Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#2321007 Rating the NHL Franchises and Predictions

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 July 2012 - 05:31 PM

Wow... I'm shocked you don't like Burrows. We need a tough player in front of the opposing goalie. Next year Vancouver is facing 9 unrestricted free agents and 1 restricted. The following year the Sedin brothers are unrestricted free agents ($12.2million). If you do the math...Vanvouver is going to part with some top talent next year.

What does Burrows have to do with toughness?

I may not like some things about Tootoo, but he legitimately a tough little dude.

Burrows is a finger biting, diving, whining agitator. He makes Ott look classy. No thank you.



There's very few players I can honestly say I'd be embarrassed to have on the Wings, but Burrows is one of them.

#2320415 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 July 2012 - 02:01 PM

He was paid $3.3m for one year. That is not at all the type of big free-agent splash that was being made reference to.

Bats*** crazy, eh? That's a tremendous exaggeration. The highest bid for Jagr was $3.3m. The Wings offered something in the realm of $2.5m, as did the Penguins. In what universe do those sorts of offers constitute bats***-crazy attempts to sign a player?

Oh, now we're just using salary as a measure?

The original phrase was a "big free agent splash". I don't think I need to go over Jagr's resume, but his return to the NHL was a pretty big free agent signing. There were multiple teams trying to sign him, and there was also pretty significant risk given his age and the question mark of transitioning from the KHL. Both those factors kept his salary down.

But $3.3 million for a 40 year old who's been away from the NHL for 3 years isn't exactly chump change. In terms of a big free agent splash that could've gone bad but didn't, I'd say Jagr definitely qualifies, which was the original point of the post that started all this.

#2320390 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 July 2012 - 01:03 PM

In what universe was Jagr a big free-agent splash?

They can't. As of now he is not signed to a contract by anybody, so only his rights could be traded; and because he has signed an offer sheet, his rights cannot be traded.

This one?

Obviously it wasn't like Suter and Parise, but don't you remember all the giddy speculation last year about who would sign him? There were something like 5 Cup contending teams that were in the mix for him.

To me, a superstar of Jagr's caliber returning from the KHL is a pretty big free agent splash, even at his age.

#2320058 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 July 2012 - 12:26 AM

Hockey Memes@hockeymemes
Yo Holmgren, you can sign all the D in the world but Bryzgalov is still your goalie.


And Dreger may have overestimated the picks. How does it work again? He's revising his totals saying it may be a couple firsts and a couple 2nds.

#2320043 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 July 2012 - 12:10 AM

Well, let the whining begin.

It just did with your post.

Stay on topic please.

#2319779 Red Wings make "helluva" offer for Nash, no response

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

For real... I am scratching my head at the lack of intellectual honesty being displayed in some of these posts. "I heard..." and "Reports say..." ....and therefore Holland blows!!!! eh... really?

IF it's true that Holland made a "hell of a offer" ... we can probably safely assume that it was something *more* than Franzen, prospect, pick or Fillpula, prospect, pick......

The thing is the "helluva an offer" is an equally weak source.

The reality is we don't really know anything more than we did before. Either way, it seems extremely unlikely the Blue Jackets would deal Nash to Detroit.

#2319490 Doan staying in PHX 4 yrs $21.2 mill

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 July 2012 - 08:20 PM

I never really thought Doan was leaving Phoenix. Did anyone really?

No, but I thought Phoenix might be leaving Phoenix.

#2319489 Dominik Hasek's agent: "He will play, and he will excel"

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 July 2012 - 08:16 PM

From hockey memes twitter


Attached Files

  • Attached File  dom.jpg   87.79KB   12 downloads

#2319421 Semin

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 July 2012 - 10:30 AM

True but its not like we are giving assets to acquire him. If he bolts he bolts and we dont have to get rid of his contract or pay him if it doesnt work.


I just meant that you think you've got a player locked up for a certain number of years and then suddenly there's a hole in your lineup that you could've tried to fill some other way.

Like when Hudler took the Wings to arbitration that commits him to signing with the Wings so I'm guessing Holland was counting on him being in the lineup. Then suddenly he bolted to the KHL and you're short a player and free agency options are limited.

#2319280 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 July 2012 - 12:42 PM

To me, this is the heart of it:

Avoid personal attacks against individuals but practice criticism of ideas. The focus should be on increasing our combined knowledge, not on putting people down.

#2319132 How bad are we if our roster is now finalized?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 July 2012 - 01:26 PM

This is not true. The fellow said he had examples. I'm only asking him to share them.

Whatever the case, there are a very limited number of defensemen who could be suitable replacements for Lidstrom. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable for one to name whom they feel would have been plausible pick-ups for this purpose.

That misrepresents people's arguments here, which has the not-unintended effect of making their position even more difficult to prove. Replacing Lidstrom is pretty much impossible. I don't think anyone expected Holland to go out and replace one of the best D-men who's ever played the game. Even getting Suter wouldn't have done that. But that's not the same as saying he could do more to improve the defense and could have better prepared for Lidstrom's eventual retirement.

And you may not think it's an unreasonable request, but the reality is it's awfully difficult to prove something that didn't happen. Which not coincidentally also puts you in a pretty advantageous position to argue from. You get to defend what actually happened but expect someone to build a concrete case for some hypothetical alternative that was both possible and would improve the team. It's like if the Wings lost a game and someone here was complaining about their effort, expecting them to name a shot that someone could have taken that almost certainly would have scored.

I don't think it's fair to conclude that. I can't know what I would think of them if I haven't heard them.

True. I was just making an educated guess based on every response you've ever had to someone proposing a move that Holland could have made.

This is a discussion forum. If we were all content to simply sit and watch, we wouldn't be discussing anything. As is, possible scenarios are discussed on an daily basis here.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the portion of my post you quoted or why you feel the need to inform a moderator here as to what the purpose of this board is.

It's a point you should take to heart though. As you make the obvious point, this is a hockey discussion board. So people will come here to express their displeasure with Holland if they feel like it. That makes perfect sense to me, even if I don't agree with them. They dont' have to construct an argument that meets your standards in order to be able to criticize Holland, or anyone on the Wings for that matter.

That's not my position at all. I do realize that I spend a lot of time defending Holland on here, but that doesn't mean that I believe he's perfect. I simply believe that he's one of the best out there and should not be called an atrocious factor for the Wings, particularly over the matters that aren't reasonably within his control. I certainly feel that he has made mistakes. The 2009 offseason very much stands out in that category.

As for Ericsson, I still don't like how the guy plays.

What should Holland have done in 2009? Who should he have signed? Using 2009, you could set an example here to show others how to properly build a case for criticizing Holland.

As for Ericsson, considering he was drafted dead last and a converted defenseman, I would've thought you'd consider him one of Holland's greater successes. Ericsson was among the better d-men this season, especially in the playoffs. Holland took a player who was basically an afterthought and now has a #4/5 D-man who can play 18+ minutes a night.

#2318995 Holland Content with Current Roster

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 July 2012 - 03:00 PM

A great post on RWC that applies her as well

Phoenician wrote:
Tripe? Did I hit a nerve or something?

Listen, I am all about hearing other’s opinions. Where I take exception, is when those opinions get to the extent of calling for the firing of someone (Ken Holland), who has been able to keep this franchise more competitive than any other. Has he done a perfect job? No. But the general consensus (at least from those in the league) seems to be he is one of the best GMs in the league. I guess I am so appreciative of what I have observed (as a life-long Red Wings fan), over the past two decades, the complete lack of respect comes across as simply ludicrous. As Red Wing fans, we have witnessed one of the best runs of success, in modern sports history (am I wrong here professor?). Yet a lot of people here seem to have absolutely no appreciation for that. Can we at least let actual failure materialize, before we organize the Ken Holland lynch mob? Maybe I am drinking the kool-aid. Mmmm… now that’s f---in good. Or maybe, it is because I had a front row seat for the Red Wings of the 70’s and that has given me a little different perspective on where this franchise currently sits. God forbid the day this franchise is forced to go into a real rebuilding period. I suppose then we will see who the bandwagon fans are. Buddy! I’m not your friend pal!

It’s not opposing opinions that drive me crazy. But the lack of respect and completely unrealistic expectations kind of rub me the wrong way. How is that for tripe?

Enjoy your menudo senor.

The thing is, how many people here are actually calling for the firing of Ken Holland? It's been what, maybe 4 people? I'm not even sure because I think the jokes being made about people saying fire holland probably outnumber the people actually saying it by ten to one.

There's a huge difference in expressing your disappointment in what's happened so far this offseason and even the last few seasons, then calling for him to be fired.

#2318777 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 July 2012 - 08:15 PM

So, you disagree with this assessment? :D

I think most SANE Wings fans would. At the same time, he is entitled to his opinion. Just like I have stood up for the refereeing that many people here think is ungodly bad. Does my opinion about the refereeing fall into the "trolling" category just because it differs from the majority? No.

To be totally honest, I believe they should be shutting down people who are levying personal attacks against other members. There is a way to have a great debate on a topic. Levying personal attacks isn't the way to go.

Absolutely agree.

Though I don't agree with the post you quoted, he's at least talking hockey. If people would stick to that we'd be fine. It all goes to hell when people start attacking the person for their unpopular opinion. Plus some of the smarter trolls toe the line and antagonize people without it necessarily being an outright personal attack.

I don't want to speak out of turn (correct me if I'm wrong fellow mods) but Matt and the mods prefer to keep things on the looser side around here so people can speak their minds rather than clamp down on every little thing. I think in general it makes is a more fun place to talk hockey, but it also does mean there's some irritating stuff that you have to live with on occasion.

#2318656 How bad are we if our roster is now finalized?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 July 2012 - 01:33 PM

Translation: you don't have any examples. Because it would have taken you substantially less time to simply list them than it has for you to type up numerous posts about why you aren't giving any. Have fun yelling.


Your position seems to be that unless someone can provide concrete examples of players that were available, trades that almost definitely would go through, and would almost certainly improve the team, they shouldn't complain.

That's an absurd expectation. At the time who would've predicted that Holland could get Stuart from the Kings for a 2nd and 4th pick? Or taking the Kings as an example, who would've thought they'd get Richards for Simmonds, Schenn and a pick? Or trade a defenseman they'd recently signed long term to bring in Carter? And that both of those trades would be huge factors in their Cup win?

It's likely you would've shot down all of those trades as unrealistic or wouldn't improve the team. But who the hell knows until they actually happen?

If I could provide those kind of examples beforehand, I'd take Holland's friggin job. I'm not complaining because I think he sucks. I'm complaining because I think he's one of the best GM's in the NHL, so he better be able to come up with some moves that the average fan couldn't know about.

It's awful hard to provide irrefutable evidence for a trade that didn't happen. That doesn't mean I can't be unhappy with what Holland is saying and doing. For now I'm withholding full judgment until the summer is over. But Lidstrom retiring is something he and management should've started planning for 10 years ago. Looking at our blueline right now, it sure doesn't feel like they did.

Your position seems to be that if Holland made the move, it was the right one. If he didn't, it wouldn't have made the team better or it would've cost too much. The only thing I've heard you complain about regarding Holland was Ericsson, which you were wrong about.

#2318572 Holland Content with Current Roster

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 July 2012 - 10:38 AM

He is not. I read it the same way, because, well, thats exactly what it said. That Quincy and Smith will "replace" (the exact word he used) Stuart and Lidstrom.

Oh, and I am not some doom and gloom negative person about this off season, I've been staying positive and hoping for the best, so you cannot attempt to refute MY comment by passive attacks and accusing me of only being negative like you did with him. ;)

Well, they will replace him. But that doesn't mean it's an equal replacement.

The Wings lost one of the greatest D-men to ever play the game, and a solid middle pairing guy. Quincey will hopefully be okay but not great once he gets used to the pairings and system. They're bringing in a talented but very green rookie who has played a whopping 14 NHL games in his career. And now they're also relying on Kindl, who couldn't manage to hold the #6 spot convincingly and didn't see a lick of ice time in the playoffs.

It's hard to feel good about the Wings defense right now.