Rumors Thread

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, LoveMyRedWings56 said:

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

 

8 hours ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

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

Rumor has it Howard rules and Mrazek drools

Fight me

[LoveMyRedWings56 73]

Mike Green at $3 million either for a 2018 2nd+Prospect or 2018 2nd+2019 2nd Petr Mrazek for a 2018 4th or 5th rounder any thing just dump him David Booth for a 2019 7th rounder. Those should be pretty fair at the TDL.

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

Rumor has it Howard rules and Mrazek drools

Fight me

Well at least you can't argue with this logic.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

58 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

Rumor has it Howard rules and Mrazek drools

Fight me

This is not a rumor this is fact. I thought this was a rumors thread.

Seriously tho, let's just discourage the few people left in here who still post from doing so out of fear of going off topic. Who cares. As long as its Wings related, post away muchachos. Forget conformity, let's keep things interesting.

10 hours ago, kliq said:

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.

I still consider Howard an above average starter even tho I would rank him around the middle of the pack, and even tho it seems contradictory.

On a side note: Is it just me or does it seem like people bash Blashill for not playing the "more deserving kids" over the underperforming veterans, but then argue that Blashill should play the underperforming goalie (Mrazek) over the more deserving one (Howard)? Does this seem slightly contradictory/hypocritical to anyone besides me?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

This is not a rumor this is fact. I thought this was a rumors thread.

Seriously tho, let's just discourage the few people left in here who still post from doing so out of fear of going off topic. Who cares. As long as its Wings related, post away muchachos. Forget conformity, let's keep things interesting.

I still consider Howard an above average starter even tho I would rank him around the middle of the pack, and even tho it seems contradictory.

On a side note: Is it just me or does it seem like people bash Blashill for not playing the "more deserving kids" over the underperforming veterans, but then argue that Blashill should play the underperforming goalie (Mrazek) over the more deserving one (Howard)? Does this seem slightly contradictory/hypocritical to anyone besides me?

It's baffling to me, yes.

Ericsson plays poorly: BUY HIM OUT

Abdelkader is #6 in scoring: NOT GOOD ENOUGH, DEMOTE HIM

Nyquist & Tatar not carrying the team: TRADE THEM

Helm & Glendening don't score: OVERPAID, GET RIDE OF EM

Mrazek has possibly the worst play/stats for a roster goalie: PLAY HIM MORE.... wait what?

It just doesn't make sense. I think this fanbase still needs a lot more time to get over the fact that Mrazek is not only not special like the Wings promised he would be, but that he's not even a little good. It's a big blow. I don't think we've hit the acceptance stage yet. And of course there's those who will never accept it cause "da ret wings mishanded him, oderwise he wud done be a dominator"

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I still consider Howard an above average starter even tho I would rank him around the middle of the pack, and even tho it seems contradictory.

On a side note: Is it just me or does it seem like people bash Blashill for not playing the "more deserving kids" over the underperforming veterans, but then argue that Blashill should play the underperforming goalie (Mrazek) over the more deserving one (Howard)? Does this seem slightly contradictory/hypocritical to anyone besides me?

For me, it's not about playing Mrazek because I believe he deserves it, it's because I believe it's what a team in our position should do for the team, not the goalie. If Holland wants to trade Mrazek, which I believe he does, he should be getting a few more starts to up his trade value. Maybe "a string of games" is a little too much to ask, but a few more starts is very doable. Players are showcased prior to the deadline all the time, goalies should be no different. We should be playing Mrazek, even if it's cherry picked games against weak teams to up his stats. We should also be putting players (Green, Ouellet, Nyquist, Tatar, Booth, etc) that we could potentially trade at the deadline in the best situation to up their value.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

For me, it's not about playing Mrazek because I believe he deserves it, it's because I believe it's what a team in our position should do for the team, not the goalie. If Holland wants to trade Mrazek, which I believe he does, he should be getting a few more starts to up his trade value. Maybe "a string of games" is a little too much to ask, but a few more starts is very doable. Players are showcased prior to the deadline all the time, goalies should be no different. We should be playing Mrazek, even if it's cherry picked games against weak teams to up his stats. We should also be putting players (Green, Ouellet, Nyquist, Tatar, Booth, etc) that we could potentially trade at the deadline in the best situation to up their value.

I get your POV it makes sense. The only spot I'd disagree with is that I don't think we are realistically in any real position to trade Mrazek. He's a terrible goalie on a significant cap hit (even with half salary retained). I just don't see anyone in the league with the willingness or capability to shoulder that burden, even for future considerations, especially when there are better options out there. The guys gonna be on a plane to the Czech Republic the moment the season ends. 

Therefore Ken has no real interest in showcasing him or upping his value, unless he suddenly and miraculously turns everything around, and even then he'd be deemed an incredibly inconsistent goalie to be cautioned against. 

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

For me, it's not about playing Mrazek because I believe he deserves it, it's because I believe it's what a team in our position should do for the team, not the goalie. If Holland wants to trade Mrazek, which I believe he does, he should be getting a few more starts to up his trade value. Maybe "a string of games" is a little too much to ask, but a few more starts is very doable. Players are showcased prior to the deadline all the time, goalies should be no different. We should be playing Mrazek, even if it's cherry picked games against weak teams to up his stats. We should also be putting players (Green, Ouellet, Nyquist, Tatar, Booth, etc) that we could potentially trade at the deadline in the best situation to up their value.

 

50 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I get your POV it makes sense. The only spot I'd disagree with is that I don't think we are realistically in any real position to trade Mrazek. He's a terrible goalie on a significant cap hit (even with half salary retained). I just don't see anyone in the league with the willingness or capability to shoulder that burden, even for future considerations, especially when there are better options out there. The guys gonna be on a plane to the Czech Republic the moment the season ends. 

Therefore Ken has no real interest in showcasing him or upping his value, unless he suddenly and miraculously turns everything around, and even then he'd be deemed an incredibly inconsistent goalie to be cautioned against. 

Basically. Ain't no one going to take that $4 million cap for a goalie with a 3.64 GAA. To think that is ASINE. Playing him a "Few extra" games probably won't change his stats much. Giving him a "String of starts" might change it though. But it looks like Krsmith changed his mind on that. 

We would probably have to retain over half his salary and the return (if there even was one) would be s***. We're better off holding on to him as a backup, re-sign him for cheap until Jimmy expires out. 

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

This is not a rumor this is fact. I thought this was a rumors thread.

Seriously tho, let's just discourage the few people left in here who still post from doing so out of fear of going off topic. Who cares. As long as its Wings related, post away muchachos. Forget conformity, let's keep things interesting.

I still consider Howard an above average starter even tho I would rank him around the middle of the pack, and even tho it seems contradictory.

On a side note: Is it just me or does it seem like people bash Blashill for not playing the "more deserving kids" over the underperforming veterans, but then argue that Blashill should play the underperforming goalie (Mrazek) over the more deserving one (Howard)? Does this seem slightly contradictory/hypocritical to anyone besides me?

Yes and that's why I argue night and day. I stand for justice! Others just happen to want their favorite boys playing. Whic is all good. Until you start insulting other people and scapegoat them... 

S hit has to be earned in this world. Jimmy Howard earned his spot after performing well last season. Mrazek has to earn it back. Perhaps in his next 3 starts he gets a shutout or two, maybe he faces 40-50 shots and impresses. That's what needs to happen. 

By the way don't be surprised about all this. These are the same people that wanted Tomas Jurco to play on a line with Datsyuk because of his "supposed" potential that he never showed in t he NHL. Really? Free ice time with the best player in the world? Yeah right. Earn it. People on this board just want to give their favorite players free ice time. Not a huge fan of Blashill, but I think he's done just fine with ice-time and opportunity for most players (except maybe AA at times). There was also an issue I had with Glendening's play time years ago. The team was consistently relying on him and he was averaging 2nd line minutes while Tatar was averaging third line minutes. I would even argue that this was part (one part of many other issues) of the reason we lost to Tampa in the playoffs. They tried fixing it with pairing Glen with Abdelkader and I think Sheahan  and that worked out a little better.  Although we still lost because of our lack of fire power from the euro twins and their age. Anyways, Glendogs ice time has since reduced as it should. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

23 hours ago, kickazz said:

 

They do think that. 

I wonder if Holland really believes it or if he's just saying it so it doesn't sound like he's given up on the season

The only reason they should be playing Mrzek more than Howardis because they need to give up on the season and play the kids more, even if the vets are better.  That's how young players learn.  And who knows, maybe Mrazek actually starts playing good and they can trade him while he has value.

[kickazz 5,459]

16 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

I wonder if Holland really believes it or if he's just saying it so it doesn't sound like he's given up on the season

The only reason they should be playing Mrzek more than Howardis because they need to give up on the season and play the kids more, even if the vets are better.  That's how young players learn.  And who knows, maybe Mrazek actually starts playing good and they can trade him while he has value.

They won't do it. They give ice-time based on who works hardest and if they earned it by showing it on ice. Larkin, Mantha got it because of that. 

AA is upto 15:18 minutes a game now. He's earning it as well. He's played pretty well the last few games and has averaged more and more ice time. 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

16 hours 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. 

 

On 10/11/2016 at 4:28 PM, Buppy said:

While "waste of space" was a popular opinion here, he was playing and producing decently well prior to the injury. 6g, 11p in 23 games, plus excellent advanced stats. That showed that he could in fact translate his game to the NHL (not at the same level, of course, but no one would have expected that). At worst, I'd think the injury and everything afterward just knocked his value back down to where it was after 2015.

[LeftWinger 4,951]

Try to trade Mrazek, if you can't, then don't qualify him in the off season. Either way, that's way less money you'll have to put out next season.

[Dabura 12,207]

Bring back Manny Legace.

[kickazz 5,459]

10 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Bring back Manny Legace.

I liked him to be honest. Rumor has it, he could be back. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I liked him to be honest. Rumor has it, he could be back. 

Maxime Legace is a different person.

You're so dumb.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

I wonder if Holland really believes it or if he's just saying it so it doesn't sound like he's given up on the season

The only reason they should be playing Mrzek more than Howardis because they need to give up on the season and play the kids more, even if the vets are better.  That's how young players learn.  And who knows, maybe Mrazek actually starts playing good and they can trade him while he has value.

True Dickie, the kids MIGHT learn more, but I am concerned that they will also learn to be apathetic, that playing hard doesn't mean anything, that a culture of losing is acceptable. If they're going to be a bad team, then be a bad team by playing hard and actually trying to win. But giving up on the season and tanking does more harm than good for their development IMO.

[kliq 3,755]

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

For me, it's not about playing Mrazek because I believe he deserves it, it's because I believe it's what a team in our position should do for the team, not the goalie. If Holland wants to trade Mrazek, which I believe he does, he should be getting a few more starts to up his trade value. Maybe "a string of games" is a little too much to ask, but a few more starts is very doable. Players are showcased prior to the deadline all the time, goalies should be no different. We should be playing Mrazek, even if it's cherry picked games against weak teams to up his stats. We should also be putting players (Green, Ouellet, Nyquist, Tatar, Booth, etc) that we could potentially trade at the deadline in the best situation to up their value.

See this I see a lot of good points in. My issue is when certain posters say that Mrazek is owed starts, or that Mrazek is "getting screwed".

Playing him against bad teams to ideally up his trade value is not a bad idea at all.

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

True Dickie, the kids MIGHT learn more, but I am concerned that they will also learn to be apathetic, that playing hard doesn't mean anything, that a culture of losing is acceptable. If they're going to be a bad team, then be a bad team by playing hard and actually trying to win. But giving up on the season and tanking does more harm than good for their development IMO.

And this is why they need to play Howard.. Play the goalie that gives you the best winning chance but will still likely lose; but maybe win. Think about the game last night. We saw AA just bust out an OT win in 6 seconds. That honestly goes a loooong way for his continued NHL development and confidence. On top of that it increases the trust the coaching/management staff has on AA too. Going to OT wouldn't have happened if we played a goalie with higher probability of letting goals in. Thank Howard to keep them in it. Does that mean we're out on the Dahlin sweepstakes all of a sudden? Not really. 

Howard, Zetterberg and Green are three important individuals in the development of these kids. The most important obviously is Z, because he's directly groomed Nyquist (previously) Larkin, Mantha and now Bertuzzi a little bit. But having guys like Green and Howard is also very important. They may not play direct roles but they still have an important impact overall. Would be nice if Green was around for Cholowski but I doubt that will happen. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by kickazz

[Dabura 12,207]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-10-players-available-nhl-trade-rental-market/

There aren’t many rental defencemen out there who can play above the third pair and while Green might be the exception, he’s also a specialist. Detroit has leaned heavily on him this year and he’s been a good offensive producer. Unfortunately he’s well below average by virtually any defensive metric, and on a contender he’s probably better suited to a role as a No. 4/5 even-strength defender and power play specialist.

The goalie rental market is uninspired this year. Mrazek, the one-time Detroit starter, is the best of the lot. He’s a restricted free agent who likely won’t be qualified at his $4 million salary this summer after two very difficult years. What makes him interesting is that he’s just 25 and had a really good year as a starter in 2015-16. He also has an impressive playoff history, and could be an upgrade as a backup somewhere.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Custance has confirmed Duclair has asked for a trade out of Arizona

[Dabura 12,207]

29 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Custance has confirmed Duclair has asked for a trade out of Arizona

If AA's unhappy in Detroit and we couldn't get a 1st for him, I'd be ok with an AA-Duclair swap. Seems like they're roughly the same player.

[Buppy 1,720]

8 hours ago, kickazz said:

 

     

More correct things I said. I was on a roll. "proved it could translate" doesn't mean "will be successful long-term" by the way. Did I win a ribbon or anything? Seems like I should have won a ribbon.

11 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

...On a side note: Is it just me or does it seem like people bash Blashill for not playing the "more deserving kids" over the underperforming veterans, but then argue that Blashill should play the underperforming goalie (Mrazek) over the more deserving one (Howard)? Does this seem slightly contradictory/hypocritical to anyone besides me?

I'm not a killer of women and children, but still, deserve's got nothing to do with it. People want what they want and will make any argument they can think of to convince others, but that doesn't make it hypocritical. Situations, however similar, are not identical. While it's fair to question the apparent contradiction, in this case the person wanting Mrazek already explained himself.

4 hours ago, kickazz said:

And this is why they need to play Howard.. Play the goalie that gives you the best winning chance but will still likely lose; but maybe win. Think about the game last night. We saw AA just bust out an OT win in 6 seconds. That honestly goes a loooong way for his continued NHL development and confidence. On top of that it increases the trust the coaching/management staff has on AA too. Going to OT wouldn't have happened if we played a goalie with higher probability of letting goals in. Thank Howard to keep them in it. Does that mean we're out on the Dahlin sweepstakes all of a sudden? Not really. 

Speaking of making any argument...

If what we wanted was to be close, but still lose, we would actually be better off with Mrazek (at least if we assume each would continue at their present stats). Mrazek has allowed 3 goals in 4 of 8 starts. Jimmy has allowed 3 in only 5 of 31. Allow more than 3 goals, you probably don't have a chance, less and you'll probably win. Mrazek has allowed 4+ 3 times, to 7 for Jimmy, so if roles we're reversed and Mrazek were given 4 out of every 5 starts going forward, you'd only expect to see an extra 3-4 such games. Would that hurt team morale? Maybe. Other way around though and we would expect 10 or so extra games allowing 2 or less, so if we want to lose we'd have to simultaneous root for the offense to suck, which would likely hurt morale even more. 

Overall, the team is .500 with either goalie starting. 13-13-5 with Howard, 3-3-2 with Mrazek. Statistically though, if each continued at current levels, we would expect to win more with Howard, so again if you want to lose but still be close go with Mrazek.

[kickazz 5,459]

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

     

More correct things I said. I was on a roll. "proved it could translate" doesn't mean "will be successful long-term" by the way. Did I win a ribbon or anything? Seems like I should have won a ribbon.

Haha. It’s like you Krsmith and I are brothers from another mother. Nitpick words to prove we’re still somehow right! Length of time to cover your bases. Come on now.

Pulk didn’t translate had zero potential at NHL level and is burried where he belongs. He translated about as much as anyone could given his easy deployment. Soon as his offensive zone starts declined, his advanced stats and corsi went to hell. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by kickazz

[gcom007 1,465]

You know, the thing a lot of people who have given up on Mrazek overlook is that the guy had two relatively solid playoff outings, as a young kid playing behind a lousy defense to boot. The second time he put up better numbers than the year before despite coming off a rough regular season and then coming in cold in relief of the floundering Howard, once again posting an underwhelming playoff performance. 

And that’s the thing that sticks out to me about Mrazek and makes me think we’re not giving him a fair shot. I think someone who can come in and play well in those big pressure games has something in him worth fighting for. I’m not going to defend his play in the previous couple seasons; it’s been lousy. But from many reports we heard that he’s been working hard behind the scenes and been focused, and he’s shown strong moments at times this season already. But he’s not getting any sort of consistenty. You can’t sit there and honestly say a goalie is getting a fair chance to get his game going when he’s going 3-4 weeks between starts. How don’t care how much you might believe the guy is done here, it’s ludicrous to say that any goalie is getting a fair shot when they’re getting next to no games. Ask any goalie and they’ll tell you that’s an incredibly hard position to be in.

They’ve already decimated his trade value enough through mishandling the situation, and it’s weaker yet with Edmonton picking up Montoya tonight. There really is very little to lose giving him some more consistent starts for awhile to see if he can’t string something together. We’re not a team that’s ready to do anything in the playoffs. Truly, why not see what he could do this year if given more starts? No player has more upside if they were to come around. When little else is working and the playoffs or success in them are a pipe dream, there’s literally nothing to lose giving this guy a more reasonable shot. He may continue to be terrible, but on that slight chance he’s not, it could be a.big break for us.

And again, Mrazek has gone 2-2 on strong NHL playoff performances, and end of the day, Howard’s never been a strong playoff goalie. You should not walk away from that kind of potential so easily when there’s so little to lose in a season like this. 

[kickazz 5,459]

46 minutes ago, Buppy said:

    Speaking of making any argument...

If what we wanted was to be close, but still lose, we would actually be better off with Mrazek (at least if we assume each would continue at their present stats). Mrazek has allowed 3 goals in 4 of 8 starts. Jimmy has allowed 3 in only 5 of 31. Allow more than 3 goals, you probably don't have a chance, less and you'll probably win. Mrazek has allowed 4+ 3 times, to 7 for Jimmy, so if roles we're reversed and Mrazek were given 4 out of every 5 starts going forward, you'd only expect to see an extra 3-4 such games. Would that hurt team morale? Maybe. Other way around though and we would expect 10 or so extra games allowing 2 or less, so if we want to lose we'd have to simultaneous root for the offense to suck, which would likely hurt morale even more. 

Overall, the team is .500 with either goalie starting. 13-13-5 with Howard, 3-3-2 with Mrazek. Statistically though, if each continued at current levels, we would expect to win more with Howard, so again if you want to lose but still be close go with Mrazek.

How about we keep your scenario and Howard in net and win a little more than lose (based off your theory). But... Now this part is crucial. What if... the other teams keep winning so that we still stay low in the standings. Yay it all works out.

Edited January 5, 2018 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

Haha. It’s like you Krsmith and I are brothers from another mother. Nitpick words to prove we’re still somehow right! Length of time to cover your bases. Come on now.

Pulk didn’t translate had zero potential at NHL level and is burried where he belongs. He translated about as much as anyone could given his easy deployment. Soon as his offensive zone starts declined, his advanced stats and corsi went to hell. 

Pulks is a top 6 sniper, the wings just mishandled him and didnt give him enough oppurtunity

1 hour ago, gcom007 said:

You know, the thing a lot of people who have given up on Mrazek overlook is that the guy had two relatively solid playoff outings, as a young kid playing behind a lousy defense to boot. The second time he put up better numbers than the year before despite coming off a rough regular season and then coming in cold in relief of the floundering Howard, once again posting an underwhelming playoff performance. 

And that’s the thing that sticks out to me about Mrazek and makes me think we’re not giving him a fair shot. I think someone who can come in and play well in those big pressure games has something in him worth fighting for. I’m not going to defend his play in the previous couple seasons; it’s been lousy. But from many reports we heard that he’s been working hard behind the scenes and been focused, and he’s shown strong moments at times this season already. But he’s not getting any sort of consistenty. You can’t sit there and honestly say a goalie is getting a fair chance to get his game going when he’s going 3-4 weeks between starts. How don’t care how much you might believe the guy is done here, it’s ludicrous to say that any goalie is getting a fair shot when they’re getting next to no games. Ask any goalie and they’ll tell you that’s an incredibly hard position to be in.

They’ve already decimated his trade value enough through mishandling the situation, and it’s weaker yet with Edmonton picking up Montoya tonight. There really is very little to lose giving him some more consistent starts for awhile to see if he can’t string something together. We’re not a team that’s ready to do anything in the playoffs. Truly, why not see what he could do this year if given more starts? No player has more upside if they were to come around. When little else is working and the playoffs or success in them are a pipe dream, there’s literally nothing to lose giving this guy a more reasonable shot. He may continue to be terrible, but on that slight chance he’s not, it could be a.big break for us.

And again, Mrazek has gone 2-2 on strong NHL playoff performances, and end of the day, Howard’s never been a strong playoff goalie. You should not walk away from that kind of potential so easily when there’s so little to lose in a season like this. 

Anything that's happened to this young man he did himself. He was given the moon and squandered it. He's just not good enough.