GDT: Ducks @ Red Wings - 430pm PT - Most Important Game of the Season #58

[Sojourn]

And that brings us back to the whole if you need some very specific type of partner that's a solid top 4 and almost never makes mistakes to play decently are you really worth a salary that's top 20 of all NHL defensemen? And yes, I get in a few years he wont be the highest paid and all that but the question is, is he worth what they gave him now. IMO you don't pay people because in a few years they will be theoretically be reasonably paid even if they are overpaid now

That might be your opinion, but it's something that GM's have been doing around the NHL for a while now. It's one of the reasons we've been seeing more long term contracts. GM's can't front load contracts anymore, not like they used to. So, instead, they extend the term and that allows them to lower the cap hit. The

You're also exaggerating your description of the D partner Fowler needs something awful, and I'm not even sure why. Despres was hardly a "almost never makes mistakes" player, and Fowler did fine with him. You can't make that kind of statement because the list of top 4 defensemen that Fowler has played with for any extended period of time is ridiculously short. So, you're exaggerating just to exaggerate, because you can't put together a list of attributes that you know works or doesn't work, because you really only have Despres or Vatanen if we're looking at recent players.

All we know is that Vatanen and Fowler didn't work well together.

 

[Deuce22]

But Manson's play didn't greatly improve immediately, which is a key point. I'm not saying break up the pairing, but I also don't think Manson's rough start and him finding his game can necessarily be attributed to playing with Lindholm. I think that's giving Lindholm too much credit, and Manson not enough.

As for Vatanen, which Vatanen are we talking about? Because it makes a difference. The one we saw this season, for example, some people couldn't wait to get rid of. He's been every bit as inconsistent as Fowler has. There is also the possibility that they just weren't a good fit, which is part of the problem, because if you're going to try to list the good D partners he's had as an argument for him not performing, if you consider that Vatanen and Fowler just weren't a good fit you're eliminating arguably half, or a third of the list. I say arguably because Despres and Fowler weren't together that long. The other being Beauchemin, in Fowler's sophomore season.

And therein lies the problem. It's a very short list. The opportunities have not been great.

Despres was the best fit with Fowler, IMO. He could hold down the fort in front of the net and allowed Cam to roam and move the puck up the ice. I didn't think Vatanen/Fowler was as bad as others here. They could be abused by big physical forwards at times but were able to move the puck well. I hope BM can eventually find a partner that brings out the best in Fowler. With the investment made in him, that should be a high priority.

 

[Sojourn]

Despres was the best fit with Fowler, IMO. He could hold down the fort in front of the net and allowed Cam to roam and move the puck up the ice. I didn't think Vatanen/Fowler was as bad as others here. They could be abused by big physical forwards at times but were able to move the puck well. I hope BM can eventually find a partner that brings out the best in Fowler. With the investment made in him, that should be a high priority.

I just didn't like the pairing, personally. Neither one of them really brought out the best in the other. It's not that they were bad, because I think that's a misrepresentation, but I think both players were not necessarily comfortable with each other as D partners.

And I agree on Despres, but he was hardly some flawless defenseman that Spazkat was alluding to Fowler needing. They were just a good complement. I think it's a bit ridiculous to try to make it out as if Fowler needs the "perfect" D partner.

 

[Deuce22]

I just didn't like the pairing, personally. Neither one of them really brought out the best in the other. It's not that they were bad, because I think that's a misrepresentation, but I think both players were not necessarily comfortable with each other as D partners.

And I agree on Despres, but he was hardly some flawless defenseman that Spazkat was alluding to Fowler needing. They were just a good complement.

Fair enough. But certainly preferable to what we are currently watching.

 

[Sojourn]

Fair enough. But certainly preferable to what we are currently watching.

Hah, yeah, but that's not saying much. It's Bieksa.

The frustrating thing is that Bieksa is getting paid like a top 4 defenseman. If you looked around the NHL, I bet you'd find a lot of much, much better options for around that price tag. Hjalmarsson is only making about that for another year(after this). Hjalmarsson.

 

[Goose of Reason]

All Fowler needs to succeed is a physical partner that can play in front of the net that can skate. He's been at his best with Despres, Lovejoy, and Beauch early on who could all skate with him and play physical. Bieksa is physical and is a good skater, but just has absolutely no hockey sense and can't handle the puck so it doesn't work. The two defenders Fowler has played a lot with under RC other than Bieksa were Vats and Montour, who pretty well have the same strengths and weaknesses as Fowler so it makes no sense. It's not putting your players in the best position to succeed.

 

[Paul4587]

He's been inconsistent there too.

He’s been pretty good there overall. I’ve seen 10 or so devils games and he only had 1 off night from what I saw. And from what I read from Devils fans he’s been good while playing tough minutes.

 

[HanSolo]

Well if you want to say two weeks isn’t enough to say they don’t work well then you can’t claim they do work well based off a similar sample size last season.

The fact is Manson’s play greatly improved alongside Lindholm. The numbers back that up and the eye test backs that up. There’s no reason to break up that pair.

Fowler has had an awful partner most of the year and that is in part the reason for his bad play. But when he was with other guys this year he’s also not been great. When you’re paying a guy 6.5M for 8 years I think you need him to be good enough to not have to play with a specific type of player. A lot of dmen in the league would kill to have someone as good as Vatanen as their partner, I don’t think him being paired with Vats is a good excuse for any poor play.

Vatanen didn't work well with anybody this year...I mean maybe I'm biased since it's a counter to my own point but that doesn't strike me as a very compelling counter argument. In any case I'm not necessarily saying split Manson and Lindholm up. Given our top 6, I'd like to see it tried if only to end this f***ing idiotic Fowler-Bieksa pairing but I'd just as readily like to see Larsson be given a shot alongside Fowler. Can't be worse than Bieksa. Or acquire a competent top 4 D. I don't know. We're running two old, washed up defensemen in our core group of defensemen and it shows.

And that brings us back to the whole if you need some very specific type of partner that's a solid top 4 and almost never makes mistakes to play decently are you really worth a salary that's top 20 of all NHL defensemen? And yes, I get in a few years he wont be the highest paid and all that but the question is, is he worth what they gave him now. IMO you don't pay people because in a few years they will be theoretically be reasonably paid even if they are overpaid now

That is not what he's saying. There's a stark difference between having a defensive liability tied to his leg and what you're proposing. We all know what kind of liability Bieksa is but maybe we need a refresher on the fact that Vatanen was guilty of many bad pinches and in the defensive zone would often get out-muscled. And to top all that off he and Fowler just didn't have chemistry. Their passing was problematic. Neither is a bad passer but they didn't have good chemistry. It's a bit over the top to suggest that a lack of chemistry lends to Fowler needing an infallible partner to be effective. Again. There's a difference between having to play babysitter to an inconsistent force in the d-zone, and needing uber competence in a partner. The divide is miles wide and your posts ignores the possibility of a middle ground.

 

[Spazkat]

You're also exaggerating your description of the D partner Fowler needs something awful, and I'm not even sure why. Despres was hardly a "almost never makes mistakes" player, and Fowler did fine with him. You can't make that kind of statement because the list of top 4 defensemen that Fowler has played with for any extended period of time is ridiculously short. So, you're exaggerating just to exaggerate, because you can't put together a list of attributes that you know works or doesn't work, because you really only have Despres or Vatanen if we're looking at recent players.

All we know is that Vatanen and Fowler didn't work well together.

I guess my problem here stems from the fact that I thought the Fowler contract was an overpay to begin with, and now that its followed up by the expectation that we need to either blow though the prospect pool to get him just the right sort of partner or break up Lindholm-Manson. That seems like the sort of thing you have to do for a player that needs some sheltering, not your highest paid guy. And that's really the root of it. There are expectations that come with a contract like that and I feel like he's falling short.

As a side note... we're talking a lot about chemistry here, so what happens if he doesn't 'click' with the next guy either?

 

[Sojourn]

I guess my problem here stems from the fact that I thought the Fowler contract was an overpay to begin with, and now that its followed up by the expectation that we need to either blow though the prospect pool to get him just the right sort of partner or break up Lindholm-Manson. That seems like the sort of thing you have to do for a player that needs some sheltering, not your highest paid guy. And that's really the root of it. There are expectations that come with a contract like that and I feel like he's falling short.

As a side note... we're talking a lot about chemistry here, so what happens if he doesn't 'click' with the next guy either?

You're actually criticizing him because the team has failed to partner him with a top 4 defenseman. You don't think that's a little ridiculous? No, check that, a lot ridiculous. It would be like putting Ryan Getzlaf next to Shaw and then slamming him because he isn't able to produce at expected levels with him.

I'm sorry, but that's crazy and not even a little rational. What do you think teams throughout the league try to do? They take their best players, and they try to surround them with talent that lets them perform at their highest level. Your entire argument seems to be that they are all doing it wrong, and that they should, instead, be able to put them with scrubs and still have them perform, and if they aren't able to then they just aren't worth it.

If you don't like the contract, hey, that's your opinion, but the argument you're making here is not logical. It's completely opposite of the way GM's in the NHL try to do things, and it really comes across as completely unfair to the player being talked about just because you aren't keen on the contract. "Oh, he can't play well with garbage? He clearly needs to be sheltered then."

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

You're actually criticizing him because the team has failed to partner him with a top 4 defenseman. You don't think that's a little ridiculous? No, check that, a lot ridiculous. It would be like putting Ryan Getzlaf next to Shaw and then slamming him because he isn't able to produce at expected levels with him.

I'm sorry, but that's crazy and not even a little rational. What do you think teams throughout the league try to do? They take their best players, and they try to surround them with talent that lets them perform at their highest level. Your entire argument seems to be that they are all doing it wrong, and that they should, instead, be able to put them with scrubs and still have them perform, and if they aren't able to then they just aren't worth it.

If you don't like the contract, hey, that's your opinion, but the argument you're making here is not logical. It's completely opposite of the way GM's in the NHL try to do things, and it really comes across as completely unfair to the player being talked about just because you aren't keen on the contract. "Oh, he can't play well with garbage? He clearly needs to be sheltered then."

Getzlaf would probably produce okay with shaw tbh... idk that putting anyone next to getzlaf is a good example :p

the rest I agree with tho

 

[Sojourn]

Getzlaf would probably produce okay with shaw tbh... idk that putting anyone next to getzlaf is a good example :p

the rest I agree with tho

Getzlaf isn't going to be a PPG player without a player who has at least some offensive ability. Put him with Shaw and Ritchie, and see what happens. Well, don't actually do that, but imagine it.

The point being that even an elite player like Getzlaf has to have something to work with. You certainly aren't going to get his best without giving him that.