Jump to content


nawein's Photo

nawein

Member Since 28 Oct 2013
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 07:13 PM
-----

#2585802 Who should sit?

Posted by nawein on 27 March 2015 - 06:44 AM

My guess is Weiss and Andersson. I think we'll run something like
Tatar-Pav-Helm
Cole-Z-Abby
Gus-Sheahan-Pulkkinen
Miller-Glendening-Jurco.

I'd love to see Ericsson healthy scratched on the back end and replaced with Kindl or Marchenko. Kindl has played well in his few appearances lately and Ericsson has been a dumpster fire. I would try running
Kronwall-Dekeyser
Kindl-Quincey
Smith Zidlicky
With the top pair getting around 25 minutes and the others getting around 17 each.


#2585077 Dylan Larkin

Posted by nawein on 25 March 2015 - 10:59 AM

I want Larkin to spend another year at U of M. I got to watch a lot of his games and while he dominated play sometimes on certain shifts, it was exactly that. On certain shifts. I'd love to see him get stronger and take another step forward before moving to the AHL. He should be dominating most shifts, if not all and controlling the play whenever he's on the ice. I want him to get used to being "The guy" on the ice before moving to more difficult competition. This year he had Hyman and typically it was Hyman that was "the guy" even though Larkin wasn't far behind. He will be a leader on the wings in the future and I want to see him practice being that at U of M first.


#2582451 Mrazek to start how many games?

Posted by nawein on 15 March 2015 - 11:16 PM


This is where you completely lose me. Why would you move your starting goaltender because you think your 23-year-old back-up goalie, with 33 games of NHL experience might be ready to start? I can understand thinking Mrazek deserves to start more often, but why in the world would you move Howard now? That's just not smart asset management, in my opinion. Mrazek struggles and who do they turn to? Tom McCollum?


While I'm not advocating for trading Jimmy, I can see the logic behind wanting to trade him now. There are several reasons.
1. His value is higher now than it would be after he lost his starting job. You could get more for him. ie that puck moving defenseman or a Jordan Eberle.
2. Expansion draft. Rumor has it that Las Vegas will have a team to start the 2016 campaign. Trading Jimmy now allows us to sign a veteran guy that can play 30-40 games to a two year contract with the intention of protecting Mrazek and exposing said veteran. If we go in with two goalies that we want to protect, we will lose something that we don't want to. Whether it's a skater or one of the goalies, we'll lose something. This would allow us to protect against that.
3. It currently appears that the team plays better in front of Mrazek. His puck moving abilities change the dynamic of the breakout and helps us defend less. It's not a fluke that we score more goals in front of Mrazek. It's actually Mrazek.


#2582408 3/15 GDT : Red Wings 5 at Penguins 1

Posted by nawein on 15 March 2015 - 06:10 PM

Ericsson was -1 today. The only Red Wing to be a minus in a 5-1 victory. Huh.


#2579670 Nyquist's RFA Status

Posted by nawein on 07 March 2015 - 11:17 AM

I think he'll get something somilar to Reilly Smith's new deal. 2-3 years at around 3-3.5.


#2578095 Red Wings acquire Marek Zidlicky from NJ for Cond. 2016 3rd Round Pick

Posted by nawein on 03 March 2015 - 09:40 PM

Marchenko will be in Grand Rapids.


#2573627 Dylan Larkin

Posted by nawein on 22 February 2015 - 08:16 PM

1g, 3a in a dominant performance tonight as Michigan beat Ohio State 5-2. I fully expect him to spend 1 more year at Michigan and then go to Grand Rapids. This kid continues to impress.


#2571240 2/16 GDT : Montreal Canadiens 2 at Red Wings 0

Posted by nawein on 16 February 2015 - 09:04 PM

I don't know how they didn't call Subban for hooking Nyquist right before he took that penalty, but oh well.


Because we've had 2 PP's and they've had 0.


#2570285 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by nawein on 12 February 2015 - 01:02 PM

 
Is there anybody who wouldn't? 


Everyone from Edmonton.


#2569880 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by nawein on 11 February 2015 - 03:39 PM

No, not at all. Stats are telling but they don't tell the whole story. Smith is better than his stats suggest because he SHOULD be getting top 4 minutes (in my opinion), and he WOULD be a top 4 defenseman with 25+ other teams (in my opinion).


I get that you think Smith should be getting PP time, that might boos his points. But how are bad stats against worse competition in any way indicative that's he's a better hockey player than people think? Let's say he's in the top 4 instead of Quincey. Does he score more than Quincey has in his added 1:08 per game? Maybe. Is the pair worse defensively? Yes. He's not a top 4 defenseman on this team and he wouldn't be a top 4 defenseman on most other teams either.

It's like Babs always says. "Players always say if you give me more ice time I'll produce more, and I always say produce more and I'll give you more ice time." It's not a hard concept to understand. If he was seen or produced like a top 4 guy, he'd be getting top 4 minutes. He's not and he's not so that should sum it up.


#2569469 What should we do with the Monster?

Posted by nawein on 09 February 2015 - 11:30 AM

Wasn't sure where esle to put this but Mrazek is staying up and starting Wednesday with Howie backing up. Per Khan.

"@AnsarKhanMLive: Babcock said Mrazek starting Wednesday. Howard is backing up. Howard might start Saturday."

Also I apologize for not being able to embed tweets and make it look cool.


#2567793 Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Posted by nawein on 02 February 2015 - 11:02 AM

 
You're right.  If Washington weren't going to make the playoffs Green would cost less because he's on an expiring contract.  I think the reason we're all saying he'd cost a lot is because they ARE going to make the playoffs and they'll need him.  So, in order to pry him away, you'd have to give a MASSIVE overpayment. 


Maybe not..

http://www.thefourth.../was150202.html


#2567213 Dylan Larkin

Posted by nawein on 30 January 2015 - 07:27 PM

Hopefully it'll be great. I'm here tonight so hopefully he impresses. It'll be great to watch him in person


#2566678 Larkin or Mantha?

Posted by nawein on 29 January 2015 - 06:48 AM

 
I wasn't implying that you'd trade them straight up.  I was implying that O'Reilly is the kind of guy I'd want back if I was sending Larkin in a trade.  As far as the other stuff...I don't care about his cap hit (we've got money), its always easier to re-sign a guy if you're a good team (Colorado), and players that good always make you better.  Comparing him to Helm is laughable.  You said you haven't seen him much, you should.  He's a really good hockey player. 


I just compared their offensive outputs this year because they're similar and that Helms spot is who's he'd play in if we we're to trade for him. And you said he works hard, and is relentless and solid defensively. All things Helm is. So I was under the impression he's a more offensivle gifted Darren Helm. Which yeah, I'd love to have. I've also read several reports on the guy that say he's a 2-, 3+ line player. Which puts him slightly better than Helm. If it's that laughable, I apologize, I'll try to catch some games.

As far as money, Nyquist, Smith and Jurco all need raises and if we can add a top defenseman, we actually might be closer to the cap than a lot of people think.

And trading a top prospect + for a position we don't really need to upgrade seems pointless to me.


#2566656 Larkin or Mantha?

Posted by nawein on 28 January 2015 - 11:44 PM

He also costs 6 million, and isn't at a position of huge need right now. Plus it would take more than Larkin stright up to get him. You'd be paying a hefty price for a guy that isn't having a much better offensive year than Darren Helm, that we probably couldn't afford to resign (6 million qualifying offer and he's been a pain in negotiations so far in his career), and that doesn't really pull us any closer to being a cup contender. I'd move Larkin for a defenseman version of O'Reilly, but not O'Reilly. He just doesn't really provide anything we don't already have a enough of. He doesn't fill a huge need. And we'd have to give up a lot of assests for him.