cynical with this org, maybe they're doing this on purpose since its his contract year. Re-sign him for cheap and then once he's locked in give him the starts. You have no idea what they're thinking. I have no idea what their thinking, but I'm trying to come up with different conclusions. You should try it.   

Howard bounced back. Mrazek hasn't. He's been trying to for 2 years now. You do realize that right? You're assuming it's this terrible think they're doing to Mrazek. Hell the guy has ltierally beed trying to keep a starting job since we have Jonas Gustavvson! My god has it been 2 years already?? He lost the job in Feb 2016. They gave him another chance all last season until he s*** the bed again. Now Howard has the job until he screws up. That's the nature of the beast. 

Now lastly, in order to give Mrazek 5 starts like you said. He would not need to be a backup. Sorry to burst your bubble but Petr Mrazek was officially declared the backup this season. Until the started fades or gets injured, a backup doesn't take the starting position. I thought this was common knowledge in hockey..? This isn't a tandem anymore. And clearly the org has hinted (with the expansion draft) that they were going with Howard in the future. That can still change by the way. But coming into this season it was pretty clear the organization sees Howard continuing in the future for now. 

By the way Howard is 33, going on 34. Just so you know, goalies don't retire at this age. Mathematically speaking if Howard stays a wing will he retires (say age 39 or 40) then he plays until Dylan Larkin is 28 years old, Mantha and AA are 29. Lundqvuist, Andersson, Luongo, Brodeur, Osgood, Ryan Miller at have or had great careers until the end of their 30s with minimal decline, in fact for some they actually did better as they aged (can't say the same about forwards or defenseman though). Vernon won his cup when he was 34, also won Conn Smyth, Hasek won it when he was old (I don't remember how old). I get that "young" is important in hockey and everyone was high on Mrazek but I'm not sure if age actually means much for successful goalies. If Mrazek didn't exist, no body would talk about Howard getting old. We'd probably be talking about how we still have a good 5-6 years with him and can't wait till Petruzzeli takes over as Howard gets to his twilight years. My point is, losing Mrazek is no big loss for us. We still have a starting goalie that should theoretically keep playing well for a while and until next prospect comes through. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[LeftWinger 5,152]

Just want to point out in all this Mrazek stuff, Vegas didn't want Sheahan either, but obviously Pitt really did, to give up a player and a higher draft pick for him. Same could happen for Mrazek. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 hours ago, kickazz said:

First of all, I'm not exaggerating anything. He's let in 4 goals once this season and 5 goals twice this season. I spoke truth. You tried using his GAA (which is an average not reality). 

Now as for Mrazek's performance. The more he plays the more his value has kept dropping. It's at the point now that maybe they don't want to make it worse. And if you thought outside the box a little bit instead of being so cynical with this org, maybe they're doing this on purpose since its his contract year. Re-sign him for cheap and then once he's locked in give him the starts. You have no idea what they're thinking. I have no idea what their thinking, but I'm trying to come up with different conclusions. You should try it.   

Howard bounced back. Mrazek hasn't. He's been trying to for 2 years now. You do realize that right? You're assuming it's this terrible think they're doing to Mrazek. Hell the guy has ltierally beed trying to keep a starting job since we have Jonas Gustavvson! My god has it been 2 years already?? He lost the job in Feb 2016. They gave him another chance all last season until he s*** the bed again. Now Howard has the job until he screws up. That's the nature of the beast. 

Now lastly, in order to give Mrazek 5 starts like you said. He would not need to be a backup. Sorry to burst your bubble but Petr Mrazek was officially declared the backup this season. Until the started fades or gets injured, a backup doesn't take the starting position. I thought this was common knowledge in hockey..? This isn't a tandem anymore. And clearly the org has hinted (with the expansion draft) that they were going with Howard in the future. That can still change by the way. But coming into this season it was pretty clear the organization sees Howard continuing in the future for now. 

By the way Howard is 33, going on 34. Just so you know, goalies don't retire at this age. Mathematically speaking if Howard stays a wing will he retires (say age 39 or 40) then he plays until Dylan Larkin is 28 years old, Mantha and AA are 29. Lundqvuist, Andersson, Luongo, Brodeur, Osgood, Ryan Miller at have or had great careers until the end of their 30s with minimal decline, in fact for some they actually did better as they aged (can't say the same about forwards or defenseman though). Vernon won his cup when he was 34, also won Conn Smyth, Hasek won it when he was old (I don't remember how old). I get that "young" is important in hockey and everyone was high on Mrazek but I'm not sure if age actually means much for successful goalies. If Mrazek didn't exist, no body would talk about Howard getting old. We'd probably be talking about how we still have a good 5-6 years with him and can't wait till Petruzzeli takes over as Howard gets to his twilight years. My point is, losing Mrazek is no big loss for us. We still have a starting goalie that should theoretically keep playing well for a while and until next prospect comes through. 

With that logic, Howard let's in 4-6 goals a game, because he's let in 4 goals twice, 5 goals once, and 6 goals once. F*** averages, they're not reality. Max is a better indicator...

I'm going to say this one more time... Mrazek has yet to be given a string of games, so we don't know what he would do if given another opportunity. I understand keeping him on a short leash at the beginning of the season, because the organization had to believe this team had some sort of shot at making the playoffs. However, playoffs should now be an afterthought, and we should be concentrating on the future. Mrazek could be a part of that future, so we should be doing what we can to figure that out. Or ya know, just say f*** it, and let him walk for nothing. That's always an option too...

You're trying to come up with different conclusions? I should try it? LoL that's exactly what I did in my original post. I came up with 3 different scenarios, which you disagree with because Mrazek shouldn't be given another opportunity...

You keep going on with all this s*** as if I'm bashing Howard, saying he "sucks" or "he's too" old or whatever. I'm not saying any of that. I'm a fan of Howard, and I'd be completely fine with keeping him and trading Mrazek. I just think that the best way to figure out what we're going to do, one way or the other, is to give Mrazek some starts. Extend that leash a little and let him get into a few games. You can't deny that over the past year or so, Howard has been given a MUCH longer leash than Mrazek. Whether that's the right or wrong way to handle them, is debatable, nonetheless, that's the way it's been. Howard is the starter, no one is disputing that. That doesn't mean you can't give Mrazek a few more starts.

If you disagree that Mrazek should get more starts, that's fine. Say that. But don't try to paint this picture that I'm anti-Howard and all in on Mrazek. I'm not at all. I would say best case scenario, we play him, he dominates, we extend him and carries us to a Cup. A little more realistic scenario, which is also ideal, we play him, he plays well enough to up his trade value, we trade him at the deadline for a pick and / or prospect. Or, like I said, we can continue to sit him every game and let him walk for nothing in the offseason...

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

Just want to point out in all this Mrazek stuff, Vegas didn't want Sheahan either, but obviously Pitt really did, to give up a player and a higher draft pick for him. Same could happen for Mrazek. 

Yeah, Vegas not taking Mrazek means very little, especially when we have no idea what sort of conversations went down behind closed doors. Mrazek being exposed and passed by Vegas just added fuel to the fire for those that were already down on him from the previous season. Sheahan went goalless through 79 games last season, but still some thought he might be taken by Vegas because he's a big bodied, shut down, bottom 6 center, that still has some offensive potential. He's the same age as Mrazek (a couple months older), goalies take longer to develop, but yet Sheahan had value, and Mrazek doesn't...

Teams showcase players they want to trade all the time, but it's asinine to even think about showcasing Mrazek, because he's a "backup"... If we want to trade Ouellet, it would be wise to keep him in the lineup for an extended period here too, and maybe play him more than 4-6 minutes a night. I'm not a big fan of Ouellet, but there's no reason they can't play him 12 minutes a night and attempt to trade him for a mid round pick at the deadline.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I believe there are teams that would be interested in Mrazek, despite what happened with the expansion draft. To sell low on him (or any player for that matter) would be a mistake in my opinion. He's still relatively young and the potential is still there. I'd like to see him given a string of starts this season to see what he can do. We literally have nothing to lose in doing so, and potentially a lot to gain.

The way I see it, giving him some more starts could play out any of three ways... 1. He continues to be inconsistent and is unable to return to form from a couple years ago, and we let him walk this summer. Great, we improve our lottery odds, and get rid of a bad contract. 2. He finds his game again, we re-sign him to a new deal this summer. Great, we have our goalie for the future. 3. He finds his game again, we still decide to move on and go with Howard. Great, we get a much better return for him at the deadline (or draft).

Didn't you tell me a couple days ago you'd sell Green for a 4th..?

21 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

What won't happen?

So you're saying the team feels they have a chance with Howard in net, but not with Mrazek in net? I don't buy that at all. And Mrazek doesn't let in "4-5 goals a game". See GAA...

I think you dislike Mrazek so much that you'd rather lose with Howard than lose with Mrazek.

I'm not here to have a goalie debate, I'm just debating the best way to handle the goalie situation as it is right now. In my opinion, Mrazek should be getting more starts. Not because I think Mrazek is better, but because whether people want to admit it or not, he is still somewhat of an unknown at this point, and we should be trying to figure out exactly what Petr Mrazek is before this season ends. Unless of course, management have completely given up on him, and are fine with letting him walk for nothing in the offseason. That I disagree with, but whatever. Mrazek could prove to be a complete bust, or he could prove to be worth a higher return in a trade or worth a qualifying offer this summer.

No one in the NHL is an unknown at 26.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

"Ignore the numbers/gameplay, I swear Brendan Smith is a top 4 puck moving D-man, just you wait and see!"

Boy that turned out well...

"Ignore the numbers/gameplay, I swear Petr Mrazek is a starting goaltender, just you wait and see!"

I wonder how this one will go... *sigh*

Edited January 3, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[LeftWinger 5,152]

I say showcase all the players you might deal. We're already not going to the playoffs (not out yet, but we know how it's gonna end up) so it's not going to hurt to put Mrazek and XO in to get some interest from others...unless they're showcasing Howard and Ericsson....

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

35 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Didn't you tell me a couple days ago you'd sell Green for a 4th..?

No, I wouldn't sell Green for a 4th and you know that. I said I'd trade him to the highest bidder, and you came up with this ridiculous scenario where the highest bidder offers a 4th-7th round pick. The lowest bid would be somewhere around a 2nd and 3rd, and the highest would be somewhere between a 1st to two 2nd's. Regardless, it's a completely different situation. We're not not playing Green, or not playing him enough, or not playing him on the power-play. He's playing more than any player on the team, so what we're going to get for him, is all we're going to get. We can't possibly put him in a situation to up his trade value. With Mrazek, I'd argue you can.

46 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

No one in the NHL is an unknown at 26.

Dominik Hasek and Tim Thomas are just two names that come to mind. And no, I'm not saying Mrazek is the next anything. Literally all I'm saying is that we should be trying to see what we have in him. If he continues to play like s***, oh well, we better our lottery odds. If he plays well, we either trade him for a better return, or decide to negotiate a new contract this summer.

38 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

"Ignore the numbers/gameplay, I swear Brendan Smith is a top 4 puck moving D-man, just you wait and see!"

Boy that turned out well...

"Ignore the numbers/gameplay, I swear Petr Mrazek is a starting goaltender, just you wait and see!"

I wonder how this one will go... *sigh*

Brendan Smith IS a top 4 defenseman. He's paired with Shattenkirk on the 2nd pair in New York. He is a good puck mover, he just has a tendency to make a lot of boneheaded plays, which negatively effects his game. And by the way, I'm not saying Mrazek IS or WILL BE anything. All I'm saying is we should be playing him a little more to see what he can do. We're not going to get s*** for a goaltender that doesn't play at all. Might as well play him, to see if we can get something for him at the deadline. We have nothing to lose in playing Mrazek, and potentially something to gain. Worst case, we play him, he plays like s*** (improving our chance at Dahlin) and we let him walk in the offseason, which is exactly what will happen if he continues to sit every game...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

No, I wouldn't sell Green for a 4th and you know that. I said I'd trade him to the highest bidder, and you came up with this ridiculous scenario where the highest bidder offers a 4th-7th round pick. The lowest bid would be somewhere around a 2nd and 3rd, and the highest would be somewhere between a 1st to two 2nd's. Regardless, it's a completely different situation. We're not not playing Green, or not playing him enough, or not playing him on the power-play. He's playing more than any player on the team, so what we're going to get for him, is all we're going to get. We can't possibly put him in a situation to up his trade value. With Mrazek, I'd argue you can.

Dominik Hasek and Tim Thomas are just two names that come to mind. And no, I'm not saying Mrazek is the next anything. Literally all I'm saying is that we should be trying to see what we have in him. If he continues to play like s***, oh well, we better our lottery odds. If he plays well, we either trade him for a better return, or decide to negotiate a new contract this summer.

Brendan Smith IS a top 4 defenseman. He's paired with Shattenkirk on the 2nd pair in New York. He is a good puck mover, he just has a tendency to make a lot of boneheaded plays, which negatively effects his game. And by the way, I'm not saying Mrazek IS or WILL BE anything. All I'm saying is we should be playing him a little more to see what he can do. We're not going to get s*** for a goaltender that doesn't play at all. Might as well play him, to see if we can get something for him at the deadline. We have nothing to lose in playing Mrazek, and potentially something to gain. Worst case, we play him, he plays like s*** (improving our chance at Dahlin) and we let him walk in the offseason, which is exactly what will happen if he continues to sit every game...

What? Smith and Shatt deuces? Defense partners? On the blue line? At the same time?

What did Lundquist do to deserve that? Flirt with Vigneault's wife? Deflower his daughter? 

That's cruel man.

[kickazz 5,459]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Brendan Smith IS a top 4 defenseman. He's paired with Shattenkirk on the 2nd pair in New York. He is a good puck mover, he just has a tendency to make a lot of boneheaded plays, which negatively effects his game. And by the way, I'm not saying Mrazek IS or WILL BE anything. All I'm saying is we should be playing him a little more to see what he can do. We're not going to get s*** for a goaltender that doesn't play at all. Might as well play him, to see if we can get something for him at the deadline. We have nothing to lose in playing Mrazek, and potentially something to gain. Worst case, we play him, he plays like s*** (improving our chance at Dahlin) and we let him walk in the offseason, which is exactly what will happen if he continues to sit every game...

I thought you just said last month that you were wrong about him being a top 4? Now you're back tracking. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I'm actually on board the play Mrazek at least every other game train.  Either he continues to suck, which helps draft positioning, or he actually gets his game back (unlikely IMO).  Either way it's a win-win.  The only reason to keep playing Howard is if you think that they actually have a shot at the playoffs, and that it would be a good thing to go for it.  That would be a mistake.

[kickazz 5,459]

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

With that logic, Howard let's in 4-6 goals a game, because he's let in 4 goals twice, 5 goals once, and 6 goals once. F*** averages, they're not reality. Max is a better indicator...

I'm going to say this one more time... Mrazek has yet to be given a string of games, so we don't know what he would do if given another opportunity. I understand keeping him on a short leash at the beginning of the season, because the organization had to believe this team had some sort of shot at making the playoffs. However, playoffs should now be an afterthought, and we should be concentrating on the future. Mrazek could be a part of that future, so we should be doing what we can to figure that out. Or ya know, just say f*** it, and let him walk for nothing. That's always an option too...

You're trying to come up with different conclusions? I should try it? LoL that's exactly what I did in my original post. I came up with 3 different scenarios, which you disagree with because Mrazek shouldn't be given another opportunity...

You keep going on with all this s*** as if I'm bashing Howard, saying he "sucks" or "he's too" old or whatever. I'm not saying any of that. I'm a fan of Howard, and I'd be completely fine with keeping him and trading Mrazek. I just think that the best way to figure out what we're going to do, one way or the other, is to give Mrazek some starts. Extend that leash a little and let him get into a few games. You can't deny that over the past year or so, Howard has been given a MUCH longer leash than Mrazek. Whether that's the right or wrong way to handle them, is debatable, nonetheless, that's the way it's been. Howard is the starter, no one is disputing that. That doesn't mean you can't give Mrazek a few more starts.

If you disagree that Mrazek should get more starts, that's fine. Say that. But don't try to paint this picture that I'm anti-Howard and all in on Mrazek. I'm not at all. I would say best case scenario, we play him, he dominates, we extend him and carries us to a Cup. A little more realistic scenario, which is also ideal, we play him, he plays well enough to up his trade value, we trade him at the deadline for a pick and / or prospect. Or, like I said, we can continue to sit him every game and let him walk for nothing in the offseason...

Nope not the same. Jimmy was phenomenal the first 10-12 games. In fact he had the best stats in the league. Didn't let up more than 3 goals in his first 15 games except like once. Mrazek on the other hand let in 4-5 goals 3 times in just his first 9 games. It's not even close. Jimmy has less bad games in his overall games played. I'll take it another notch for you. Howard's QS% (quality start percent) is 63%. The league average is 53%. Which means Jimmy is far higher than the leage in terms of how many good games he has. Which means he gives the younger boys the best chance at keeping them in the game. Which was what my original point was anyways. By the way Mrazek's QS% is 25%. Terrible. 25% chance he's going to stop most of his shots. Terrible probability. You can chalk it up all you want but Howard is the better option for the overall team chances in a game and overall morale. And that's what this coaching/management is likely going for. Which as I've already said, I think it's a good idea. And anyone who has played a team sport as a player would probably agree that it's always nice to have a winning chance even if  you lose.  

As far as Mrazek getting a string of starts. He got plenty of this "string of starts" last season. In fact he played in 50 games. What do you not understand about the fact that he LOST his job and is now a BACKUP? Or do you not know what backup means? Backups don't get "String of starts". I think even an 8 year old hockey fan would know this..... It's over. Mrazek lost that opportunity. The only thing he can do now is win that job back. If he does. Then great. If not, then no big deal. No big loss. 

And I'm talking about coming up with conclusions about what the organization might be thinking WHY they have Mrazek benched. As in, based off of the given facts right now that he's benched. Not about scenarios that could, would, should be. Do you understand that or do I need to spell that out? You always go off point and try to argue about something completely different. 

Again Mrazek is a backup. Backups don't get "Strings of starts" until the starter is injured or sucking. That's how it works. Do you get it or still not yet? 

I'm just trying to explain a very simple concept to you because for some reason you don't get it. The Wings aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. They're treating their goalies like they said they would back in the summer. They clearly said, Howard is the starter. 

12 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

I'm actually on board the play Mrazek at least every other game train.  Either he continues to suck, which helps draft positioning, or he actually gets his game back (unlikely IMO).  Either way it's a win-win.  The only reason to keep playing Howard is if you think that they actually have a shot at the playoffs, and that it would be a good thing to go for it.  That would be a mistake.

They do think that. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

13 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I thought you just said last month that you were wrong about him being a top 4? Now you're back tracking. 

Is he playing in the top 4? Yes or No? I was wrong about what I projected Smith to become, I've admitted that several times. Smith is still a borderline top 4 guy in my opinion though, and apparently there are other guys in the hockey world that believe so as well. Please, let's turn this into another Brendan Smith debate...

[kickazz 5,459]

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Is he playing in the top 4? Yes or No? I was wrong about what I projected Smith to become, I've admitted that several times. Smith is still a borderline top 4 guy in my opinion though, and apparently there are other guys in the hockey world that believe so as well. Please, let's turn this into another Brendan Smith debate...

On 11/21/2017 at 7:19 AM, krsmith17 said:

So anyway, to answer your question, Smith is a bottom pair defenseman. Jurco may get another shot in the NHL, but will probably play another year in the AHL and head back over seas, where he will be a middle 6 forward.

We won both of those trades. Good on Ken Holland.

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

No, I wouldn't sell Green for a 4th and you know that. I said I'd trade him to the highest bidder, and you came up with this ridiculous scenario where the highest bidder offers a 4th-7th round pick. The lowest bid would be somewhere around a 2nd and 3rd, and the highest would be somewhere between a 1st to two 2nd's. Regardless, it's a completely different situation. We're not not playing Green, or not playing him enough, or not playing him on the power-play. He's playing more than any player on the team, so what we're going to get for him, is all we're going to get. We can't possibly put him in a situation to up his trade value. With Mrazek, I'd argue you can.

Dominik Hasek and Tim Thomas are just two names that come to mind. And no, I'm not saying Mrazek is the next anything. Literally all I'm saying is that we should be trying to see what we have in him. If he continues to play like s***, oh well, we better our lottery odds. If he plays well, we either trade him for a better return, or decide to negotiate a new contract this summer.

Brendan Smith IS a top 4 defenseman. He's paired with Shattenkirk on the 2nd pair in New York. He is a good puck mover, he just has a tendency to make a lot of boneheaded plays, which negatively effects his game. And by the way, I'm not saying Mrazek IS or WILL BE anything. All I'm saying is we should be playing him a little more to see what he can do. We're not going to get s*** for a goaltender that doesn't play at all. Might as well play him, to see if we can get something for him at the deadline. We have nothing to lose in playing Mrazek, and potentially something to gain. Worst case, we play him, he plays like s*** (improving our chance at Dahlin) and we let him walk in the offseason, which is exactly what will happen if he continues to sit every game...

You said we shouldn't sell low on any of our players, but you also said you'd sell Green for a 4th if it was the highest bid. Regardless of how ridiculous you perceive the situation, you're not being consistent... Do you want to not sell low? Or sell to the highest bid?

Thomas and Hasek together represent an extreme outlier, less than 1% of all goalies *insert dumb and dumber, so you're saying there's a chance, meme*

The more Mrazek plays the worse his numbers get. I'd argue it's best for his trade value to never touch the ice.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You said we shouldn't sell low on any of our players, but you also said you'd sell Green for a 4th if it was the highest bid. Regardless of how ridiculous you perceive the situation, you're not being consistent... Do you want to not sell low? Or sell to the highest bid?

Thomas and Hasek together represent an extreme outlier, less than 1% of all goalies *insert dumb and dumber, so you're saying there's a chance, meme*

The more Mrazek plays the worse his numbers get. I'd argue it's best for his trade value to never touch the ice.

I would agree. And I think  the management is predicting that as well. 

Or give him easier games. Honestly.  Set him up to win if possible. His last game against Islanders was a win because they had Greiss in net and we stomped on him. Mrazek got a nice W. Performed pretty well too. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

No, I wouldn't sell Green for a 4th and you know that. I said I'd trade him to the highest bidder, and you came up with this ridiculous scenario where the highest bidder offers a 4th-7th round pick. The lowest bid would be somewhere around a 2nd and 3rd, and the highest would be somewhere between a 1st to two 2nd's. Regardless, it's a completely different situation. We're not not playing Green, or not playing him enough, or not playing him on the power-play. He's playing more than any player on the team, so what we're going to get for him, is all we're going to get. We can't possibly put him in a situation to up his trade value. With Mrazek, I'd argue you can.

Dominik Hasek and Tim Thomas are just two names that come to mind. And no, I'm not saying Mrazek is the next anything. Literally all I'm saying is that we should be trying to see what we have in him. If he continues to play like s***, oh well, we better our lottery odds. If he plays well, we either trade him for a better return, or decide to negotiate a new contract this summer.

Brendan Smith IS a top 4 defenseman. He's paired with Shattenkirk on the 2nd pair in New York. He is a good puck mover, he just has a tendency to make a lot of boneheaded plays, which negatively effects his game. And by the way, I'm not saying Mrazek IS or WILL BE anything. All I'm saying is we should be playing him a little more to see what he can do. We're not going to get s*** for a goaltender that doesn't play at all. Might as well play him, to see if we can get something for him at the deadline. We have nothing to lose in playing Mrazek, and potentially something to gain. Worst case, we play him, he plays like s*** (improving our chance at Dahlin) and we let him walk in the offseason, which is exactly what will happen if he continues to sit every game...

Top 4, yet he's 6th among NYR Dmen in TOI/G and ends up a healthy scratch here and there

Puck mover, yet has never even breached 20 pts in a season

Something's not adding up here....

Edited January 3, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[krsmith17 7,191]

33 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Nope not the same. Jimmy was phenomenal the first 10-12 games. In fact he had the best stats in the league. Didn't let up more than 3 goals in his first 15 games except like once. Mrazek on the other hand let in 4-5 goals 3 times in just his first 9 games. It's not even close. Jimmy has less bad games in his overall games played. I'll take it another notch for you. Howard's QS% (quality start percent) is 63%. The league average is 53%. Which means Jimmy is far higher than the leage in terms of how many good games he has. Which means he gives the younger boys the best chance at keeping them in the game. Which was what my original point was anyways. By the way Mrazek's QS% is 25%. Terrible. 25% chance he's going to stop most of his shots. Terrible probability. You can chalk it up all you want but Howard is the better option for the overall team chances in a game and overall morale. And that's what this coaching/management is likely going for. Which as I've already said, I think it's a good idea. And anyone who has played a team sport as a player would probably agree that it's always nice to have a winning chance even if  you lose.  

As far as Mrazek getting a string of starts. He got plenty of this "string of starts" last season. In fact he played in 50 games. What do you not understand about the fact that he LOST his job and is now a BACKUP? Or do you not know what backup means? Backups don't get "String of starts". I think even an 8 year old hockey fan would know this..... It's over. Mrazek lost that opportunity. The only thing he can do now is win that job back. If he does. Then great. If not, then no big deal. No big loss. 

And I'm talking about coming up with conclusions about what the organization might be thinking WHY they have Mrazek benched. As in, based off of the given facts right now that he's benched. Not about scenarios that could, would, should be. Do you understand that or do I need to spell that out? You always go off point and try to argue about something completely different. 

Again Mrazek is a backup. Backups don't get "Strings of starts" until the starter is injured or sucking. That's how it works. Do you get it or still not yet? 

I'm just trying to explain a very simple concept to you because for some reason you don't get it. The Wings aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. They're treating their goalies like they said they would back in the summer. They clearly said, Howard is the starter. 

They do think that. 

More stats to show that Howard is the better goalie? Thanks for that. I wasn't sure who was better. Now I am... Howard is the starter and Mrazek is the backup? Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of this. Now I am...

It's seriously like you don't even read my posts. Why do you bother responding? Why do I bother responding to you? I have no idea...

[kickazz 5,459]

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

More stats to show that Howard is the better goalie? Thanks for that. I wasn't sure who was better. Now I am... Howard is the starter and Mrazek is the backup? Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of this. Now I am...

It's seriously like you don't even read my posts. Why do you bother responding? Why do I bother responding to you? I have no idea...

Uh no. More stats show that Howard, although may not win, gives the team a better chance to keep the scoring low. Has better starts, even tho he might actually lose the game. Which means better for the younger players to stay motivated while we continue our march toward Dahlin. It's a supporting argument to my original point as to why Howard in net is better for the youngsters (Larkin, Mantha, AA, Bertuzzi). Howard gives the team a win-win. We might end up still losing the game, but he still keeps the game interesting for us as fans and for the players who are trying to stay (should stay) motivated. I think the problem is you keep looking at each post as an indibidual point. You need to look at my overall arching point. It's no wonder why you think I must have Mrazek, you must keep looking at my individual posts and not realizing why I post about Mrazek the way I do (and why I do goes back to a looooooong time ago and because Mrazek has sucked FOR 3 YEARS. Not just this year.)

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

28 minutes ago, kickazz said:

 

Smith was playing on the bottom pair at the time, so he was a bottom pair defenseman. Smith is playing on the 2nd pair now, so he is now a top 4 defenseman. In both instances, I meant that literally. You want my opinion? I think he's a 4/5 defenseman. Do you agree? Probably not. Do I care? Absolutely not. But it really bothers kickazz and number9 that I think Smith is a decent NHL defenseman, and not the dog s*** you make him out to be...