Jump to content

joshy207's Photo


Member Since 19 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:20 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Holland signs 4 year extension with wings **MOD Warning Post 130**

17 August 2014 - 10:27 PM

So the colts losing the sexond best qb in football to injury had nothing to do with why they were bad. Teams have rebuilds like buffalo but even if they're bad I wouldn't consider it tanking. No coach or players would ever intentionally lose.


The Colts losing Manning was the major reason they were bad.  They also knew being a bad team would give them the chance to draft Luck.  I'm not saying they did blow games, but a good chunk of their fans certainly had no problem with the idea.


You don't think players or coaches have never intentionally lost or done something else under the table?  Nobody has ever shaved points, fixed games, etc?  That has happened.  It probably happens more often than we will ever know about.  And I'm certain some front offices have urged coaches to not put forth the best product a time or two.

I agree. Let me revise my opinion.

I don't think that just bc a player is ready and can or could play means he should. Playing them later, closer to their peak, is better for their all-around long-term development. Hence why I'm equating readiness with peak age.


That makes more sense.  I feel a little differently... depending on the player, keeping him in the minors longer can hinder his progress.  Some players need the challenge of the higher level to continue to develop their game.  The trick is figuring out which players those are.

In Topic: Holland signs 4 year extension with wings **MOD Warning Post 130**

17 August 2014 - 12:41 PM


That article seems to conclude most forwards peak around 24, which is precisely the one of the ages I cited. How is that considerably off at all? The article states that 21-22 forwards show good production in the NHL, but don't get played because their defense is under-developed, aka they aren't ready.


Being NHL-ready and peaking are not at all the same.

In Topic: Holland signs 4 year extension with wings **MOD Warning Post 130**

17 August 2014 - 12:14 PM

"Tanking" implies losing on purpose.  Whether it's players underperforming, coaches using the wrong players or strategies, or management making moves to make the team worse, it's done with the intent of finishing lower in the standings and getting a higher draft pick.  Draft lotteries were invented to reduce the chances of this strategy working.  It was done more often in other sports, where high draft picks almost always become impact players right away.  The Indianapolis Colts' "Suck for Luck" season is one of the most recent examples.

The Red Wings did not tank to get Steve Yzerman, and there are two obvious reasons why: 1, the Wings had been terrible for almost two decades, making the playoffs twice in 17 years and only winning one series.  They didn't lose on purpose in "82-'83, they just couldn't win.  2, the Wings were heavily targeting local product Pat LaFontaine with the #4 pick, but he went #3 to the Islanders.  Yzerman was the consolation prize.



They didn't tank. They tried but went through a drought anyway. The whole notion of tanking is mostly a cap era phenomenon anyway. Therefore it's arrogant of you to just assume the Wings tanked the team in order to get a guy like Yzerman when you weren't even there. Because that's not what happened, and Stevie, even though he's heralded as such, was not the savior of this organization. He very well could have been the first coming of John Tavares had Wings not played their cards almost perfectly.


In regards to your above statements. Hindsight is 20/20. Just because we didn't win a cup those years doesn't mean the wings couldn't have. And the organization as well as most of us believed, and still do believe, they had a fair shot. Playing older vets kept younger players, like Nyquist, in the minors to build their confidence and develop their game better than they would being rushed into the NHL. Since vets, like you said, got essentially the same points that a rookie would have, there was more good done than harm.


I'm glad you're well-rounded in most sports. It means you obviously know that most hockey players aren't normally ready until 24, 26, or sometimes even 27, unlike most American sports where the ready-age is between 18 and 22. This organization is going to continue sheltering prospects as best they can until they hit those years despite anyone's impatient clamoring. Aside from the rare few who can truly squeak in at an earlier age.


Also, Wings players have routinely expressed their pleasure with Ken always putting together a veteran team. 


Tanking has been around for much longer than salary caps.  I think it's tougher to do today, between the cap and roster/player movement limitations.


Also, I think your "ready age" numbers are considerably off.  http://www.sbnation....es-age-analysis

In Topic: What Might Have Been: Gretzky to Detroit?

16 August 2014 - 12:26 PM

With Probert on the team there would have been no reason for Marty to come here. Also with the other muscle in the next few years to come. He would have been a wasted trade.


Probert or no Probert, I don't know that Gretzky was going anywhere without McSorley.  It's possible Detroit could have included Probert or Kocur in the return package.

In Topic: What Might Have Been: Gretzky to Detroit?

13 August 2014 - 03:27 PM

So many of you are arguing Gretzky VS. Yzerman, which is interesting... but I think it would have been Gretzky AND Yzerman.  I think the deal could have gotten done for Oates and Klima.