Jump to content

kipwinger's Photo


Member Since 31 May 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:37 PM

#2685185 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on Yesterday, 07:31 PM

So you'd trade any player for a better player?  How profound. Nobody is arguing against that meaningless platitude.  This whole conversation spawned from a discussion about trading our top prospects for one of Trouba, Fowler, or Shattenkirk.  None of whom are top defensemen.  That's where your scenario falls apart, as has been pointed out.  But you keep beating this drum for some reason. 


Despite all the gushing over these guys from the LGW faithful, all of Trouba, Fowler, and Shattenkirk have real holes in their games.  Trouba, for instance, has been heralded as a "potential 1D" despite showing Danny Dekeyser like offensive skills during his pro career.  None of these guys are top defensemen on their teams.  The fact that they'd be a top defenseman on our team doesn't make them better players, it just means we're not that great.  If your 1D is worse than all the other 1D around the league you're still at a relative loss.  And that's BEFORE you factor in the fact that you lost a top prospect to make it happen. 


I'd have been happy to trade for ANY of them if we'd landed a decent offensive player in FA.  Replacing Nyquist or Tatar with Okposo would have made one of them expendable.  And a trade would have made sense.  But doing it now, with a top prospect, is a recipe for disaster. 

#2684985 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 23 August 2016 - 04:42 PM

Anybody read the NHL.com "5 Questions" article with Ken Holland? I liked that they're planning to start Zetterberg with Nielsen, but a bit disappointed that he didn't mention AA when talking about prospective centers. I'm going to be really irritated if they develop that kid into a winger.

#2684883 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 16 August 2016 - 07:06 PM

Beyond that, nobody said every prospect SHOULD be traded, or that a top prospect should be traded for a small upgrade. But that's where a GM needs to have an understanding of his own talent pool, so you know you can trade Fleischmann or Matthias but not Datsyuk or even a guy like Homer.


Which is exactly what we did.  Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer.  So what are you complaining about?  You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management.


Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal.  We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green).  We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade.  Which is EXACTLY my point.  The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent. 

#2684874 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 16 August 2016 - 06:19 PM

Trouba isn't even the best d-man of the three.  That's Shattenkirk, and there's a reason why he's being traded despite producing better than Pietrangelo since being traded to St. Louis. 


Everybody is so bonkers for a defenseman they've dramatically overestimated these guys' values.  St. Louis, Anaheim, and Winnipeg ALL have better defenses than us.  None of them have won anything.  And these are the three guys they're looking to get rid of (supposedly).  There's a reason for that.  None of them make us much better, if at all. 

#2684848 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 15 August 2016 - 06:23 PM

Its not a question of trading "prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman, its a question of trading "top prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman. And if you'd do that you're crazy.

#2684688 Patrick Roy steps down as Head Coach and VP of Hockey Operations

Posted by kipwinger on 11 August 2016 - 06:49 PM

So, is this what happens when you hire unqualified people based on their name and relationship to you and not because they're good at their job?

#2684554 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 08 August 2016 - 04:23 PM

That ancient saying doesn't work in hockey anymore. Without Crosby, Kessel and to a lesser extent Malkin Pittsburgh would not have won the championship. Crosby was the number 1 reason they won the Stanley cup. 

Having a third line made up on bona fide top six players didn't hurt either.

#2684552 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 08 August 2016 - 04:19 PM

Yeah, that "defense wins championships" thing may be true in football or baseball where there's a clear distinction between the offense and defense (though I'm not even sure it works there), but in more fluid games like hockey, basketball, or soccer its much less true. Not to say defense doesn't matter, but what constitutes "defense" as opposed to "offense" is a little murkier.

Defensemen can really help generate a ton of offense by gaining possession of the puck and advancing it quickly and effectively. Likewise, the offense makes the whole process of defending much easier if they can hold the puck in the opposition's end and sustain o-zone pressure.

#2684523 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 07 August 2016 - 03:15 PM

Is anyone expecting much? Not me.


I am.  I think our offense should rebound nicely, we should be better in goal, and our defense (although relatively weak) isn't as bad as people think. 

#2684498 AA

Posted by kipwinger on 06 August 2016 - 07:58 PM

I think he'll be on the big club.  No doubt about it.  But I think Blashill will (stupidly) use him as a wing. 

#2684492 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 06 August 2016 - 05:09 PM

Maybe it stopped a few years ago. I just remember in discussions about Suter, Parise, and Vanek signing there, people kept mentioning that a motivation was because they had such a good prospect pool. I never really looked into it, so maybe it was bs even then. 


I don't really trust those kind of lists. It seems that it's just based on opinion.


P.S. I'm guessing you meant Mathews with Toronto - man, it would be insufferable if Toronto got McDavid.


You're right.  I don't remember exactly what year it was, but within recent memory Minnesota's prospect pool was ranked really high.  I'll try to find a link.


Edit:  Another thing, a lot of this has to do with the Canadian hockey media protecting Canada's hockey relevance.  If your team has a bunch of Canadian kids they know, then you must be good, because they know them.  Surely no foreign kid that they've never heard of could be as talented as your cousin's neighbor's son.  He's a known quantity.

#2684446 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 05 August 2016 - 05:58 PM

I'd be thrilled if Mantha turned out exactly like Franzen. Though I hope he'd learn to keep his head out of the way of traffic a little better than Johan.

#2684424 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 04 August 2016 - 06:42 PM

as I see it, Helm, AA and Jurco have similar styles, so what good is it to overflow one line with the same type of player?


 I see Mantha as more of a net presence player that could bug the goalie and bank in a few deflections. 


I may be in the minority, but I don't see Mantha as (or want him to be) a "net front" guy.  I think that would ruin him.  He's got the skill, shot, and speed to be a power sniper type guy in the vein of Rick Nash, James Neal, or Blake Wheeler.  Let guys like Abby bang and crash in front of the net.  That takes almost no skill.  I want Mantha to have more freedom than that. 


Similarly, I think that's one of the problems with Jurco.  He's big, so everybody wants him to play a power game.  But that's not his forte.  He's more comparable to Nyquist or Tatar than he is to Abby.  But they keep trying to make him be that guy and it's awkward for him because he's never played that way.  Reminds me a little of how they used to want Filppula to "shoot more" so they put him on the wing.  It was always going to be a bad fit for him.


Imagine if someone had repeatedly beat into Marian Hossa, or Nash, or any number of other guys, that they needed to play "heavy" and crash the net, and look for shot tips and rebounds.  They'd have been wasted.

#2684349 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 02 August 2016 - 03:55 PM


Some good thinking here in spots, so I'll chime in on those, marked in bold:


No defender acquired and not given proper insight in our system will be great the coming season. And it's already to late for that. With that said I'm thinking more long term, I would not bash a young stud defender for not producing on the fly. However in 2 or 3 years that fledling youngling would be leading this team from the back end. Defense takes time. Just need the supreme talent.


I can see the Smith-Marchenko line working well and would like to see it tried out with decent minutes, perhaps as a second pairing as you proposed. They make good hockey sense being paired.


I've posted elsewhere that the usage for the pairings I've proposed would make all the difference in the world.  I'd start the Smith-Marchenko pair in the defensive zone most often, for a few reasons.  1) They're the least capable offensive pair so there's no reason to waste offensive zone time on them.  2) Both have the ability to gain possession of the puck because both are big, strong, and aggressive.  3) Smith especially has shown he's good at advancing the puck after gaining possession and Marchenko also makes good outlet passes. They should be able to get possession and get the puck up ice.


As an aside, I'd start Green and Dekeyser in the neutral zone and Kronwall-Sproul in the offensive zone.  Green-Dekeyser are offensively competent AND can get back on defense while Kronwall-Sproul would be bad defensively but dangerous if started in the O-zone. 

#2684346 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 02 August 2016 - 03:41 PM

So, you want a guy who is in his second year to center the top line?


The same guy that had a rough time in the tail end of his first season?


You know, the guy who was in the Calder discussion until he fell off the map due to the longer grind of an NHL schedule?


That guy?


Yep.  Who else do we have?  I expect he'll be better in his second year than his first.  But if it makes you feel better you could switch the top two lines considering it doesn't make a difference which order I list them in but only how much ice time they get.  It's worth noting that Datsyuk was on our "2nd line" last year and still had top line minutes.  You're getting WAY too caught up with designations.