So, Eric and Walk ... What About Kenny?
Newsguyone
Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability to
a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff team
together.
I went on the record as saying I'd stop baggin on KH if this team made the
conference finals ...
But I guess I knew that wasn't going to a happen, because I didn't see how
this team was an improvement on the last two playoff duds.
Strange thing is, I'm fairly certain that if we could beat Edmonton, we
would have beat Colorado and made the conference finals.
What worries me more, for next year, are the comments Holland has made and
the signings he's made.
1) Signing Samuelsson to 2 or 3 years at $1.2 M a year.
*Too much. Worse yet, with all the other forwards signed, that leaves
precious little room for upgrade.
2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would have
had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
* WTF?? What chemistry? Who in their right fucking mind believes these two
had any chemistry? Look at the stats. 40 goals by Shanahan. Datsyuk, who
played on his line most of the year and was third among forward in assists
until a late season injury, had the first assist on 4 or 5 of them.
He simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
3) He wants to bring back Shanahan and Yzerman.
Okay, so Sammy is signed. Yzerman and SHanahan might come back. Maltby,
Draper, Franzen, Zetterberg, Lang, Homer, Datsyuk are signed.
That's 10 forward of the top 12.
That means Cleary (who at his salary, is actaully a guy worth keeping) and
Williams are the only two guys up in the air.
So where to we get faster? Where are our scoring wingers? Where do we get
younger?
Will Ken Holland step in and actually make a roster player-for-roster player
trade?
Hasn't happened, I don't think, since Hasek traded himself to Detroit.
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
news:XJCdnTwuA5z...@comcast.com...
> Another first round playoff loss ...
> Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability
> to a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff
> team together.
Yes and no. I've never been sold that Holland is a fantastic GM. I think
he's good, I certainly think he's been a huge upgrade over Bowman
(especially with regards to the draft and prospects overall), but he hasn't
definitively proven that he can construct a -playoff- winner from scratch.
He has shown he can make adjustements year to year and keep a team at a high
level for a significant period of time, but he hasn't really turned the club
over. This will be his offseason to do that, I think.
And before the Jedis get all in a huff, my arguments over Holland have
usually revolved around my disagreeing with the notion that Holland is a
horrible GM.
> Strange thing is, I'm fairly certain that if we could beat Edmonton, we
> would have beat Colorado and made the conference finals.
IIRC I made some comment along the lines of 'Edmonton would be the toughest
team Detroit would face in the West', my presumption being that in addition
to them the Wings would play Dallas and one other of the bottom four seeds,
teams that they'd mostly handled fairly easily all year.
> What worries me more, for next year, are the comments Holland has made and
> the signings he's made.
> 1) Signing Samuelsson to 2 or 3 years at $1.2 M a year.
> *Too much. Worse yet, with all the other forwards signed, that leaves
> precious little room for upgrade.
Enh. 1.2 doesn't strike me as an exhorbitant amount of cash, really. I
doubt it'll be all that much over the league average, and Samuellson is a
decent offensive player.
> 2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would have
> had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
Part of the downside of living in a different state is that I don't get to
hear these pressers anymore.
> * WTF?? What chemistry? Who in their right fucking mind believes these two
> had any chemistry? Look at the stats. 40 goals by Shanahan. Datsyuk, who
> played on his line most of the year and was third among forward in assists
> until a late season injury, had the first assist on 4 or 5 of them.
> He simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
If you're using the first assist as the primary indicator of 'chemistry' I
can see why you'd reach that conclusion.
> 3) He wants to bring back Shanahan and Yzerman.
> Okay, so Sammy is signed. Yzerman and SHanahan might come back. Maltby,
> Draper, Franzen, Zetterberg, Lang, Homer, Datsyuk are signed.
> That's 10 forward of the top 12.
> That means Cleary (who at his salary, is actaully a guy worth keeping) and
> Williams are the only two guys up in the air.
>
> So where to we get faster? Where are our scoring wingers? Where do we get
> younger?
That's a concern, no doubt. Right now, the only guys signed at forward are
Lang, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Draper, Maltby, Holmstrom and Samuellson.
Franzen's still an RFA unless I missed something. Even if I have and he has
re-signed, I don't mind that so much. I would absolutely mind if Yzerman
and Shanny both came back, however. With Lang, Datsyuk and Zetterberg there
is plenty of goalscoring at forward. I'd like to see those 4 open roster
spots go towards re-shaping this team and giving it a different identity.
When push comes to shove a team always goes back to what it is most
comfortable doing. In Detroit that's been 'puck possession', a style of
offense that today's NHL simply won't support. If Holland can bring in 4
new guys at forward and Babcock can finish getting this team to stop
thinking 'puck possession' and start thinking 'hit somefuckingbody and make
them give up the puck' Detroit is halfway to changing their identity.
> Will Ken Holland step in and actually make a roster player-for-roster
> player trade?
I think so. It's tough to make any other kind of trade now.
> Hasn't happened, I don't think, since Hasek traded himself to Detroit.
A large part of that is in the absence of a salary cap there's no real
reason to give up a current asset for a current asset. Many teams making
trades late in a season did so for the express purpose of reducing salary
committments/building for the future/being cheap bastards and not being able
to sign upcoming FAs, so they didn't want to take contracts back.
They -wanted- picks and non-NHL players instead. Now that we have a cap
teams don't have that luxury anymore.
E.
edl
"edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message news:...
>> 2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would
>> have had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
By the way, here's another reason I miss being in Detroit. I don't get to
immediately jump on the opportunities to point out when you mis-quote
someone:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060504/SPORTS0103/605040384/1128
"Brendan had a great season and he developed a good chemistry with Pavel,"
Holland said. "They were beginning to recapture that chemistry in the
playoffs."
So, unless you were getting that 'quote' of Holland's from another source
you just wildly misquoted the dude.
E.
Newsguyone
Er ... hello?
For one, I'm paraphrasing what he said on a radio show.
Two, what he says fits pretty well with what I said.
> E.
>
Newsguyone
>
> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> news:XJCdnTwuA5z...@comcast.com...
>> Another first round playoff loss ...
>> Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability
>> to a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff
>> team together.
>
> Yes and no. I've never been sold that Holland is a fantastic GM. I think
> he's good, I certainly think he's been a huge upgrade over Bowman
> (especially with regards to the draft and prospects overall), but he
> hasn't definitively proven that he can construct a -playoff- winner from
> scratch. He has shown he can make adjustements year to year and keep a
> team at a high level for a significant period of time, but he hasn't
> really turned the club over. This will be his offseason to do that, I
> think.
Is Detroit really at a high level?
I don't think so.
I don't think they have been since this time in 02.
Regular season point totals, IMO, are a mirage.
>
> And before the Jedis get all in a huff, my arguments over Holland have
> usually revolved around my disagreeing with the notion that Holland is a
> horrible GM.
>
Horrible? That's Mike Milberry.
But Ken Holland, IMO, is perhaps the most overrated GM in the NHL.
He literally fell into a great hockey team.
>> Strange thing is, I'm fairly certain that if we could beat Edmonton, we
>> would have beat Colorado and made the conference finals.
>
> IIRC I made some comment along the lines of 'Edmonton would be the
> toughest team Detroit would face in the West', my presumption being that
> in addition to them the Wings would play Dallas and one other of the
> bottom four seeds, teams that they'd mostly handled fairly easily all
> year.
>
Detroit didn't quite handle Dallas, from what I remember.
In fact, I think Dallas gave Detroit their worst loss of the year (not
including the SJ game, when our team was still in Sweden, and the final game
of the year vs. Nashville)
But I could be wrong.
Too lazy to check
>> What worries me more, for next year, are the comments Holland has made
>> and the signings he's made.
>> 1) Signing Samuelsson to 2 or 3 years at $1.2 M a year.
>> *Too much. Worse yet, with all the other forwards signed, that leaves
>> precious little room for upgrade.
>
> Enh. 1.2 doesn't strike me as an exhorbitant amount of cash, really. I
> doubt it'll be all that much over the league average, and Samuellson is a
> decent offensive player.
Not terribly overpaid. But I wouldn't have signed this dude just yet. Every
year, it seems, Holland signs all the scrubs and then makes his way to the
big guys.
And he almost always overpays for these 3rd/fourth line guys
And again, the big issues is that signing Sammy means that we have one less
spot where we can upgrade.
>
>> 2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would
>> have had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
>
> Part of the downside of living in a different state is that I don't get to
> hear these pressers anymore.
>
>> * WTF?? What chemistry? Who in their right fucking mind believes these
>> two had any chemistry? Look at the stats. 40 goals by Shanahan. Datsyuk,
>> who played on his line most of the year and was third among forward in
>> assists until a late season injury, had the first assist on 4 or 5 of
>> them.
>> He simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>
> If you're using the first assist as the primary indicator of 'chemistry' I
> can see why you'd reach that conclusion.
Well, a premier set up guy and a premier goal scorer on the same line hook
don't hook up very often. I'd say that there is something wrong with that
picture.
It sure wasn't Datsyuk to Hull, or anything like that.
>
>> 3) He wants to bring back Shanahan and Yzerman.
>> Okay, so Sammy is signed. Yzerman and SHanahan might come back. Maltby,
>> Draper, Franzen, Zetterberg, Lang, Homer, Datsyuk are signed.
>> That's 10 forward of the top 12.
>> That means Cleary (who at his salary, is actaully a guy worth keeping)
>> and Williams are the only two guys up in the air.
>>
>> So where to we get faster? Where are our scoring wingers? Where do we get
>> younger?
>
> That's a concern, no doubt. Right now, the only guys signed at forward
> are Lang, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Draper, Maltby, Holmstrom and Samuellson.
> Franzen's still an RFA unless I missed something. Even if I have and he
> has re-signed, I don't mind that so much. I would absolutely mind if
> Yzerman and Shanny both came back, however. With Lang, Datsyuk and
> Zetterberg there is plenty of goalscoring at forward. I'd like to see
> those 4 open roster spots go towards re-shaping this team and giving it a
> different identity. When push comes to shove a team always goes back to
> what it is most comfortable doing. In Detroit that's been 'puck
> possession', a style of offense that today's NHL simply won't support. If
> Holland can bring in 4 new guys at forward and Babcock can finish getting
> this team to stop thinking 'puck possession' and start thinking 'hit
> somefuckingbody and make them give up the puck' Detroit is halfway to
> changing their identity.
I'd like to see a guy like Langenbrunner brought into town.
And maybe our version of Niememen.
>
>> Will Ken Holland step in and actually make a roster player-for-roster
>> player trade?
>
> I think so. It's tough to make any other kind of trade now.
Yeah, but will he do it.
>
>> Hasn't happened, I don't think, since Hasek traded himself to Detroit.
>
> A large part of that is in the absence of a salary cap there's no real
> reason to give up a current asset for a current asset. Many teams making
> trades late in a season did so for the express purpose of reducing salary
> committments/building for the future/being cheap bastards and not being
> able to sign upcoming FAs, so they didn't want to take contracts back.
> They -wanted- picks and non-NHL players instead. Now that we have a cap
> teams don't have that luxury anymore.
Right. So now Holland's GM skills will finally be tested. To a certain
extent, he's had a sheltered career because Mike Illitch was always willing
to take every salary dump in the league.
Let's see if he can make a value-for-value trade.
Still amazed that he hasn't made many yet
>
> E.
>
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>
> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:DdCdnZ_JS88...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>> 2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would
>>>> have had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
>>
>> By the way, here's another reason I miss being in Detroit. I don't get
>> to immediately jump on the opportunities to point out when you mis-quote
>> someone:
>>
>> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060504/SPORTS0103/605040384/1128
>>
>> "Brendan had a great season and he developed a good chemistry with
>> Pavel," Holland said. "They were beginning to recapture that chemistry in
>> the playoffs."
>>
> Er ... hello?
> For one, I'm paraphrasing what he said on a radio show.
> Two, what he says fits pretty well with what I said.
Except he said 'good', not great, and that they had developed some
chemistry, not that they had had it all year.
It's not a huge deal, Tran, but what he actually said is a lot more tame
than your 'paraphrase' of what he said. His actual quote doesn't bother me,
really.
E.
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> Is Detroit really at a high level?
Yes.
> I don't think so.
> I don't think they have been since this time in 02.
> Regular season point totals, IMO, are a mirage.
They are -now-, they weren't then. Also, keep in mind that since 2002
Detroit has only lost to the team that eventually represented the Western
Conference in the Cup Finals, Tran. That's not exactly chopped liver.
We'll see if Edmonton breaks that streak or not.
>> And before the Jedis get all in a huff, my arguments over Holland have
>> usually revolved around my disagreeing with the notion that Holland is a
>> horrible GM.
>>
>
> Horrible? That's Mike Milberry.
> But Ken Holland, IMO, is perhaps the most overrated GM in the NHL.
Really? How is he rated, and by whom, to lead you to think he is
'overrated'?
> He literally fell into a great hockey team.
That's life. PL sort of 'fell' into Roy. He certainly 'fell' into Lindros.
What's the difference?
> Detroit didn't quite handle Dallas, from what I remember.
> In fact, I think Dallas gave Detroit their worst loss of the year (not
> including the SJ game, when our team was still in Sweden, and the final
> game of the year vs. Nashville)
Even in that game (a 6-3 loss) Detroit had chased Turco less than 2 minutes
into the second before Osgood perfomed a self-lobotomy right out there on
the ice. Like I said before the playoffs started I thought Dallas was the
most overrated team in the West, not Detroit. Turco hadn't proven he was
worth a damn in the playoffs, and this past playoff just cemented that
opinion.
>> Enh. 1.2 doesn't strike me as an exhorbitant amount of cash, really. I
>> doubt it'll be all that much over the league average, and Samuellson is a
>> decent offensive player.
>
> Not terribly overpaid. But I wouldn't have signed this dude just yet.
> Every year, it seems, Holland signs all the scrubs and then makes his way
> to the big guys.
Probably because he's a big believer in depth.
> And he almost always overpays for these 3rd/fourth line guys
Like, who? More specifically, what are other quality 3rd/4th liners making
and is that less than what Detroit is paying? New Jersey is paying Madden
2.9 mil, for instance.
> And again, the big issues is that signing Sammy means that we have one
> less spot where we can upgrade.
I want an upgrade, not a complete disassembly of the entire roster. 3 or 4
new forwards is plenty. 5-6 would be too many, I think.
> It sure wasn't Datsyuk to Hull, or anything like that.
Probably because on that line Hull was the only legitimate scorer, so
Datsyuk was looking for him the entire time.
> I'd like to see a guy like Langenbrunner brought into town.
> And maybe our version of Niememen.
Here's what I want: 4 fast forecheckers. That's it. They don't have to be
able to score a goal, I really don't care. 4 guys who skate at a high
level, can intelligently take the body anywhere on the ice, and aren't
complete Cheliosian liabilities on offense. My suspicion is Holland is
going to try and land a top line goal-scoring forward assuming Shanahan
doesn't come back, but even so I'd want the other three spots to go to guys
like I described. I think Filppula could handle that role. Oulahen's still
a little small for that kind of role, but he's another guy with potential in
that regard. If Bootland weren't a fucking lunatic I'd put him on this list
as well.
>>> Will Ken Holland step in and actually make a roster player-for-roster
>>> player trade?
>>
>> I think so. It's tough to make any other kind of trade now.
>
> Yeah, but will he do it.
Unless you're thinking he's never going to make another mid-season trade
again, yeah.
> Right. So now Holland's GM skills will finally be tested. To a certain
> extent, he's had a sheltered career because Mike Illitch was always
> willing to take every salary dump in the league.
> Let's see if he can make a value-for-value trade.
>
> Still amazed that he hasn't made many yet
I think you're largely overestimating the number of times the kind of trade
you're talking about has actually happened. In that respect, give me your
top 5 or 10 'value for value' trades of the past 3 years, because IMO the
vast vast -vast- majority of trades that have happened in the NHL follow the
following structure:
Really good player X is traded for some combination of (lesser player), ...,
(picks), ..., (prospects),...
Maybe the biggest 'value for value' trade of the past five seasons happened
this year when Thornton got dealt for three lesser players... and that cost
the Boston GM his job. You just don't see too many Player X for Player Y
deals, where X and Y are both top 6 forwards or top 4 defensemen... at least
I can't recall too many off hand. It's usally like I described above, where
the clearly better play goes for some hodge-podge of assets from the other
team.
E.
Newsguyone
>
> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> news:D-SdndUaDZaROvvZ...@comcast.com...
>
>> Is Detroit really at a high level?
>
> Yes.
Well, I disagree.
Detroit's just another good team. Parity, even before the cap, has arrived
in the NHL.
>
>> I don't think so.
>> I don't think they have been since this time in 02.
>> Regular season point totals, IMO, are a mirage.
>
> They are -now-, they weren't then. Also, keep in mind that since 2002
> Detroit has only lost to the team that eventually represented the Western
> Conference in the Cup Finals, Tran. That's not exactly chopped liver.
> We'll see if Edmonton breaks that streak or not.
Eh. Not chopped liver.
Just liver.
>
>>> And before the Jedis get all in a huff, my arguments over Holland have
>>> usually revolved around my disagreeing with the notion that Holland is a
>>> horrible GM.
>>>
>>
>> Horrible? That's Mike Milberry.
>> But Ken Holland, IMO, is perhaps the most overrated GM in the NHL.
>
> Really? How is he rated, and by whom, to lead you to think he is
> 'overrated'?
People around the league. He was GM of Team Canada, I believe at the last
World Championship.
>
>> He literally fell into a great hockey team.
>
> That's life. PL sort of 'fell' into Roy. He certainly 'fell' into
> Lindros. What's the difference?
Fell into Roy, yes.
But I like Lacroix because he's willing to make player-for-player trades.
>
>> Detroit didn't quite handle Dallas, from what I remember.
>> In fact, I think Dallas gave Detroit their worst loss of the year (not
>> including the SJ game, when our team was still in Sweden, and the final
>> game of the year vs. Nashville)
>
> Even in that game (a 6-3 loss) Detroit had chased Turco less than 2
> minutes into the second before Osgood perfomed a self-lobotomy right out
> there on the ice. Like I said before the playoffs started I thought
> Dallas was the most overrated team in the West, not Detroit. Turco hadn't
> proven he was worth a damn in the playoffs, and this past playoff just
> cemented that opinion.
I was wrong on Turco and Dallas this year.
Really figured he was ready to shake the playoff choker.
>
>>> Enh. 1.2 doesn't strike me as an exhorbitant amount of cash, really. I
>>> doubt it'll be all that much over the league average, and Samuellson is
>>> a decent offensive player.
>>
>> Not terribly overpaid. But I wouldn't have signed this dude just yet.
>> Every year, it seems, Holland signs all the scrubs and then makes his way
>> to the big guys.
>
> Probably because he's a big believer in depth.
>
>> And he almost always overpays for these 3rd/fourth line guys
>
> Like, who? More specifically, what are other quality 3rd/4th liners
> making and is that less than what Detroit is paying? New Jersey is paying
> Madden 2.9 mil, for instance.
Maltby. Draper. Holmstrom. Samuelsson.
To list a few.
Every one of those guys makes about 50 percent more then they are worth,
IMO.
Add Lilja to that list.
>
>> And again, the big issues is that signing Sammy means that we have one
>> less spot where we can upgrade.
>
> I want an upgrade, not a complete disassembly of the entire roster. 3 or
> 4 new forwards is plenty. 5-6 would be too many, I think.
Agreed. I think Samuelsson would have been a good place to start.
Mowers? Replacing the 13th forward lacks impact.
Our fourth line (Cleary, Franzen, Maltby) was probably our best line.
We need to get better on the top two lines.
Signing Shanahan would be a mistake, IMO.
>
> > It sure wasn't Datsyuk to Hull, or anything like that.
>
> Probably because on that line Hull was the only legitimate scorer, so
> Datsyuk was looking for him the entire time.
>
>> I'd like to see a guy like Langenbrunner brought into town.
>> And maybe our version of Niememen.
>
> Here's what I want: 4 fast forecheckers. That's it. They don't have to
> be able to score a goal, I really don't care. 4 guys who skate at a high
> level, can intelligently take the body anywhere on the ice, and aren't
> complete Cheliosian liabilities on offense. My suspicion is Holland is
> going to try and land a top line goal-scoring forward assuming Shanahan
> doesn't come back, but even so I'd want the other three spots to go to
> guys like I described. I think Filppula could handle that role.
> Oulahen's still a little small for that kind of role, but he's another guy
> with potential in that regard. If Bootland weren't a fucking lunatic I'd
> put him on this list as well.
Babcock like Filppula, but from what I've seen of him in the AHL playoffs,
he's not ready.
I'd like a true first line winger with speed and skill for Datsyuk.
And I'ld like to trade Lang for a winger for Zetterberg.
And the bottom two lines all muckers and grinders with speed/grit.
But we have to get Datsyuk and Zetterbeg some true scoring line wingers who
can skate in the playoffs.
It's a must.
>
>>>> Will Ken Holland step in and actually make a roster player-for-roster
>>>> player trade?
>>>
>>> I think so. It's tough to make any other kind of trade now.
>>
>> Yeah, but will he do it.
>
> Unless you're thinking he's never going to make another mid-season trade
> again, yeah.
Well, he could have this year, right? But he didn't.
>
>> Right. So now Holland's GM skills will finally be tested. To a certain
>> extent, he's had a sheltered career because Mike Illitch was always
>> willing to take every salary dump in the league.
>> Let's see if he can make a value-for-value trade.
>>
>> Still amazed that he hasn't made many yet
>
> I think you're largely overestimating the number of times the kind of
> trade you're talking about has actually happened. In that respect, give
> me your top 5 or 10 'value for value' trades of the past 3 years, because
> IMO the vast vast -vast- majority of trades that have happened in the NHL
> follow the following structure:
>
> Really good player X is traded for some combination of (lesser player),
> ..., (picks), ..., (prospects),...
A majority? Maybe. But again, Ken Holland has, in my recollection, one such
trade. In what? Seven years?
>
> Maybe the biggest 'value for value' trade of the past five seasons
> happened this year when Thornton got dealt for three lesser players... and
> that cost the Boston GM his job. You just don't see too many Player X for
> Player Y deals, where X and Y are both top 6 forwards or top 4
> defensemen... at least I can't recall too many off hand. It's usally like
> I described above, where the clearly better play goes for some hodge-podge
> of assets from the other team.
Cost him his job? Boston was going nowhere with Thornton.
Boston had about 6 guys signed when play resumed. Boston's ownership cost
the GM his job.
Seems like Hossa and Devries for Heatley trade is a glaring example of value
for value.
>
> E.
>
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>
> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ouWdnd7FjsD...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>> news:D-SdndUaDZaROvvZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Is Detroit really at a high level?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Well, I disagree.
<shrug>
Cool.
>>> I don't think so.
>>> I don't think they have been since this time in 02.
>>> Regular season point totals, IMO, are a mirage.
>>
>> They are -now-, they weren't then. Also, keep in mind that since 2002
>> Detroit has only lost to the team that eventually represented the Western
>> Conference in the Cup Finals, Tran. That's not exactly chopped liver.
>> We'll see if Edmonton breaks that streak or not.
>
> Eh. Not chopped liver.
> Just liver.
So, do you think it is of no consequence that the only teams to beat Detroit
in the playoffs since 01-02 went to the Cup Finals? Hey, it's fine if you
don't think that matters. I think that'd be sort of silly, but whatever.
>> Really? How is he rated, and by whom, to lead you to think he is
>> 'overrated'?
>
> People around the league.
But who? Who are these people, what are their positions, and what have
these people said to lead you to believe they have overrated Holland?
> He was GM of Team Canada, I believe at the last World Championship.
What does that mean? Was he the first choice, the 21st?
>> That's life. PL sort of 'fell' into Roy. He certainly 'fell' into
>> Lindros. What's the difference?
>
> Fell into Roy, yes.
> But I like Lacroix because he's willing to make player-for-player trades.
Like, which ones? List a few of the trades you're talking about, then
replace the player being moved off the Avs with his value in draft
selection(s), and then -try- and tell me doing that doesn't make the trade a
better one for the Avs, especially considering how they've drafted rounds
1-4.
For instance, do you know how many players drafted by the Avs within the 1st
and 120th picks in an NHL draft since the inception of the Avs (the 1995
draft) that are still with the team?
Two. Tanguay, and Sauer. That's it. And hell, PL had to trade to get
Sauer back after letting him walk.
> I was wrong on Turco and Dallas this year.
> Really figured he was ready to shake the playoff choker.
The funny thing is, Turco was an -exemplary- postseason goaltender in
college. Absolutely, positively the best big-game goalie I've ever seen at
that level, bar none... and I've seen probably 200+ NCAA games in person and
been to three Frozen Fours. That he completely shits the bed in the NHL
playoffs is a mystery.
>> Like, who? More specifically, what are other quality 3rd/4th liners
>> making and is that less than what Detroit is paying? New Jersey is
>> paying Madden 2.9 mil, for instance.
>
> Maltby. Draper. Holmstrom. Samuelsson.
> To list a few.
> Every one of those guys makes about 50 percent more then they are worth,
> IMO.
> Add Lilja to that list.
No, seriously, who are the other quality 3rd/4th liners out there and what
are they making? In order for the guys you listed to be overpaid you seem
to be inferring that guys out there who are as good or better are making as
much or less. Who are they?
As far as the players you mentioned, you do realize that Samuellson and
Holmstrom both had pretty good years and Draper had a strong second half,
right? Hell, Draper even had a strong postseason.
Lilja, I agree. I hate that guy. Maltby, I agree. He had a MISERABLE
year, but... he's only making 1.4. That's not a lot, and he more closely
resembles the kind of player the Wings need -more- of.
>> I want an upgrade, not a complete disassembly of the entire roster. 3 or
>> 4 new forwards is plenty. 5-6 would be too many, I think.
>
> Agreed. I think Samuelsson would have been a good place to start.
> Mowers? Replacing the 13th forward lacks impact.
Only if he's going to play as much (little) as Mowers did.
> Our fourth line (Cleary, Franzen, Maltby) was probably our best line.
> We need to get better on the top two lines.
> Signing Shanahan would be a mistake, IMO.
I'd tend to agree, although instead of 'better' I'd say 'different'.
Detroit had/has two very very good lines at the top, they just aren't
constructed for the new NHL. I'd seriously do something like:
grinder-Zetterberg-Draper
Goalscorer-Datsyuk-grinder
Filppula-Lang-Holmstrom
Maltby-Franzen-grinder.
Fuck it. Just have every line have at least one or two strong forecheckers
on it, turn them loose, and have each line carry one guy that can finish a
turnover at a high degree of success.
> Babcock like Filppula, but from what I've seen of him in the AHL playoffs,
> he's not ready.
Not ready to do what... just skate and slam into people? Make his role very
simple, and he could play right now. Make him have to learn a complicated
and wholly useless 'puck possession' game and yeah, he's not ready for that.
> I'd like a true first line winger with speed and skill for Datsyuk.
> And I'ld like to trade Lang for a winger for Zetterberg.
> And the bottom two lines all muckers and grinders with speed/grit.
>
> But we have to get Datsyuk and Zetterbeg
Hey, Zaiem... in the market for a nickname? :)
> some true scoring line wingers who can skate in the playoffs.
> It's a must.
Who are you thinking of as examples of the kinds of players you're talking
about here?
> Well, he could have this year, right? But he didn't.
I think the lack of cap flexibility really puts the kabosh on making
late-season trades. Very very few happened, relative to the last few years.
>> Really good player X is traded for some combination of (lesser player),
>> ..., (picks), ..., (prospects),...
>
> A majority? Maybe. But again, Ken Holland has, in my recollection, one
> such trade. In what? Seven years?
But it's like I said, why trade value off the roster when a team would be
just as happy with a couple picks? What's the upside of that kind of trade
compared to a picks for player trade?
I mean, what would you rather have: two late round 1sts or Schneider? Two
late round firsts, or Chelios? (who I think is another roster player for
roster player trade Holland made).
> Seems like Hossa and Devries for Heatley trade is a glaring example of
> value for value.
Indeed. There's one... and with all due respect and condolences, a guy had
to die in a car accident to provide the proper impetus for that trade to
happen. The kinds of trades you're talking about just do not happen with
anything approaching regularity. I asked for the top 5 or 10, and you were
able to give me 1. That's sort of what I mean.
E.
Tony Wesley
edl wrote:
> The funny thing is, Turco was an -exemplary- postseason goaltender in
> college. Absolutely, positively the best big-game goalie I've ever seen at
> that level, bar none... and I've seen probably 200+ NCAA games in person and
> been to three Frozen Fours.
You've seen way way more than me.
I had the misfortune to see him stumble in post-season, perhaps his
worst performance in a college post-season game. It was against OSU in
the CCHA playoffs. In a 4-2 loss, he misplayed the puck twice while
way out of the crease, each time it turned into a Buckeye goal. If I
recall correctly, in one of those, he was along the boards at the hash
marks of the faceoff circle, a place I never want to see my goalie. I
remember that game in particular, because in the pregame, Marty skated
over to where I was sitting with my twins and handed one of them a
puck.
That was 1998 and he managed to shake off that game and the team did
reasonably well after that. :)
edl
"Tony Wesley" <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147658591.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> edl wrote:
>> The funny thing is, Turco was an -exemplary- postseason goaltender in
>> college. Absolutely, positively the best big-game goalie I've ever seen
>> at
>> that level, bar none... and I've seen probably 200+ NCAA games in person
>> and
>> been to three Frozen Fours.
>
> You've seen way way more than me.
>
> I had the misfortune to see him stumble in post-season, perhaps his
> worst performance in a college post-season game. It was against OSU in
> the CCHA playoffs.
That game made me want to vomit. Maybe the best, the absolute -best- thing
about following Michigan college hockey around that time was the complete
pastings they'd lay on the Buckeyes year in and year out. I loved going
down to Columbus and taunting the 14 people on campus that gave a shit about
hockey.
E.
Santeri Pienimaki
: Another first round playoff loss ...
Kill him.
I want Lemaire for GM. (Or if Babcock doesn't cut it with the kids, for
coach as well.)
Other random musings:
* Stevie should've retired two years ago and let someone else make the
team his. As long as he's hanging there, no-one will have the guts to
start a thorough rebuilding.
* Speaking of rebuilding, gut everyone over 30, with the exception of
Nick (for half of his current salary), and bring in a few selected
veterans to guide the kids. Consult Lemaire for coaching tips,
Tikhonov for fitness and preparation. Prepare to lose 0-1 a lot, but
have a beatiful robotic system in place.
* Other than Hasek's first self-coordinated visit, the Wings haven't had
a goalie with a cocky winning attitude in almost decade. Do something
about it. (Dunno, call Bobby Clarke, maybe he will have one of his bad
goalie days and trade Niittymäki for Lilja.)
* Datsyuk does have the hands and vision of a Larionov-lite, but I'd
still rather have the real thing in the post season. Even if he's been
retired for two years. Let's see if missing the playoffs for two or
three seasons helps his focus.
* Or, given Dallas' similar woes, maybe a better option would be
checking what else could be extracted in a swap for Datsyuk in
addition to, say, Lehtinen and Svoboda?
* In case Nick proves to be too costly, I'd explore shipping Schneider
to LA for Norström to keep the Swedish quota around the magical number
five.
Yeah, right.
--
* http://www.iki.fi/santeri/ 127.0.0.1 *
* university of helsinki, department of computer science OTTERS RULE *
WalkinDude
wrote:
>Another first round playoff loss ...
>Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability to
>a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff team
>together.
>
>I went on the record as saying I'd stop baggin on KH if this team made the
>conference finals ...
>But I guess I knew that wasn't going to a happen, because I didn't see how
>this team was an improvement on the last two playoff duds.
Let's set something straight here. Over the last three seasons,
Detroit has lost to two Stanley Cup finals teams and an Edmonton team
that is currently a win shy of the Conference Finals.
Were they good enough to make the Cup finals? Obviously not. Were
they victims of the "luck of the draw", as far as having to meet these
teams in rounds 1, 2 and 1, respectively? I think so.
If they lose to Anaheim and Calgary in the WCF, we're probably not
having this discussion.
>Strange thing is, I'm fairly certain that if we could beat Edmonton, we
>would have beat Colorado and made the conference finals.
>
>What worries me more, for next year, are the comments Holland has made and
>the signings he's made.
>1) Signing Samuelsson to 2 or 3 years at $1.2 M a year.
>*Too much. Worse yet, with all the other forwards signed, that leaves
>precious little room for upgrade.
Eh, the way the guy produced in the regular season, $1.2 M isn't all
that much. If you're going to punish everyone for not producing in
the playoffs, you might as well clear the roster right now.
>2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would have
>had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
>* WTF?? What chemistry? Who in their right fucking mind believes these two
>had any chemistry? Look at the stats. 40 goals by Shanahan. Datsyuk, who
>played on his line most of the year and was third among forward in assists
>until a late season injury, had the first assist on 4 or 5 of them.
>He simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
4 or 5 of them? Is that official? Also, you misquoted Holland.
There's a bit of difference between good and great - unless you're
discussing Jose Theodore's playoff performance, obviously.
Freedom Elz
"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
news:5sug629lq45kher38...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:58:58 -0400, "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount>
> wrote:
>
>>Another first round playoff loss ...
>>Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability
>>to
>>a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff team
>>together.
>>
>>I went on the record as saying I'd stop baggin on KH if this team made the
>>conference finals ...
>>But I guess I knew that wasn't going to a happen, because I didn't see how
>>this team was an improvement on the last two playoff duds.
>
> Let's set something straight here. Over the last three seasons,
> Detroit has lost to two Stanley Cup finals teams and an Edmonton team
> that is currently a win shy of the Conference Finals.
*cough* Excuse! *cough*
Freedom Elz
>
> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> news:yLKdnRe8FI-94vvZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:DdCdnZ_JS88...@insightbb.com...
>>>
>>> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message news:...
>>>
>>>>> 2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would
>>>>> have had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
>>>
>>> By the way, here's another reason I miss being in Detroit. I don't get
>>> to immediately jump on the opportunities to point out when you mis-quote
>>> someone:
>>>
>>> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060504/SPORTS0103/605040384/1128
>>>
>>> "Brendan had a great season and he developed a good chemistry with
>>> Pavel," Holland said. "They were beginning to recapture that chemistry
>>> in the playoffs."
>>>
>
>> Er ... hello?
>> For one, I'm paraphrasing what he said on a radio show.
>> Two, what he says fits pretty well with what I said.
>
> Except he said 'good', not great,
Mon Dieu! Not this again!
Tony Wesley
edl wrote:
(With lots of snippage)
> >> The funny thing is, Turco was an -exemplary- postseason goaltender in
> >> college.
> > I had the misfortune to see him stumble in post-season, perhaps his
> > worst performance in a college post-season game.
> That game made me want to vomit.
But then he recovered enough to play to an NCAA championship.
Yeah, I also thought he'd be a big-game goalie in the NHL.
edl
"Freedom Elz" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XC2ag.73319$fd.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
> Mon Dieu! Not this again!
Yes. It is -so- tedious having to be accurate when representing someone
else's words, isn't it Elz?
E.
Freedom Elz
All this does is prove what a semantical prick you are. Surely since you
have a new
house your old lady must at least be giving you the odd pity fuck, why so
miserable?
WalkinDude
wrote:
>>>Another first round playoff loss ...
>>>Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability
>>>to
>>>a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff team
>>>together.
>>>
>>>I went on the record as saying I'd stop baggin on KH if this team made the
>>>conference finals ...
>>>But I guess I knew that wasn't going to a happen, because I didn't see how
>>>this team was an improvement on the last two playoff duds.
>>
>> Let's set something straight here. Over the last three seasons,
>> Detroit has lost to two Stanley Cup finals teams and an Edmonton team
>> that is currently a win shy of the Conference Finals.
>
>*cough* Excuse! *cough*
It's not an excuse, it's a statement of fact. I think I've been
critical enough of the Wings in their playoff losses that I can be
spared all the *coughcough* jazz.
Losses suck, but there seems to be an attitude around here that the
Wings have been losing to the Sisters of the Mercy the last three
years. In point of fact, they've lost to two Stanley Cup finalists
and another team that may well be on its way to at least the Western
Conference Finals.
edl
>
> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:mYmdnfTa5e0...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "Freedom Elz" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XC2ag.73319$fd.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
>>
>>> Mon Dieu! Not this again!
>>
>> Yes. It is -so- tedious having to be accurate when representing someone
>> else's words, isn't it Elz?
>
> All this does is prove what a semantical prick you are.
Enh.
All I'm really doing is saving time. I'm not going to engage in attempting
to explain why and how you and the other nitwits are misinterpreting me
because I know you're doing it intentionally. I'll simply handle these
situations as I have recently.
> Surely since you have a new
> house your old lady must at least be giving you the odd pity fuck, why so
> miserable?
What?
E.
Thomas
> "Freedom Elz" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SI5ag.73324$fd.5...@read2.cgocable.net...
>
>>"edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:mYmdnfTa5e0...@insightbb.com...
>>
>>>"Freedom Elz" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:XC2ag.73319$fd.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mon Dieu! Not this again!
>>>
>>>Yes. It is -so- tedious having to be accurate when representing someone
>>>else's words, isn't it Elz?
>>
>>All this does is prove what a semantical prick you are.
>
>
> Enh.
>
> All I'm really doing is saving time. I'm not going to engage in attempting
> to explain why and how you and the other nitwits are misinterpreting me
> because I know you're doing it intentionally. I'll simply handle these
> situations as I have recently.
No, Eric, we're just trying to get you to stick to your words. And you
know that.
You figure it's easier to wriggle and squirm your way out semantically
than to actually argue the merits (or, more accurately, the lack
thereof) of your idiotic arguments.
>
>
>>Surely since you have a new
>>house your old lady must at least be giving you the odd pity fuck, why so
>>miserable?
>
>
> What?
Guess not.
Explains a lot. I'd probably be pretty pissed too if I had to flog the
bishop myself all the time.
-Thomas
Newsguyone
"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
news:5sug629lq45kher38...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
>>Another first round playoff loss ...
>>Does this do anything to your impressions of Ken Holland and his ability
>>to
>>a) recognize what it takes to win playoff hockey and b) put a playoff team
>>together.
>>
>>I went on the record as saying I'd stop baggin on KH if this team made the
>>conference finals ...
>>But I guess I knew that wasn't going to a happen, because I didn't see how
>>this team was an improvement on the last two playoff duds.
>
> Let's set something straight here. Over the last three seasons,
> Detroit has lost to two Stanley Cup finals teams and an Edmonton team
> that is currently a win shy of the Conference Finals.
No, while that may be true, it's a pretty fucking positive way to try to
spin it.
Detroit has lost in the first round, twice. And the second round once.
This season, like the last two, were failures.
>
> Were they good enough to make the Cup finals? Obviously not. Were
> they victims of the "luck of the draw", as far as having to meet these
> teams in rounds 1, 2 and 1, respectively? I think so.
Good lord. so you're prefacing what ever the hell you're about to say by
saying Detroit is just Unfuckinglucky???
Well, dude, you're playing hypothetical.
Because to me, the only first round opponents Detroit really match up well
with are Colorado and Nashville. And Maybe Dallas, thanks to Turco's
stinker.
>
> If they lose to Anaheim and Calgary in the WCF, we're probably not
> having this discussion.
Nope.
But what makes you think Detroit could have beat Minnesota? Or Vancouver. Or
whoever?
>
>>Strange thing is, I'm fairly certain that if we could beat Edmonton, we
>>would have beat Colorado and made the conference finals.
>>
>>What worries me more, for next year, are the comments Holland has made and
>>the signings he's made.
>>1) Signing Samuelsson to 2 or 3 years at $1.2 M a year.
>>*Too much. Worse yet, with all the other forwards signed, that leaves
>>precious little room for upgrade.
>
> Eh, the way the guy produced in the regular season, $1.2 M isn't all
> that much. If you're going to punish everyone for not producing in
> the playoffs, you might as well clear the roster right now.
Weak argument walk.
Do you really think Mikael Samuelsson is a second line scoring winger?
Honestly. With a straight face, can you say it?
And do you really think Homer is a second line scoring winger? Honestly.
With a straight face, can you say it?
Becuase We're paying $1.4 to Homer. $1.2 to Samuelsson. $1.8 to Maltby. $2.1
to Draper.
It's bad salary management in my opinion.
You don't pay your third/fourth liners that kind of money.
I wouldn't have paid Samuelsson more than $800,000. If he doesn't like it,
let him go try to score 24 goals on the third.fourth line of some crappy
team.
>
>>2) Holland said that Datsyuk was still hurt, or he and Shanahan would have
>>had the great chemistry they showed all year ...
>>* WTF?? What chemistry? Who in their right fucking mind believes these two
>>had any chemistry? Look at the stats. 40 goals by Shanahan. Datsyuk, who
>>played on his line most of the year and was third among forward in assists
>>until a late season injury, had the first assist on 4 or 5 of them.
>>He simply doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>
> 4 or 5 of them? Is that official?
Look it up for yourself.
About a week before he got hurt, I looked it up, and he had three or four.
>Also, you misquoted Holland.
> There's a bit of difference between good and great - unless you're
> discussing Jose Theodore's playoff performance, obviously.
>
Whatever. Way to avoid the point. IMO, I'm fairly certain, on the Stoney and
Wojo show, or whatever, that he said "great" or real good, or soemthing.
Datsyuk and Shanahan don't have any fucking chemistry.
Can you think of one good Datsyuk to Shanahan play all year?
Honestly, I can't. And off the top of my head, I can remember a few Datsyuk
to Hull, Datsyuk to Zetterberg, even a Datsyuk to Devereaux connection.
>
Newsguyone
No shit.
Eric refuses to engage.
Good vs. Great is where he'll debate.
Fact is, Shanahan and Datsyuk didn't even have good chemistry
They flat out sucked together. And for Holland to suggest they are good, or
great, or somewhat good, is wrong.
They don't have chemistry out there.
>
>
Newsguyone
I'm not referring to the newspaper articlem I'm referring to the radio show.
And even if the word was good, are you saying that they have good chemistry?
Or even average chemistry?
>
> E.
>
edl
"Thomas" <wha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nB9ag.2566$kc2...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> No, Eric, we're just trying to get you to stick to your words.
Untrue. You're trying to misrepresent me and then get me to stick to the
misrepresentation. I'll pass.
E.
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>
> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:mYmdnfTa5e0...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "Freedom Elz" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XC2ag.73319$fd.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
>>
>>> Mon Dieu! Not this again!
>>
>> Yes. It is -so- tedious having to be accurate when representing someone
>> else's words, isn't it Elz?
>
> I'm not referring to the newspaper articlem I'm referring to the radio
> show.
I listened to the radio show last night (it's posted on MLive) and you still
mis-quoted the dude pretty badly.
> And even if the word was good, are you saying that they have good
> chemistry? Or even average chemistry?
Yes, twice.
E.
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
I refuse to engage on a misrepresented statement, Tran... it's really not
too tough of a idea to grasp. If Elz and the other dimwits want to pretend
I said things I didn,t, that's fine... that doesn't mean I have to argue
about or defend their fallacious presumptions.
> Good vs. Great is where he'll debate.
When you're representing Holland's comments as far more extreme than they
actually were, I believe that is an important subject to resolve.
> Fact is, Shanahan and Datsyuk didn't even have good chemistry
> They flat out sucked together. And for Holland to suggest they are good,
> or great, or somewhat good, is wrong.
>
> They don't have chemistry out there.
Besides the 'first assist' stat, what do you base your opinion on?
E.
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> No, while that may be true, it's a pretty fucking positive way to try to
> spin it.
> Detroit has lost in the first round, twice. And the second round once.
...to teams that went to the Cup Finals.
Is it your opinion that it makes no difference who a team loses to, merely
whether they win or lose?
> Good lord. so you're prefacing what ever the hell you're about to say by
> saying Detroit is just Unfuckinglucky???
> Well, dude, you're playing hypothetical.
Duh.
> Because to me, the only first round opponents Detroit really match up well
> with are Colorado and Nashville. And Maybe Dallas, thanks to Turco's
> stinker.
I think they matched up least well with Edmonton though, don't you?
>> If they lose to Anaheim and Calgary in the WCF, we're probably not
>> having this discussion.
>
> Nope.
> But what makes you think Detroit could have beat Minnesota? Or Vancouver.
> Or whoever?
Because those teams play different styles with different personnel than
Edmonton.
> Becuase We're paying $1.4 to Homer. $1.2 to Samuelsson. $1.8 to Maltby.
> $2.1 to Draper.
> It's bad salary management in my opinion.
> You don't pay your third/fourth liners that kind of money.
I've asked you this before and you've dodged it, but what teams have third
liners who they pay what you're suggesting and are any good?
> Look it up for yourself.
> About a week before he got hurt, I looked it up, and he had three or four.
Why is the first assist the stat you selected?
>>Also, you misquoted Holland.
>> There's a bit of difference between good and great - unless you're
>> discussing Jose Theodore's playoff performance, obviously.
>>
>
> Whatever. Way to avoid the point.
What point, that you misrepresented Holland's comments and made them look
more extreme than they were?
> IMO, I'm fairly certain, on the Stoney and Wojo show, or whatever, that he
> said "great" or real good, or soemthing.
Way to narrow it down there, Woodward.
> Datsyuk and Shanahan don't have any fucking chemistry.
Of course they don't.
E.
Newsguyone
>
> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> news:9uWdnawdlKW...@comcast.com...
>
>> No, while that may be true, it's a pretty fucking positive way to try to
>> spin it.
>> Detroit has lost in the first round, twice. And the second round once.
>
> ...to teams that went to the Cup Finals.
>
> Is it your opinion that it makes no difference who a team loses to, merely
> whether they win or lose?
Yes and no.
>
>> Good lord. so you're prefacing what ever the hell you're about to say by
>> saying Detroit is just Unfuckinglucky???
>> Well, dude, you're playing hypothetical.
>
> Duh.
>
>> Because to me, the only first round opponents Detroit really match up
>> well with are Colorado and Nashville. And Maybe Dallas, thanks to Turco's
>> stinker.
>
> I think they matched up least well with Edmonton though, don't you?
No.
I don't think we had matched up with Edmonton's speed/hustle. Hence, the
Edmonton in 6 prediction.
>
>>> If they lose to Anaheim and Calgary in the WCF, we're probably not
>>> having this discussion.
>>
>> Nope.
>> But what makes you think Detroit could have beat Minnesota? Or Vancouver.
>> Or whoever?
>
> Because those teams play different styles with different personnel than
> Edmonton.
So Edmonton was the only team in the west that could find a way to exploit
Detroit's lack of speed and poor goaltending?
Hmp.
This point might have merit if we hadn't been busted three straight
playoffs.
If we hadn't already lost to Anaheim and Calgary, and we were just coming
off the Edmonton loss, and Edmonton made it deep, then yeah, I'd buy that.
But I'm not going to give Detroit extra credit because the teams that beat
them happened to go far in the playoffs.
You have to ask yourself these questions:
Has Detroit just been unlucky meet the top team in the West?
Or were those teams just fortunate enough to beat Detroit and then build on
that momentum?
>
>> Becuase We're paying $1.4 to Homer. $1.2 to Samuelsson. $1.8 to Maltby.
>> $2.1 to Draper.
>> It's bad salary management in my opinion.
>> You don't pay your third/fourth liners that kind of money.
>
> I've asked you this before and you've dodged it, but what teams have third
> liners who they pay what you're suggesting and are any good?
I'm not dodging it.
I don't have the players salaries at hand.
And I'm not saying there are a lot of teams doing it the way it should be
done.
I believe, in the salary cap system, you don't have enough money to go with
three offensive lines. You spend your resources on the top two lines, then
go with speed/hustle/grit on the third and fourth line ...
And these guys should be fairly inexpensive.
Ken Holland falls in love with his players and pays them too much.
What did he pay Kirk Maltby? Salary cap or not.
Was Kirk Maltby really worth $1.8M a year?
Was Darren McCarty worth $2M a year?
Was Tomas Holmstrom worth $1,8M a year?
Hell no.
I love the way Kirk Maltby played (past tense). But in the new NHL, you can
go out and get cast offs (Like Dan Cleary) for significantly under $1
million.
When ever a grinder wants $1.5 to $2M, show them the door in bring in a
young, hungry replacement.
That's the way it should have worked BEFORE the cap. And the cap only makes
that more true.
>
>> Look it up for yourself.
>> About a week before he got hurt, I looked it up, and he had three or
>> four.
>
> Why is the first assist the stat you selected?
Why not?
One day, with about 3 or 4 weeks left in the season, realizing that Babcock
intended to go with three watered down scoring lines instead of two true
scoring lines, I decided to look it up.
I had been thinking that Datsyuk and Shanahan really weren't very effective
together. But by the same token, they were putting up awesome numbers. So I
looked it up.
At the time, Shanahan had 34 goals or so and Datsyuk had 57 assists or so.
I mean, you watch Thornton to Cheechoo ... and realize that they have
chemistry, and the stats show that. Same with Datsyuk and Hull.
The stats confirmed what I believed. That Datsyuk and Shanahan have no
chemistry.
Obviously, they have talentes. Datsyuk is a great passer. Shanahan has a
great shot. They piled up great stats all year, but rarely connected with
eachother. It's almost inconceivable, knowing their stats, and knowing
they're linemates, how rarely they connect for goals.
>
>>>Also, you misquoted Holland.
>>> There's a bit of difference between good and great - unless you're
>>> discussing Jose Theodore's playoff performance, obviously.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever. Way to avoid the point.
>
> What point, that you misrepresented Holland's comments and made them look
> more extreme than they were?
For one, I wasn't talking about your newspaper article you referred to.
Secondly, even if Holland said Good and I said he said Great, all it does is
make Holland slightly less oblivious to the truth.
Big Whoop.
>
>> IMO, I'm fairly certain, on the Stoney and Wojo show, or whatever, that
>> he said "great" or real good, or soemthing.
>
> Way to narrow it down there, Woodward.
Sorry dude, I didn't have the tape recorder running in my car ...
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>
> "edl" <hid...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:raOdnUAmfuZ...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
>> news:9uWdnawdlKW...@comcast.com...
>>
>>> No, while that may be true, it's a pretty fucking positive way to try to
>>> spin it.
>>> Detroit has lost in the first round, twice. And the second round once.
>>
>> ...to teams that went to the Cup Finals.
>>
>> Is it your opinion that it makes no difference who a team loses to,
>> merely whether they win or lose?
>
> Yes and no.
Thank you for the clarification.
>> I think they matched up least well with Edmonton though, don't you?
>
> No.
So, who did Detroit match up more poorly with?
> So Edmonton was the only team in the west that could find a way to exploit
> Detroit's lack of speed and poor goaltending?
Did I say that?
> This point might have merit if we hadn't been busted three straight
> playoffs.
By, of course, two teams that represented the Western Conference in the Cup
Finals.
> If we hadn't already lost to Anaheim and Calgary, and we were just coming
> off the Edmonton loss, and Edmonton made it deep, then yeah, I'd buy that.
> But I'm not going to give Detroit extra credit because the teams that beat
> them happened to go far in the playoffs.
Why not? Do you not recognize a difference between losing to a playoff team
that succeeds and losing to a playoff team that doesn't?
> You have to ask yourself these questions:
> Has Detroit just been unlucky meet the top team in the West?
I don't think 'unlucky' is the correct term. It's just the way things have
worked out. 'Luck' implies a puck bouncing over a stick. Running into
teams with hot goalies or just playing exceptionally well in general is the
way things go sometimes.
> Or were those teams just fortunate enough to beat Detroit and then build
> on that momentum?
Well, since beating Detroit was apparently no big feat for those other
clubs, why would it generate momentum?
>> I've asked you this before and you've dodged it, but what teams have
>> third liners who they pay what you're suggesting and are any good?
>
> I'm not dodging it.
> I don't have the players salaries at hand.
So, how do I know you have the faintest clue what you're talking about?
How about this: tell me what three or four teams have better third/fourth
lines than Detroit, and we'll look at the salaries those players make.
> And I'm not saying there are a lot of teams doing it the way it should be
> done.
How many are, and which ones are they?
> I believe, in the salary cap system, you don't have enough money to go
> with three offensive lines. You spend your resources on the top two lines,
> then go with speed/hustle/grit on the third and fourth line ...
How does that differ from what Detroit did this past year?
> And these guys should be fairly inexpensive.
> Ken Holland falls in love with his players and pays them too much.
> What did he pay Kirk Maltby? Salary cap or not.
Your questions are already off the track. The salary cap redefines how
player salaries work and how they impact the team. Without a salary cap it
almost doesn't matter what a guy makes.
> Was Kirk Maltby really worth $1.8M a year?
Exaggeration #1. He made 1.44 mil last year.
> Was Darren McCarty worth $2M a year?
Exaggeration #2. He was bought out.
> Was Tomas Holmstrom worth $1,8M a year?
Exaggeration #3. He made 1.368 mil last year.
> Hell no.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your 'opinions', Tran.
> I love the way Kirk Maltby played (past tense). But in the new NHL, you
> can go out and get cast offs (Like Dan Cleary) for significantly under $1
> million.
>
> When ever a grinder wants $1.5 to $2M, show them the door in bring in a
> young, hungry replacement.
Cool. How many Detroit 'grinders' were paid in that salary range last year?
> That's the way it should have worked BEFORE the cap.
I disagree.
>> Why is the first assist the stat you selected?
>
> Why not?
Why not 'number of times they both participated in a scoring play'/'number
of times they were involved in a scoring play'?
> One day, with about 3 or 4 weeks left in the season, realizing that
> Babcock intended to go with three watered down scoring lines instead of
> two true scoring lines,
So why are you blaming Holland, if Babcock is the one who made the decision?
> I decided to look it up.
> I had been thinking that Datsyuk and Shanahan really weren't very
> effective together. But by the same token, they were putting up awesome
> numbers. So I looked it up.
> At the time, Shanahan had 34 goals or so and Datsyuk had 57 assists or so.
I think what you may be overlooking is that Shanahan and Datsyuk weren't a)
on the same line for the whole year and b) weren't on the same PP unit for
the whole year. So, already, tying the term 'chemistry' to the first assist
stat as it relates to total goals and assists by each guy has a logical hole
one could drive a mack truck through.
>>>>Also, you misquoted Holland.
>>>> There's a bit of difference between good and great - unless you're
>>>> discussing Jose Theodore's playoff performance, obviously.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever. Way to avoid the point.
>>
>> What point, that you misrepresented Holland's comments and made them look
>> more extreme than they were?
>
> For one, I wasn't talking about your newspaper article you referred to.
When I listened to the MLive recording of a Holland interview on WDFN you
were misquoting him by approximately the same degree. Now, if you'd like to
claim that in some -other- interview Holland made statements out of line
with what he said to a newspaper and to another show on the same station,
neat. Knock yourself out.
> Secondly, even if Holland said Good and I said he said Great, all it does
> is make Holland slightly less oblivious to the truth.
Of course.
>> Way to narrow it down there, Woodward.
>
> Sorry dude, I didn't have the tape recorder running in my car ...
Not a big deal, Tran. It's just a reminder that in the future I shouldn't
really take your 'interpretations' of what you hear Holland say all that
seriously. They tend to be, ah, slightly embellished.
E.
Newsguyone
edl
"Newsguyone" <nospam@thisaccount> wrote in message
> Yawn.
Any updates on the teams with better, less expensive depth lines than
Detroit before have another narcoleptic episode?
E.