• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Dabura

Rumors Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Mike Mckee just wasn't suited for college, he belongs in the NHL... Yeah no, I'm not gonna let you get away with that "logic". He not only couldn't outplay Ericsson, Ouellet, and Jensen, he also couldn't outplay Lashoff, Russo, Hronek, and Mcilrath. If those AHL guys arne't making the NHL roster then neither should Hicketts. Hicketts got his taste, and the Red Wings got their look. But you're acting like we snubbed a bonafide NHL player from a roster spot... we're not. I'm expecting to hear him described as a top 4 puck moving Dman that doesn't score (but that doesn't matter) shortly

Yes, Hicketts "got his taste" and put up 3 points in 5 games and finished the season leading all Red Wings with a +2. Small sample size, and I don't expect him to come close to that sort of production over the course of a season, but he absolutely did "earn" a spot with that play.

Never did I act as if they "snubbed a bonafide NHL player"... It doesn't matter how many times I say this isn't about Hicketts or I'm not even that high on him, you're still going to try your damnedest to make this about something it isn't. That's what you do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Yes, Hicketts "got his taste" and put up 3 points in 5 games and finished the season leading all Red Wings with a +2. Small sample size, and I don't expect him to come close to that sort of production over the course of a season, but he absolutely did "earn" a spot with that play.

Never did I act as if they "snubbed a bonafide NHL player"... It doesn't matter how many times I say this isn't about Hicketts or I'm not even that high on him, you're still going to try your damnedest to make this about something it isn't. That's what you do...

Back-peddling, that's what you do...

This is very much about Hicketts, it's the only point I'm trying to make. If you'd like to talk about something else as well feel free, but I'm talking about Hicketts.

You say "he absolutely did earn a spot" and I'm telling you he objectively did not.

Share this post


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

Yes. I'm the only person that thinks Hicketts "earned a spot" out of camp last season.

Not the only one. Hicketts played better than Ericsson, Kronwall, Jensen, Ouellet. Hence, he should be in the lineup to at least see how he fares over a season before ruling him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call ups and who deserves a roster spot can be argued infinitely. Consider all angles. Hicketts had a great camp, played well when called up but was terrible in the AHL. Hronek had a weak camp, not much of a body of work to judge but had a great first year pro

Share this post


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

Well name someone brotha

Hicketts couldn't even out score Lashoff and Mcilrath on the Grifffins last year. Russo and Hronek had far superior seasons in the minors. Yet, Hicketts deserved to be on the Red Wings? Your stoned.

 

Yet, he scored 3 points in 5 NHL games and didn't look that out of place, even playing on the powerplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 games total NHL experience is a ridiculously small sample size to base anything off of. At least meet in the middle and see how management comes to their decisions and where there coming from and what they’re doing isn’t just flat out wrong

 

All these factors go into roster decisions. Hicketts may very well be on the team to start the season but thinking it’s ridiculous he’s not on the team is just irrational. Lots of legit reasons he’s not a regular NHLer

Edited by joesuffP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

Yet, he scored 3 points in 5 NHL games and didn't look that out of place, even playing on the powerplay.

5 games. Laughably small sample size.

His AHL season confirms he was not ready to play full-time in the NHL (he was not even close to our best AHL defender), which is precisely the reason why he was not on the roster opening night.

Your conspiracy theory that the Red Wings are snubbing NHL ready Dmen for Ouellet and Jensen is complete and utter crock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

5 games total NHL experience is a ridiculously small sample size to base anything off of. At least meet in the middle and see how management comes to their decisions and where there coming from and what they’re doing isn’t just flat out wrong

 

All these factors go into roster decisions. Hicketts may very well be on the team to start the season but thinking it’s ridiculous he’s not on the team is just irrational. Lots of legit reasons he’s not a regular NHLer

No one is saying he's going to be an all-star, but to keep him down another season (during a rebuild) seems a tad ridiculous. You have to be able to evaluate your players at the NHL level, otherwise, how do you really know what you have? It is a small sample size, but if you don't ever have a "large" sample size, you simply never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

No one is saying he's going to be an all-star, but to keep him down another season (during a rebuild) seems a tad ridiculous. You have to be able to evaluate your players at the NHL level, otherwise, how do you really know what you have? It is a small sample size, but if you don't ever have a "large" sample size, you simply never know.

I wholly disagree. You can very much evaluate talent at the AHL level, ECHL level, junior level, international level, and so on and so forth. That's what scouts do. The NHL is just the final test.

Hicketts played well during the very few NHL games he's had, no one's denying him that. But during the many more games in the lesser talented AHL, he wasn't able to produce the same way.

Khan wrote a few months back that the Red Wings want to see this year if he can perform and keep up during an entire 82 game NHL season. I share the same view as the team. Right now he's shown he can step in and provide real energy... but can he do that for 82 games? His AHL season says no, but this year will be his opportunity to prove that wrong.

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


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

I wholly disagree. You can very much evaluate talent at the AHL level, ECHL level, junior level, international level, and so on and so forth. That's what scouts do. The NHL is just the final test.

Hicketts played well during the very few NHL games he's had, no one's denying him that. But during the many more games in the lesser talented AHL, he wasn't able to produce the same way.

Khan wrote a few months back that the Red Wings want to see this year if he can perform and keep up during an entire 82 game NHL season. I share the same view as the team. Right now he's shown he can step in and provide real energy... but can he do that for 82 games? His AHL season says no, but this year will be his opportunity to prove that wrong.

That’s all I’m advocating for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

So you accidentally spent the last few pages suggesting that Hicketts was wrongfully kept off this past years roster?

No. He should have made last years roster based on how well he did the previous AHL His 16/17 season was solid. The past is the past, though, so I'm agreeing with what Khan said about keeping up with a full 82 game NHL season this year. Which is why I hope they deal Jensen and/or find a way to part with E so that he can play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

No. He should have made last years roster based on how well he did the previous AHL His 16/17 season was solid. The past is the past, though, so I'm agreeing with what Khan said about keeping up with a full 82 game NHL season this year. Which is why I hope they deal Jensen and/or find a way to part with E so that he can play.

Russo had a much more impressive AHL season in 16/17. I'm curious, was he snubbed too?

Share this post


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

Russo had a much more impressive AHL season in 16/17. I'm curious, was he snubbed too?

Russo had a 19 game stint in the NHL that very season where he produced 0 points. Was he snubbed? No. That was a different circumstance that season as they were still trying to keep the streak alive for one. The D was spread out as well:
DeKeyser - 82 games
Green - 72 games
Ouellet - 66 games
Kronwall - 57 games
Ericsson - 51 games
Jensen - 49 games
Smith - 33 games
Marchenko - 30 games
Sproul - 27 games
Russo - 19 games
Renouf - 1 game

It was a mess, and if they didn't have this logjam, I would definitely have voted for him to start the season up. But I remember watching him play in those 19 games and he was barely noticeable out there. Hicketts I, at least, noticed in the 5 games he played last season. Again, you have pretty much agreed that he should get an 82 game trial to see if he can "keep up." 

* Obviously if he isn't up to snuff, he's sent down during the season (not saying he should be up for 82 games regardless).

Edited by SwedeLundin77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tie goes to the vet" isn't as "black and white" as some of you seem to think it is.

  1. If a kid and veteran perform equally, the tie absolutely should go to the vet. The vet has proven he can perform at that level for an entire season, the kid hasn't. Plus the vet has "paid his dues" and "put in his time" so to speak. He absolutely deserves the benefits that come with that. Winning a tie is one of those benefits.
  2. Even if a kid temporarily, slightly outperforms a vet, the kid is the only one who can be sent down without having to clear waivers and potentially be claimed. So unless he just absolutely blows the doors off of roster veterans, he's going back down. That's roster management and every team does this, not just the Wings.
  3. Keep in mind that the veterans that are being given the benefit also had to work their way onto the roster at one point themselves. It's not like they were just given a spot. They had to fight thru the vets in front of them on the roster when they were kids. It's a process, and the kids should understand this. Besides, at least the kids see this and understand that they will get the same preferential treatment when they are the vets on the team. The message is clear: work hard, pay your dues, fight thru the obstacles in front of you, earn it, and then reap the rewards. Nothing wrong with that.
Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie

Share this post


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

"Tie goes to the vet" isn't as "black and white" as some of you seem to think it is.

  1. If a kid and veteran perform equally, the tie absolutely should go to the vet. The vet has proven he can perform at that level for an entire season, the kid hasn't. Plus the vet has "paid his dues" and "put in his time" so to speak. He absolutely deserves the benefits that come with that. Winning a tie is one of those benefits.
  2. Even if a kid temporarily, slightly outperforms a vet, the kid is the only one who can be sent down without having to clear waivers and potentially be claimed. So unless he just absolutely blows the doors off of roster veterans, he's going back down. That's roster management and every team does this, not just the Wings.
  3. Keep in mind that the veterans that are being given the benefit also had to work their way onto the roster at one point themselves. It's not like they were just given a spot. They had to fight thru the vets in front of them on the roster when they were kids. It's a process, and the kids should understand this. Besides, at least the kids see this and understand that they will get the same preferential treatment when they are the vets on the team. The message is clear: work hard, pay your dues, fight thru the obstacles in front of you, earn it, and then reap the rewards. Nothing wrong with that.

One thing I don't think you're taking into consideration is where the team was when that philosophy made sense, vs where they are now, or should be...

I'm fine with all of that when you're a team trying to compete for a playoff spot. When you're a team that is rebuilding, the "tie" should go to the kid. That's just my opinion. If a 21-23 year old plays as well as a 31-33 year old, I'd keep the young player with potential and upside every time over the older player that is past his prime, *in a rebuild*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

One thing I don't think you're taking into consideration is where the team was when that philosophy made sense, vs where they are now, or should be...

I'm fine with all of that when you're a team trying to compete for a playoff spot. When you're a team that is rebuilding, the "tie" should go to the kid. That's just my opinion. If a 21-23 year old plays as well as a 31-33 year old, I'd keep the young player with potential and upside every time over the older player that is past his prime, *in a rebuild*.

I would agree with you if a vet could be sent down without having to be put on waivers and his salary not count against the cap. Or be bought out without penalty. But the current structure of the CBA makes the "tie going to the vet" more of a necessity as opposed to a choice. While I would absolutely love for our D to have Hronek and Hicketts on it over Jensen and Ouellet, the waiver rules make it much less doable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I would agree with you if a vet could be sent down without having to be put on waivers and his salary not count against the cap. Or be bought out without penalty. But the current structure of the CBA makes the "tie going to the vet" more of a necessity as opposed to a choice. While I would absolutely love for our D to have Hronek and Hicketts on it over Jensen and Ouellet, the waiver rules make it much less doable. 

... or the third option which is to trade them...

A team that is rebuilding should not have the oldest team in the league. Shed some dead weight and make room for some of the younger players to actually have an opportunity to "earn" a spot.

Share this post


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

... or the third option which is to trade them...

A team that is rebuilding should not have the oldest team in the league. Shed some dead weight and make room for some of the younger players to actually have an opportunity to "earn" a spot.

I mean yeah, that's certainly an option, but considering Ouellet is still around, it may be easier said than done. Why give up an asset for him when you know you can just claim him on waivers for nothing? Which is exactly what I think happens to Ouellet BTW. As for Jensen, I do think he is much more tradeable. Any team looking for a RH depth defenseman might be interested, but he's more likely to be traded at the TDL I think, which doesn't help getting any kids on the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

Russo had a 19 game stint in the NHL that very season where he produced 0 points. Was he snubbed? No. That was a different circumstance that season as they were still trying to keep the streak alive for one. The D was spread out as well:
DeKeyser - 82 games
Green - 72 games
Ouellet - 66 games
Kronwall - 57 games
Ericsson - 51 games
Jensen - 49 games
Smith - 33 games
Marchenko - 30 games
Sproul - 27 games
Russo - 19 games
Renouf - 1 game

It was a mess, and if they didn't have this logjam, I would definitely have voted for him to start the season up. But I remember watching him play in those 19 games and he was barely noticeable out there. Hicketts I, at least, noticed in the 5 games he played last season. Again, you have pretty much agreed that he should get an 82 game trial to see if he can "keep up." 

* Obviously if he isn't up to snuff, he's sent down during the season (not saying he should be up for 82 games regardless).

Yeah, this coming year, not the just ended season...

Look, we see 5 decent exhibition games of a player and the reaction is:

WHY ISNT HE A RED WING WHY ISNT HE A RED WHY ISNT HE A RED WING

Yall act like he Dylan Larkin'ed the doors off the place. He didn't! And yet here's how his career is now playing out:

1. First pro season (AHL)
2. Second pro season (AHL/number one call up)
3. Third pro season (NHL)

He's in all likely hood going to play a full season with the big club this coming year. That's faster than Brendan Smith, a 1st rounder who's not 5'8" with better numbers, made it to full season status. Kindl did three full seasons in the minors before getting a real look at the NHL level. Jensen did 3 full seasons in the minors before his first call up. The list continues that way.

The kid is ALREADY being accelerated much faster than normal through the system. He's ALREADY reaping the rewards of a weakened rebuilding roster. But to no surprise, that satiates no one. He just has to be pushed on to the roster as fast as humanly possible. He wasn't ready, and I thought how his season outside of the NHL went would pay some credence to that fact, but I see it had no effect...

We also have to remember, this is a 5'8" player who went undrafted. He's already skyrocketed through the system, doesn't he deserve to be sheltered even a little? He's probably not gonna blow the doors off this team at any point in his career. Thrusting him on to the roster right away I think runs the real chance of ruining this type of prospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I mean yeah, that's certainly an option, but considering Ouellet is still around, it may be easier said than done. Why give up an asset for him when you know you can just claim him on waivers for nothing? Which is exactly what I think happens to Ouellet BTW. As for Jensen, I do think he is much more tradeable. Any team looking for a RH depth defenseman might be interested, but he's more likely to be traded at the TDL I think, which doesn't help getting any kids on the roster.

I was more so referring to Ericsson when I suggested the trade scenario. And I'm not saying that we should trade Ericsson and trade Jensen and trade / waive Ouellet. I'm just saying that there are always options to make room for kids if / when they're ready.

A lot of people seem to think Hronek will force his way onto the roster to start this season. I'm not saying one way or the other, but how does he do that, if there's no openings available? It's up to the GM to make sure there are spots open or can be opened for the kids to make the roster.

It hasn't been the case in the past. Will it be in the future? That's what I'm curious to find out in the coming weeks / months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I was more so referring to Ericsson when I suggested the trade scenario. And I'm not saying that we should trade Ericsson and trade Jensen and trade / waive Ouellet. I'm just saying that there are always options to make room for kids if / when they're ready.

A lot of people seem to think Hronek will force his way onto the roster to start this season. I'm not saying one way or the other, but how does he do that, if there's no openings available? It's up to the GM to make sure there are spots open or can be opened for the kids to make the roster.

It hasn't been the case in the past. Will it be in the future? That's what I'm curious to find out in the coming weeks / months...

If a scenario like this happens, then you find a way to make it work, whatever it takes. But if it's a lukewarm prospect like Hicketts for example, I would rather utilize the waiver exemption and hold on to my older guys until I can trade them for max value. Then fill those holes with the kids. It would be nice to have some openings already on the roster, but we are dealing with a playoff streak hangover and it'll take a while to sort it all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If a scenario like this happens, then you find a way to make it work, whatever it takes. But if it's a lukewarm prospect like Hicketts for example, I would rather utilize the waiver exemption and hold on to my older guys until I can trade them for max value. Then fill those holes with the kids. It would be nice to have some openings already on the roster, but we are dealing with a playoff streak hangover and it'll take a while to sort it all out.

Yeah, I can somewhat agree with this. But for me anyway, I believe Svechnikov should be in that same category as Hronek. Hicketts I can kind of understand, because he's likely a bottom pairing, depth defenseman at best. Hronek and Svechnikov have top 4 / top 6 potential though. You need to make room for those kinds of young players when they prove they're ready, especially in a rebuild when you should be getting younger.

Assuming they both come in to camp at the top of their game and "earn" a spot, there should be a roster spot cleared for them. I'm not so confident there will be though...

Share this post


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

Yeah, I can somewhat agree with this. But for me anyway, I believe Svechnikov should be in that same category as Hronek. Hicketts I can kind of understand, because he's likely a bottom pairing, depth defenseman at best. Hronek and Svechnikov have top 4 / top 6 potential though. You need to make room for those kinds of young players when they prove they're ready, especially in a rebuild when you should be getting younger.

Assuming they both come in to camp at the top of their game and "earn" a spot, there should be a roster spot cleared for them. I'm not so confident there will be though...

Exactly my thoughts.. some people act like we are calling Hicketts an all-star, we're not. But when you have a guy who they've already said is knocking on the door, you are rebuilding, and you are looking at forking over 5-6 million for Green... it's not even a matter of who is on the team right now, it's a matter of stopping the young guy (Hicketts, Hronek, Sulak, Cholowski) from gaining playing time. Sure you can say you don't want to be any worse than last season and that Green is a good guy to shepherd a young guy like Hronek, but unless they are willing to move Ouellet AND Jensen, it's moot because there won't be a spot for Hronek. And, honestly, I'd rather they do everything they can to move Ericsson over Jensen. They already have 4 veterans... putting 2 young guys in there should be a positive, especially when those young guys appear to be ready or near ready. This isn't a playoff team anymore, the rules have to adjust for different scenarios.

Share this post


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

One thing I don't think you're taking into consideration is where the team was when that philosophy made sense, vs where they are now, or should be...

I'm fine with all of that when you're a team trying to compete for a playoff spot. When you're a team that is rebuilding, the "tie" should go to the kid. That's just my opinion. If a 21-23 year old plays as well as a 31-33 year old, I'd keep the young player with potential and upside every time over the older player that is past his prime, *in a rebuild*.

On the other hand, if a kid is only "tied" with the bottom of a rebuilding roster, that kid could probably use another year or two in the minors.

But there aren't any ties anyway. If Joe Hicketts was the author of his own comic book, titled "the Amazing Hicketts-man", the superhero's weakness would be the inability to lift the jockstraps of Red Wings' veteran defensemen. He was never tied with anyone. 

Of course, you'll say again that it isn't about Hicketts. But who is it about? Where did this whole idea of veteran bias come from? Who has ever been held back? Maybe you could argue Nyquist and Tatar for half the lockout season? Mantha for 10 games? And all three of them were also behind other young players. Does that really seem like a logical foundation for suggesting that the Wings don't give young players a fair shot?

4 hours ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

... putting 2 young guys in there should be a positive, especially when those young guys appear to be ready or near ready. This isn't a playoff team anymore, the rules have to adjust for different scenarios.

Putting in two good young guys is a positive. Two young guys that you think maybe might not be any worse than the crap we already have is not. It's nothing. It's just a way to get sick of those kids earlier. (See: Kindl, Smith, Marchenko, Ouellet, Jensen, Hicketts by February 2020) 

The rules shouldn't change, and I doubt all the rhetoric about the wide-open roster, "overripe is over", etc. means what people think it means. It's an acknowledgement that our current team sucks. It sucks because our players aren't very good. Since they aren't very good, it's a naturally lower bar. Lower bar + better prospects + prospects in general developing pro-style habits earlier = more open roster. But there's no philosophical change. The "rule" is, and always has been, "get over the bar". Hopefully that never changes. If it does, that's when we'll need new management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now