I think people are reading too much into the comments on AA and Mantha. Taken at face value, the comments are saying nothing more than that expectations should be tempered.
A lot of people have unrealistically optimistic ideas of what those guys are likely to do, whether they admit it or not. Of course, those same people would be the first to defend AA and Mantha if they were given a chance and didn't produce, most likely saying "expectations were too high".
AA is exactly the kind of player that should be getting limited minutes. Most of the time he's on the ice, he's giving up more than he's getting. But every once in a while he'll pop off a great chance with his speed. Keep his minutes down and it's easier to shelter him. You increase the chance of getting the good stuff without the bad, and you have more premium minutes to give the guys who are more likely to produce a positive result.
Mantha .vs Andersson is a different story, but I don't think Mantha should be in our top-9 right now anyway. I would rather see Jurco in for Andersson (or just about anyone really), but I also don't think anyone would make any meaningful difference from the 4th line either.
Man, this thread has taken a turn... I apologize for contributing to the nonsense earlier.
For Christ sakes Nobody every said Martha would be the savior , fact is he's a talented kid that can shoot the puck and is a if body in front of the net that can help our powerplay , how's taking him away gonna help a team that's had problems scoring all season long?
Athanasiou had also shown a lot of promise and skill and he's on a 4th line barely playing instead of getting significantly more playing time
Andersson brings the same to the team like a glendening can,helm and others
Lets just say it like it is our coach is a chicken s*** and would rather play it safe with the veterans than playing younger kids ... Don't come here and complain when we're scoring 1 goal a game
So we'd score 1 goal a game with Andersson; what would you expect with Mantha?
People getting all worked up over this like it makes some huge difference. Like it's so unbelievably stupid to not have him on the team. But at the same time you don't expect him to make a big difference.
Just a bunch of Mantha fans who want to see him play. Hopeful, maybe even optimistic, that he would be a difference maker but you wouldn't criticize him if he didn't. You have no real expectations for what he would do. Maybe some unquantifiable "look good" that he'd be sure to do since it's just a matter of your opinion. I get it, I want to see Pulk back in for the same reason. I'm just not getting bent out of shape about it.
I think we are all hopeful that Mantha will become an important part of this team sometime soon. But he isn't right now. Maybe he would be if given more of a chance. Maybe he wouldn't. We don't know. Whether or not he is a better option than the least significant player in our lineup isn't worth all the hostility.
All of this is to say, I think our head coach and/or general manager has/have to come to understand and appreciate what many fans already know: Joakim Andersson and Jonathan Ericsson are not The Answer. Limiting Athanasiou to five minutes of ice time in big games is profoundly foolish, especially with Datsyuk leaving in the summer and an enormous void opening up at the top of our depth chart. The priority this season and next season has to be transitioning to a younger core, not trying to squeeze one.more.playoff.berth. out of our veterans' butts.
By all means, try to land a Martin Hanzal, someone who can play against the opposition's best players, allowing Larkin and Athanasiou to develop their game against weaker matchups. But don't cage creativity. Don't stifle scoring ability. Don't preach defense for the sake of "learning how to defend real well." I don't even want our defensemen worrying about defending. I want a precise, relentless quick-strike transition game. I want the game to be played on the opposition's half of the ice, because we always have the puck and we're always forcing the other team to play without the puck and "defend real well."
We have been transitioning. Half our team has played 3 or fewer full seasons. Playing Mantha or giving AA more minutes isn't going to make a difference in anything. Whatever the kids become will be determined by their physical abilities, their talent, the years of dedication, training, and hard work they've done and will continue to do going forward. Not by a few minutes with Datsyuk.
In regards to the second part, it's important to realize that the variances in possession are not really that much. It would probably surprise most people to learn that in 5v5 CF%, Detroit was tied for 8th in the league this year. 51.7%. Pittsburgh was 2nd at 52.7%. LA was first with one of the best seasons recorded at 56.4%. While Sutter and others may make hyperbolic statements about always defending or always having the puck, those are extremes that just don't exist in the real world. They're just exaggerations to make a point.
Also worth noting that Sutter's and Hitchcock's teams, despite being very good teams with loads of talent, don't really score very well. (Neither have Tippett's, but he hasn't had much talent either.) Not sure you can say "listen to these guys" and "don't stifle scoring ability" at the same time.
The piece of Tippet on D-Men perfectly applies to the Wings and Smith vs Ericsson, just to mention. But hey, let's keep sitting Smith because we signed him to the cheaper deal... *sigh*
Adding on to what I was saying above, that Tippett quote is a gross exaggeration. The variance between players isn't that extreme. This season, there is a pretty extreme (relatively speaking) difference between Smith and Ericsson (7.5% by Corsi or 8.3% by shots) that's 2-3 times the difference it's been in the past. Adjusted for zone starts and competition, the difference this year would probably drop to around 5.5-6%, and virtually nothing in past years. Also, by goals the difference is about 1.8% this year, and 1% historically. Again if adjusted it would be even closer.
Maybe Smith has progressed enough this year that he deserves to be ahead of E on the depth chart, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as people think.
That is before we resign any RFA's. Mrazek will get 3, Dekeyser will get 5-6, Sheahan around 2. Now if I raad this right Franzen hasn't been removed from their numbers. I did the mnath last week and figured we would ahve about 15 million under the cap after the RFA's are resigned, Franzen to LTIR, and some guys are moved out in trade. But its not enough to improve the team AND replace Datsyuk. Holland has to trade the contract-which he has said he will not do.
Technically, Mitch Albom said that Datsyuk's agent said that "the Wings" said they wouldn't do that. But regardless, let's be realistic. If Datsyuk leaves, the chances of actually improving drop to more or less zero, regardless of how much cap we have available. There just aren't enough good players available.
The only way we're better next year is if we sign Stamkos or if the kids take a huge leap forward. We can go after Stamkos whether we dump Datsyuk first or not, so that's irrelevant. We'd likely have to trade his hit if we did land Stamkos (or at least that might be the easiest), but not to make him an offer. To be honest, I'm not even sure that Stamkos would be worth going after for what he'd likely cost.
If we don't sign Stamkos, there isn't much sense in going after any second-tier players who have already proven to be incapable of leading a team to a Cup (or even in many cases, to the playoffs). Ride it out with the kids, see where we're at, then maybe make moves at the deadline if the they look good enough to build around.
Not Abdelkader, the guy I was assured would hit 20 because he only needed 3 goals in the last 12 games to do it and who is fer sher worth that fat contract he signed? You know, the guy who had 14 goals and 36 points in the last 80 games of the season? Oh, but it's ok because his extension starts NEXT year and he's only making $1.8 mil or whatever now.
This team is far too talented to only have 2 guys hit 20 goals.
40+ points is worth $4M+, goal short of 20 or not. Especially for a guy as versatile as Abby.
In the last 69 games of the season, he had as many points as Zetterberg.
Of course I didn't account for the possibility of a shootout...Okay, so with the shootout loss by Boston today, here's what things come down to for us against Boston later this week:
Detroit regulation win - We're in the playoffs. Boston is out.
Detroit overtime OR shootout win - Have to go at least 0-1-1 to guarantee the playoffs.
Boston regulation win - Have to go 2-0 to guarantee the playoffs (one win would have to be in regulation/OT).
Boston overtime win - Have to go 1-0-1 to guarantee the playoffs (win has to be regulation/OT).
Boston shootout win - Have to go 1-0-1 to guarantee the playoffs.
In other words, even if we lose to Boston later this week our playoff destiny is still under our control. By losing tonight, Boston has put themselves in a situation to need outside help to make it.
Couple minor corrections:
If we beat Boston in a shootout, we would need 2 points to guarantee a spot.
If Boston beats us in a SO, we would need either 4 points or 3 with a ROW.
Reason is in those scenarios, Boston either wins or ties the season series, and they would win goal differential. We're currently only one ROW ahead. So we need either more points or to match them in both points and ROW.
Got tired of copying... So right now we are not a good offensive or defensive club. We don't have the assets to make major improvements in both areas. But we can do so in one area. There is a reason why people say "defense wins championships", mainly because it is true. If the options are good defense with a poor offense OR a good offense with a poor defense, give me the former every time.
I am far less worried about how many points we get from our D than I am about how many goals our D gives up. From a economical standpoint defensive Dmen are cheaper than offensive Dmen. If a team has 2 good offensive Dmen that is more than enough. Now we have made deep runs each way. The 95, 08, and 09 teams had D's that averaged about 2.6 points per game. The 97, 98, and 02 teams averaged about 1.9 points per game from the D. That is a big difference. But that goes back to question I asked a few pages back, is our D not scoring enough because of the D or because of the F's? Cases can be made for both sides.
But when we come to the limited scoring side, that is far more on the D. If we had a top 10 D now we would be a good 10 points ahead in the standings. We also would be a team better built for the playoffs.
You're the one who brought up Schenn's offensive numbers, I just pointed out that they aren't good despite where they'd rank on our team. If you want to talk defense, his numbers are worse than anyone on our team.
Some on here love circular firing squads. Our team needs to improve, yet at the same time we can't live without any of our players...... But hey the early tee times are coming.
Now some of you young fellas a big into the new age statistics. if you use those Scheen would be our second best offensive Dman tied with Smith. It terms of points per 60 mins. The arguement isn't if Scheen is a top 50 Dman in the league-he isn't. The question is is he better than what we have? he would be our 3rd best Dman. You can balk all you want at 5 mil per year, but that is what the market bares. IE Ericsson at 4.75 mil and KFQ at 4.25 million. Both of which are older more mistake prone, and they are far less physical. Schenn has like 220 hits this season. We don't have anyone over 100 IIRC. That is a big and needed change.
Now from managements stand point I can see them deciding that Marchenko is our 4th Dman. He is already playing on the second pair with Kronwall right now. He is younger and cheaper than Schenn. But is he better? Good question.
For the record, I am not some huge Schenn advocate. he is merely an option that would make our defense better. Nothing more. He is also well under 30 which helps his cause. if he is signed to a 5 or 6 year deal, it expires in his early 30's, not late 30's like so many of our broken down vets have going on.
Not sure where you're getting those numbers, but they're wrong. At even strength, he's actually above everyone, not that it means anything. He has the exact same stat line as Ericsson, but plays about 1/2 a minute less per game so he's marginally ahead in /60. Overall he'd be 4th, marginally below Smith and slightly above Dekeyser. Regardless, being as good as some bad offensive players means he's also bad offensively. Hardly worth noting.
There's a lot I could go into in regards to advanced metrics that show that Schenn is not any better than anyone on our team (and probably worse), but not going to bother. Agree to disagree.
As to your first comment, let's not get fallacious. No one is saying that and you know it. Yes, we need to improve, and everyone knows we'll need to change some players. But a good way to not improve is to give away too much of what we already have.
Mantha and someone like Backes would more than make up for what we lose by trading Tatar and Nyquist...
Lombardi and Sutter are paying him $1.8m to be a third pair guy, not $5m to play second. If he's so good and they're so great, why do you think they'll let him walk?
Even if, and it's a big if, Mantha and Backes could replace Nyquist and Tatar, you still haven't improved at F. Which is what I said. Sign Schenn and you aren't going to improve the forwards.
Even if you think it would cost Nyq+Tatar+Smith to get a top D, and that Backes+Mantha would replace them, we'd still be better off going with a cheap kid over Schenn and actually adding something at F.
now you are just assuming things. I have not at any point said that in any way shape or form. I have been very clear about making trades and signing UFA's and that this team needs at least 2 F
's and 3 Dmen between now and the start of the 17/18 season. That is on top of what we already have.
Wasn't assuming anything. The list of players you gave in your hypothetical $24M in free cap scenario did not include Nyquist or Tatar.
Even in the unlikely event that the cap rises more than expected and we get rid of Howard without retaining anything and we fill the backup G and scrub spots for ~$4M, then spend $10-13M on defense, you're looking at replacing Nyquist and Tatar for $7-10M. You're not going to get anything better than them in that price range, and even if you get something about as good, we still haven't actually improved at forward.
So again, signing Schenn as well someone that's actually good on defense is not only extremely unlikely, but also comes at the expense of upgrading at forward.
But affordability aside, Schenn is just not that good. Even if we were struggling to hit the cap floor I wouldn't want him.
do the math. Z 6.1, larkin >1, Abby 4.25, mantha >1, datsyuk 7.5, AA >1, Sheahan 2, Jurco >1, Glendening >1, DD 6, Kronwall 4.75, Ericsson 4.25, Oullett>1, Green 6, Marchenko >1, Mrazek 3. That is about 50 million. We have another 1.1 on Weiss's buyout. cap will be around 75 million. That leaves us with about 24 million to spend. 7 open roster spots.
So your perfect world is getting rid of Nyquist and Tatar. For Schenn.
I am done with Smith and it looks like Blashill is as well. Smith turns 28 soon and is a UFA after next season. Now is the time to move him in a deal to give him a fresh start. Schenn is 26-younger than Smith and KFQ. it still bugs me to now end that KFQ and Smith make a combined 7 million per year!!!!!!!!
As for the young guys yes some will have to be moved our we will lose them for nothing. None are waiver protected anymore. Keep 8 Dmen next season.
That frees up Smith, and 2 of the marcheko/Sproul/Jensen group for moves. Summer of 2017 we could then move Kronwall-not that I think it will happen-just could. Summer of 2018 Green is gone. At that point we are down to 1 bad contract on D in Ericsson.
Schenn is not better than Quincey, Smith, or Ericsson. There's also no way we could ever afford a #1D and Schenn without getting rid of Ericsson at least, and even that probably wouldn't be enough.