Rumors Thread

[kickazz 5,459]

6 minutes ago, krsmith17 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...

But it was just pointed out that he's getting 6th D-man minutes. So isn't he a 6th D-man? 

Come on bro you contradicted yourself on Smith. Called him a top 4 for years, then admitted he was a bottom pair. Now you're saying he's top 4 again even though he plays 3rd pairing minutes. You're just like Buppy and me. You'll never admit defeat. It's all good.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

29 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.

Still going with that ridiculous Green for a 4th scenario are you? I said I'd accept a 4th just to shut you up about it. Obviously that worked well... Green isn't going for anything less than a 2nd round pick. Why bother discuss scenarios that won't happen? Would I take a 2nd if that's all we could get? Absolutely.

Do I want to not sell low or sell to the highest bidder? What kind of stupid ass question is that? I want to sell to the highest bidder, but I want to do whatever we can to up the trade value for the players we could potentiall sell. I think that would involve playing Mrazek more. You disagree. Cool.

Thomas and Hasek together are the two that immediately popped into my head. There have been countless others. Hell, even our very own Jimmy Howard was an unknown until he was 25-26...

[kickazz 5,459]

9 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

No bold call outs?

Got tired of it. You know how it is. 

19 minutes ago, krsmith17 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...

On 11/24/2017 at 7:26 AM, krsmith17 said:

I admitted many, many times that I was wrong about my prediction of Smith.

You guys just can't admit that Smith's failures may have had something to do with this organization...

 

Well since you now backtracked to say Smith is again a top 4 defenseman. Just as you predicted years ago. That must mean the organization didn't f*** up right? Since Smith is now a top 4 defenseman, the Red Wings organization must have done a good job since he became what you projected him to be. Right?

I take issue with this. And you know you're going to twist it to try to stand your ground. Because you'll never admit that you were just scapegoating the Red Wings. 

In November you admitted that Brenden Smith failed and didn't become a top 4 and you then blamed the Detroit Red Wings organization for it.

And now that Brenden Smith is playing top 4. What do you have to say about the Red Wings? Let me guess you're going to still blame the Red Wings for somehow screwing him over right? But how did he get screwed if he ended up living up to his potential? He's top 4 just like you imagined. So do you take back your blame game on the Wings?  

You probably won't because Smith is your boy and he can do no wrong. If he f***ed up then it must be the Wings. But if he lives up to the potential, Wings get zero credit. In fact they still get blamed (somehow). 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

12 minutes ago, kickazz said:

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. 

If you believe this, that's fine. I don't buy it though. I don't think the team moral would go up or down, whether it was Howard, Mrazek or Coreau in net.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

1 hour 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.

Definitely. Should be the strategy across the board whenever a season is lost. Give younger players ice time to develop or see whether they're part of the future.

And, CRL and Kickazz, Mrazek's stats haven't gotten worse every time he plays. His last game against the Islanders (a win), he had his best SV% (other than his shutout). You guys are definitely exaggerating the situation. Mrazek hasn't been that bad this year. I think he's definitely deserving of a few more starts. I mean, Howard is tied for 2nd in the league with 32 GP and he's had some rough parts of the year. I don't think Mrazek needs 5 in a rows like Krsmith is saying, but let's throw him in there some more. 

Anyway, Howard does seem to get injured whenever we ride him like this, so the natural course of things should give him more games even if Blash doesn't want to. Blash is probably playing to maintain respectability and the chance at keeping his coaching career alive somewhere after this season, so he'll probably side with the safe route on most decisions.

[kickazz 5,459]

24 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

And, CRL and Kickazz, Mrazek's stats haven't gotten worse every time he plays. His last game against the Islanders (a win), he had his best SV% (other than his shutout). You guys are definitely exaggerating the situation. Mrazek hasn't been that bad this year. I think he's definitely deserving of a few more starts. \

I'm honestly not exaggerating anything. His Quality Start % is literally 25%. The amount of quality starts he's had divided by the # of games he's started. Quality starts = having > 88% Sv% (or average sv% for the league). Simply put, he's far worse than the average goalie in the league. 

 Looking at 1 game for a backup and then saying he deserves more starts is not convincing. 

Only way Mrazek becomes a starter or gets "a string  of starts" (very rare for a backup) is if Howard hits the bucket and that's entirely possible. 

I think the problem in the fandom currently is that people may still be assuming that this is a Tandem goaltending situation. It's not. They made it very clear where they stand when they exposed Mrazek and t hen went on to call Howard the best goalie on their team and additionally then went on to declare him starter moving forward. As far as I can tell, Mrazek is either getting traded, re-signed for cheap, or Howard gets injured or loses his job to Mrazek. He might even get waived.... 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

18 minutes ago, kickazz said:

But it was just pointed out that he's getting 6th D-man minutes. So isn't he a 6th D-man? 

Come on bro you contradicted yourself on Smith. Called him a top 4 for years, then admitted he was a bottom pair. Now you're saying he's top 4 again even though he plays 3rd pairing minutes. You're just like Buppy and me. You'll never admit defeat. It's all good.

He's actually 5th on the team at even strength, so I guess that would make him the 5th best defenseman. He was 2nd on the team last season, so I guess he was the 2nd best defenseman last year... No I don't think that, just like I don't necessarily think he's the 5th or 6th based solely on TOI.

I thought Smith was going to be a legit top 4 defenseman that could move the puck well and put up points. He's not. He's a tweener 4/5 defenseman that can move the puck well, play an aggressive style, makes too many boneheaded plays, and doesn't put up any points. You can agree or disagree with that. Quite frankly I don't care. That's my assessment of him. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

36 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Still going with that ridiculous Green for a 4th scenario are you? I said I'd accept a 4th just to shut you up about it. Obviously that worked well... Green isn't going for anything less than a 2nd round pick. Why bother discuss scenarios that won't happen? Would I take a 2nd if that's all we could get? Absolutely.

Do I want to not sell low or sell to the highest bidder? What kind of stupid ass question is that? I want to sell to the highest bidder, but I want to do whatever we can to up the trade value for the players we could potentiall sell. I think that would involve playing Mrazek more. You disagree. Cool.

Thomas and Hasek together are the two that immediately popped into my head. There have been countless others. Hell, even our very own Jimmy Howard was an unknown until he was 25-26...

Yeah yeah you didn't mean what you said. Likely story...

I don't think you understand that there's a big difference between accepting whatever the highest bid is and not selling low...

Countless others! Countless! 

Edited January 3, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

.... You're just like Buppy and me. You'll never admit defeat. It's all good.

Don't lump me in with your irrational obstinance. I would readily admit defeat if it were only possible for anyone to defeat me.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

I'm honestly not exaggerating anything. His Quality Start % is literally 25%. The amount of quality starts he's had divided by the # of games he's started. Quality starts = having > 88% Sv% (or average sv% for the league). Simply put, he's far worse than the average goalie in the league. 

 Looking at 1 game for a backup and then saying he deserves more starts is not convincing. 

Only way Mrazek becomes a starter or gets "a string  of starts" (very rare for a backup) is if Howard hits the bucket and that's entirely possible. 

I think the problem in the fandom currently is that people may still be assuming that this is a Tandem goaltending situation. It's not. They made it very clear where they stand when they exposed Mrazek and t hen went on to call Howard the best goalie on their team and additionally then went on to declare him starter moving forward. As far as I can tell, Mrazek is either getting traded, re-signed for cheap, or Howard gets injured or loses his job to Mrazek. He might even get waived.... 

I meant you guys talking about his stats apparently getting worse every time he starts (which they aren't currently - and I pointed out his good stat in the last start to show it's wrong) and about not playing him to hide his bad play from potential trade partners. Those are exaggerating the situation with Mraz.

You talk about Mrazek becoming starter, but that's miles past anything I was talking about and I don't think any one has remotely suggested that. And I don't think anyone in the fandom assumes this is a tandem situation, so I don't what you're getting at with that. Don't know who these points would be responses to.

Just Howard has played a s*** ton. Mrazek could stand to play a few more games..

Edited January 3, 2018 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I meant you guys talking about his stats apparently getting worse every time he starts (which they aren't currently - and I pointed out his good stat in the last start to show it's wrong) and about not playing him to hide his bad play from potential trade partners. Those are exaggerating the situation with Mraz.

You talk about Mrazek becoming starter, but that's miles past anything I was talking about and I don't think any one has remotely suggested that. And I don't think anyone in the fandom assumes this is a tandem situation, so I don't what you're getting at with that. Don't know who these points would be responses to.

Just Howard has played a s*** ton. Mrazek could stand to play a few more games..

Howard has played a s*** ton because, for the most part, Mrazek has been completely awful. One of, if not the worst in the entire league. 

[kickazz 5,459]

17 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Don't lump me in with your irrational obstinance. I would readily admit defeat if it were only possible for anyone to defeat me.

False. You were wrong Pulkinnen. I haven't heard you admit defeat yet. 

16 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I meant you guys talking about his stats apparently getting worse every time he starts (which they aren't currently - and I pointed out his good stat in the last start to show it's wrong) and about not playing him to hide his bad play from potential trade partners. Those are exaggerating the situation with Mraz.

You talk about Mrazek becoming starter, but that's miles past anything I was talking about and I don't think any one has remotely suggested that. And I don't think anyone in the fandom assumes this is a tandem situation, so I don't what you're getting at with that. Don't know who these points would be responses to.

Just Howard has played a s*** ton. Mrazek could stand to play a few more games..

Why should a backup get more starts? A backups role is to be the backup. More starts (like you suggest) assumes something else then. 

It's less than halfway through the season and he's played 11 games. If this plays out he ends up playing 22-25 games. That's probably around what backups usually play. Maybe even less actually. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by kickazz

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

33 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Howard has played a s*** ton because, for the most part, Mrazek has been completely awful. One of, if not the worst in the entire league. 

I guess that is where people disagree. He had  a few awful games (3-4 maybe) but I think he's been pretty good elsewhere.

32 minutes ago, kickazz said:

False. You were wrong Pulkinnen. I haven't heard your admit defeat yet. 

Why should a backup get more starts? A backups role is to be the backup. More starts assumes something else then. 

The regular backup role usually plays more than Mrazek has. Howard has played 32 games - that's 2nd in the league. That's a lot for any starter. He's on pace for getting 65 starts this year (based on 30 starts or 69 GP if you count games he started in but not started). That's more than he's ever played. Even his best years or when we had Conklin s***ting the bed as a backup (in his 2nd stint) he didn't play this much. Usually the work load is split a bit more. Mrazek could stand just a few more starts here and there. That's all I'm saying.

Even if it's for Howard's preservation - he is injury prone by everyone's admission and he's 33 and we'll need to not run him into the ground if he's our guy for the next few years.

And, yes, there is the possibility of drawing trade interest or Mrazek making a case for coming back on a smaller deal. It's good for everyone. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I guess that is where people disagree. He had  a few awful games (3-4 maybe) but I think he's been pretty good elsewhere.

The regular backup role usually plays more than Mrazek has. Howard has played 32 games - that's 2nd in the league. That's a lot for any starter. He's on pace for getting 65 starts this year (based on 30 starts or 69 GP if you count games he started in but not started). That's more than he's ever played. Even his best years or when we had Conklin s***ting the bed as a backup (in his 2nd stint) he didn't play this much. Usually the work load is split a bit more. Mrazek could stand just a few more starts here and there. That's all I'm saying.

Even if it's for Howard's preservation - he is injury prone by everyone's admission and he's 33 and we'll need to not run him into the ground if he's our guy for the next few years.

I agree with you here. 65 starts is only for a goalie of Lundqvist or Price caliber. Howard should be around 50-55 starts a season. The fact that he's on pace for 65 speaks to just awful Mrazek has been as a back up. If he was any good he would've earned more starts and Howard would be on pace for much less.

Edited January 3, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[kickazz 5,459]

52 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I guess that is where people disagree. He had  a few awful games (3-4 maybe) but I think he's been pretty good elsewhere.

The regular backup role usually plays more than Mrazek has. Howard has played 32 games - that's 2nd in the league. That's a lot for any starter. He's on pace for getting 65 starts this year (based on 30 starts or 69 GP if you count games he started in but not started). That's more than he's ever played. Even his best years or when we had Conklin s***ting the bed as a backup (in his 2nd stint) he didn't play this much. Usually the work load is split a bit more. Mrazek could stand just a few more starts here and there. That's all I'm saying.

Even if it's for Howard's preservation - he is injury prone by everyone's admission and he's 33 and we'll need to not run him into the ground if he's our guy for the next few years.

And, yes, there is the possibility of drawing trade interest or Mrazek making a case for coming back on a smaller deal. It's good for everyone. 

Ok I can agree with preservation for the starter due to his age and decreasing that number from 65 to 55 ish. As you can tell I'm not in favor of (and I don't think the organization is either) the idea of giving someone a "String of starts" "just because". Unless of course it was very clear that this is a tandem and not a clear cut starter-backup scenario. This entire goalie situation with Mrazek may be similar to how they didn't increase the young forwards ice time until they started earning it and consistently performed. Maybe Mrazek (because of his years of issues now) has suddenly become a long term project, or it could be what I'm thinking - which is preventing his value from getting worse. We don't know. 

Also keep in mind that this is Holland. He still thinks we have a shot at playoffs (which theoretically we likely do). So all the more reason to keep rolling Howard from his POV. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by kickazz
AIDS

[kickazz 5,459]

33 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I agree with you here. 65 starts is only for a goalie of Lundqvist or Price caliber. Howard should be around 50-55 starts a season. The fact that he's on pace for 65 speaks to just awful Mrazek has been as a back up. If he was any good he would've earned more starts and Howard would be on pace for much less.

Or it could be this too.  

[kickazz 5,459]

5 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Do you think Howard is an above average goalie?

I have in the past. Back in the days where I played with an Axe. 

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

False. You were wrong Pulkinnen. I haven't heard you admit defeat yet. ...

False false.

On 11/8/2017 at 4:07 PM, Buppy said:

...People just never liked Pulk, even before he had actually failed.

...Pulk obviously didn't progress, ...

But also, all I ever said about Pulk was that he had potential, and his success in the NHL would be determined by how well he developed after he came up. His development since then is nothing (negative, really), as was his success in the NHL, ergo, I was right. Now admit defeat. 

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

False false.

But also, all I ever said about Pulk was that he had potential, and his success in the NHL would be determined by how well he developed after he came up. His development since then is nothing (negative, really), as was his success in the NHL, ergo, I was right. Now admit defeat. 

No no no, you raved about his advanced stats being superior while he was in the league. It didn't translate in the end. 

[Buppy 1,720]

48 minutes ago, kickazz said:

No no no, you raved about his advanced stats being superior while he was in the league. It didn't translate in the end. 

No no no no.

His advanced stats were very good. I was right again. Good job, me! 

Not my fault if you think "good possession player" and "good NHL player" are synonymous.

[kliq 3,763]

4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Do you think Howard is an above average goalie?

I know you didn't ask me Cady, but I will give my two cents. There are essentially 62 goalies in the league (31 starters, 31 backups). I think most people would ranking Howard in the 15-25 range. So ya, I'd say he is above average.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

19 minutes ago, kliq said:

I know you didn't ask me Cady, but I will give my two cents. There are essentially 62 goalies in the league (31 starters, 31 backups). I think most people would ranking Howard in the 15-25 range. So ya, I'd say he is above average.

So ur saying he's a below average starter? 15-25 out of 31 is below.

[kliq 3,763]

22 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

So ur saying he's a below average starter? 15-25 out of 31 is below.

To be fair I was talking about general perception.

My take....Goalies I would put above Howard are (and this is off the top of my head not taking stats into consideration):

Gibson, Rask, Crawford, Bobrovsky, Bishop, Quick, Dubnyk, Price, Rinne, Schnieder, Lundquist, Murray, Jones, Holtby.

So I guess that puts him at 15 on my list. 

If Vasilevskiy & Hellebuyck keep it up, they will likely rise above him as well. I just need to see it for at least an entire season.

Edited January 4, 2018 by kliq

[SwedeLundin77 460]

Good Lord is this a rumors thread or a goalie debate thread. Keep it on topic, bishes!

[LoveMyRedWings56 73]

8 hours ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

Good Lord is this a rumors thread or a goalie debate thread. Keep it on topic, bishes!

Agreed this is a rumor thread not a goalie debate thread.