Pure talk, but I will say that about 2 years ago I said the Wings will get Miller to play with his brother and end his career at home backing up Mrazek. It'd be too funny if it happens!
I like to go back to the Bobby Ryan trade. If Holland had the balls to deal Jarnkrok back then and a Nyquist with high end potential we'd of had and still have a top line scorer on this team. He may be declining a bit, but he is still better than most of our wingers now.
I think Larkin slower down because he was forced to play in our enept system. At the beginning of the year he was a wild hare and just played hard to make the team. But as he slowly learned the system, his stats suffered.
I'll have to disagree, but of course theres no way of knowing because its all speculation
Larkin, prior to the end of the past season, had never played 82 games in a season before. NCAA teams play roughly 40 games a year, at a decreased level of intensity. Add the travel schedule and pressure of the NHL, and its pretty easy to get winded at the halfway point of the season. I fully expect Larkin to be more consistent this season.
Jurco is where he is because of mismanagement, not because of lack of skill. He is expected to play differently because he's on the 4th line playing with scrubs. Jurco's issue has nothing to do with physical ability and everything to do with mental stability, aka confidence. Anyway, this has been argued to death, so that's it for me...
Not lack of skill in the sense that he couldn't potentially be better, or do more if given more of an opportunity. But it is lack of skill in the sense that he's just not better than the guys who have played above him. Helm and Sheahan are both better offensively than Jurco, as well as better all-around. Everyone else that's played above him is far better offensively.
He went from being a highly skilled goal scorer to playing safe dump it in never take a chance defense only hockey. Do you really believe the coaches aren't telling him to do that?
I'm saying that hasn't happened at all.
For one, he went from being a decent-but-hardly-exceptional highly skilled goal scorer in the QMJHL, to a mediocre scorer in the AHL for a year, then a pretty good scorer in the AHL the next year, to a mediocre scorer in the NHL. Funny to see you of all people talking about junior scoring as if it translates to the NHL.
He may get stuck playing with defensive players sometimes, but he's not used in the same way at all. He wasn't given near the same defensive responsibility that Glendening, Miller, and Andersson got.
And though I've said this often enough to doubt that anyone will pay attention, he spent a lot of time this season playing with players at least as or more skilled than he is.
207 combined minutes with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, and Larkin. 262 combined minutes with Richards, Helm, Sheahan, Pulkkinen, and AA. 272 combined with Andersson, Miller, and Glendening. Close to two thirds of his total ice time with at least one somewhat skilled player.
BS. No one is trying to turn Jurco into a grinder. He's played where he's played because all the spots that would be a better fit for his skills have been filled by better players. That's it.
He's not even expected to play any differently. He (and everyone) is expected to compete defensively no matter where they are in the lineup. He (and everyone) is expected to compete offensively. He doesn't play against top competition, and his deployment isn't especially defensive. He doesn't kill penalties. The only thing different about him playing on the 4th line is that he has less pressure to produce.
He's a spare part as a player, and he's used as such.
Right. A few decades from now, I don't think anyone's going to talk about how we got eliminated in the first round, if the record is broken they will talk about how we broke the record AND won 4 Stanley cups during the streak. It's all about how history is written, and nobody is going to write "the red wings were eliminated first round 5 years in a row just to preserve a streak, FIRE HOLLAND"
I presume the hockey books/ web pages will have something along the lines of "An impressive 30 years in a row playoff streak broken by the Red Wings in 2020. During their run they managed to win 4 stanley cups and sported legends such as Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Hasek etc etc etc"
Streak is nothing to look down upon at all.
That's not to say Holland hasn't made questionable moves this summer but of course that's been discussed ad nauseam.
All they care about is "The Streak" and it's hampering us. Stop caring about "The Streak" and play for yourselves. It's like they try as hard as they can to just get into the playoffs and once they keep "the streak" intact they stop caring. I honestly wish we'd just miss the playoffs so we stop hearing about meaningless streaks and stats.
The longest streak is pro sports was cool when we knew the Wings could do some damage in the playoffs. Now they're just flat in the playoffs because they've reached their goal.
Logically speaking, why would they "stop caring" once they get in the playoffs? Do you really believe that after battling for 82 games, the players/coaches/management etc. say "meh, lets just get these games over with".
The streak does matter as a whole regardless of whether certain fans like it or not. It matters in terms of revenue, in matters in terms of history, and some fans legit care about it and take pride in it.
Do Holland and co. sometimes make decisions that probably dont help long term due to the streak.....ya probably. But the streak is not the reason why we are not contenders. We are not contenders because of the cyclical nature of hockey. No team came be a contender for 20 plus seasons in a row.
I don't see why I needed to respond to the other points? You yourself in the post said "I'm not saying D solely wins championships". Which is exactly what the rest of us were saying. Defense is not as important as "the saying" makes it out to be. Everything wins you championships, from coaching, to defense to offense. So what would have been the point of me responding to all that? The only thing I responded to was when you mentioned how I didn't talk about Murray. And I told you why I didn't talk about Murray. He just wasn't as essential in the final games as Crosby was. You don't need to get personal about it and say "typical kick does this and that" or "funny how you only respond to bits and pieces". There's PMs for all that.
well this took a wrong turn somewhere, I understood the convo heading towards who cares about D when you have a killer offense that has the puck on the other end so there's no need to worry.
I know we like our team but I believe is way more important to have a solid D, hence my first and subsequent comments trying to explain my point. (which wasn't Murray at all, that was collateral damage). And that's the problem I've seen with our team lately, a surplus of offensive players and lacking where I think our main concern should be. But I guess we have to work with what we've got. I just refuse to believe altering that 4th line like that will make up for pur lack of D
Once again, Sorry, I'll be more careful with my phrasing, when posting so there's no need for latter pm's explaining privately what was said publicly. It's better to avoid saying inappropriate things at all.
I think you will see the team transition to a Tatar-Nielsen-Abdelkader line taking on the top scoring threat lines. They can score but they also stand to play excellent defense. Nielsen is one of the best in the league.
We're all aware that trades for top players are rare, but they do happen. Just about every year (sometime multiple times a year) a big name is traded, sometimes for more than he's worth, sometimes for less, some are known to be on the trading block, some aren't... Big name players do get traded, just never to the Wings. I don't know the trade history for every team, but I would bet most (except Detroit) have been in a trade involving a top player in the last 10+ years...
"Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players." How would this be considered trading "just for sake" of trading? We've had a hole on our defense for the past 4 seasons. The only way to fill that hole in such a short time is to make a trade. That's trading out of necessity, not just for the sake of making a trade...
Serious question, is there a team that has been in more desperate need to acquire a top pairing defenseman in the past 4 years? I don't think there has been. There are a couple that may be close, including New Jersey, but they just traded away their future number one for Hall...
There are 29 other teams in the league, all of which I would argue have a better, in some cases, two or three better defensemen than our current number one. There are also quite a few teams that are absolutely stacked with defensemen and are starving for offense. We have a surplus of forwards, and a need for defensemen. You think because a trade hasn't been made, that there must not be a fit. Like I said, I don't buy that.
And yes, this debate is going in circles, with no way to tell who's right or wrong, so let's just end it there. I think there are trades to be made that would bring in a legit number one defenseman. You don't...
Sorry, not going to give you the last word just because you say I should.
You're the one bringing up how few trades Holland has made, as if it's evidence. I'm saying that the majority of trades are not "big" ones, and the reason Holland hasn't made a lot of trades could be very different than the reason he hasn't made the one big one he's said he wants to make. If Holland trades for Trouba tomorrow, he'll still have the lowest number of total trades.
I would say that every team that does not currently have a Norris candidate is in a situation pretty similar to ours. Moreover, we have finished in the top half of the league every year, so I would assert that at least half the league has as much or more of a "desperate need" to acquire something big. Yet most of them haven't.
You say there's quite a few teams stacked with D but starving for offense. Then why haven't there been more big trades? Are we the only team in the league with forwards we could part with?
But I don't want to endlessly debate hypotheticals. I've already said that, hypothetically, the possibility for a trade exists. What I don't like is that you don't seem willing to accept that trading for a top defenseman is not entirely under Holland's control. You're reasoning that because big trades have happened before, they must always be available to every team and every situation. You're wrong.
And you have no logic for Holland's motivations. You're just making an assumption, then drawing a conclusion based on it without even considering the possibility that the assumption could be wrong. It may look like I'm doing the same, but it's actually just the opposite. I'm looking at what's actually happened (or hasn't, in this case), then using logic to derive an assumption.
I think the logic for why I believe Holland would want to add a top D, and be willing to part with some good assets to get one, and why some teams may not be interested in the assets we have are all pretty self-evident, but I'd be happy to explain my reasoning if you want.
So what is your supporting logic? I know you think he's just unwilling to give up whatever, but why, in your mind, is he unwilling? What is his motivation in your theory?
I understand why he made those deals, I just don't necessarily agree with the reasoning. Neither were truly impact players and both were brought in as rentals. It serves no purpose in my opinion to relinquish assets, no matter the value, for an average player on an average team, trying to squeeze into the playoffs...
Any GM can make such meaningless trades. I want to see Holland make a true impact trade that will address an actual need. Something that will impact this team this season and beyond, not just a rental. We need a top pair defenseman, not depth at forward...
Well you're forgetting that when he brought Cole and Zidlicky we weren't trying to squeeze into the playoffs, we had a comfortable spot in the playoffs and were looking to make a deep run. It wasn't until the last like 20 or so games that we dropped the ball and kept losing the games. I remember people were calling the Zidlicky and Cole acquisition a curse jokingly.
At the time the trade was made, it was actually meaningful and the majority didn't disagree because we we're in a good position.
Before deadline we were around 35 - 15 - 11. Well above .500 team. And if I'm not mistaken we were 3rd or 4th in the conference.
But after February and after acquiring Zidlicky and Cole, the team hit a slump. Partly because Howard was never the same after injury and that's when Mrazek came in. But even he was super inconsistent and got pulled 4-5 times.
We ended the season with a record of 8 - 10 - 3.
The problem is Holland gets blamed for a lot of stuff hindsight. But the truth of the matter is Cole and Zidlicky were aquired for a team that was 35 - 15 - 11, one of the top team in the conferences trying to make a legit deep playoff run.
Legwand was purely because of the insane amount of injuries and the push for the playoffs. No GM is going to want to have a streak broken. That would be bad business. They make profit off this streak. And at the end of the day it's a business and entails revenue.
We as hockey fans want wins, they as management and ownership want $$$$$$$$$
And as it stands if you ain't winning the cup (which is probably the best way to gain revenue), you can still make dough from keeping the streak alive.