2015-16 Opening Night Roster - LARKIN MAKES IT (Post 159)

[14ari13]

What's wrong with it? A guy who for 4 years now hasn't consistently been able to play any higher than a #6 dman, a mid level prospect, likely a mid-late first rounder, and a roster role player with modest point totals and an expiring contract for likely the top defensive rental target this coming season?

That sounds like a pretty fair trade to me.

I am not sure about AA. If he is as good as Larkin, you dont move him for a rental. Specially if you can't sign him.

+/- is one of the least reliable stats there is and it's a tiny tiny sample size. It's an interesting stat line but I wouldn't call it "convincing."

Which other stats do we have? You say it like there is at least 5-6 different ones, while basicly we have goals, assists and +/-.

 

[Big Poppa Puck]

NHL.com spelled Ericsson's name wrong:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=782115&cmpid=nhl-twt

 

[Flowah]

I am not sure about AA. If he is as good as Larkin, you dont move him for a rental. Specially if you can't sign him.



Which other stats do we have? You say it like there is at least 5-6 different ones, while basicly we have goals, assists and +/-.

I love AA. I think his ceiling is limitless. Seriously, I've compared him to Datsyuk the way he greases by defenders. I just don't think he's that likely to reach it. I think realistically he's a speedy 2nd line winger or a good 3C. If he finds a way to train his hockey sense and use his teammates better the kid can be an all-star. But again, I don't think that's all that likely because hockey sense seems very tough to develop to me. I also don't think he's as good as Larkin right now (or maybe ever) and I'm fairly sure almost everyone else would agree with that.

If he's part of a package that lands Byfuglien that makes us true cup contenders this season and it's worth it. It's a risk to be sure since winning the cup is so damn hard even with great players, but it's a good move from my vantage point.

I mean... there are other stats. Like takeaways, giveaways, shots on goal, penalties, blocked shots. That does all go into it. But any stat you use to compare 2 players based on what, 5? preseason games is going to be pretty flimsy. It gets even flimsier when you use +/- which is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/10/05/sicom-nhl-preseason-all-rookie-team?ref=yfp

Larkin hype isn't everywhere... and thank god for that. Longer SI doesn't know about him the better.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'd trade them Abdelkader/Helm, Smith, AA/Bertuzzi and a first for Byfuglien.

Four pieces, one of which is a first round pick is the price of a rental?

Bull****.

If this is the price, I swap Abby/Helm for Nyquist/Tatar and get a guy who is signed, better, or signed and better.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Four pieces, one of which is a first round pick is the price of a rental?

Bull****.

If this is the price, I swap Abby/Helm for Nyquist/Tatar and get a guy who is signed, better, or signed and better.

Yeah what he had is way to much for a rental, At the most I would offer Chevy for Byfuglien Helm+Smith+Det's 2016 1st round pick that's a fair price for a rental Big Buff.

 

[Flowah]

Four pieces, one of which is a first round pick is the price of a rental?

Bull****.

If this is the price, I swap Abby/Helm for Nyquist/Tatar and get a guy who is signed, better, or signed and better.

Both Helm and Abby are expiring and due for a raise. Wings don't even get high first round picks and often trade down anyway. It's really not that bad.

 

[TheMule93]

Both Helm and Abby are expiring and due for a raise. Wings don't even get high first round picks and often trade down anyway. It's really not that bad.

We've been nailing our 1st rounded recently

Mantha followed by Larkin

Svechnikov could be something special too

I'd definitely trade our 1st round pick if we can acquire a defenseman who will be a mainstay on our blue line for a while though

 

[TheOtherOne]

There's depth and then there's Legwand, Cole, and Zidlicky.....

I don't see the point in complaining about players who outperformed half our regular roster.

Particularly Zidlicky. Which of our young defensemen was better than Zidlicky? DD and?

 

[TheRatPoisoner]

Both Helm and Abby are expiring and due for a raise. Wings don't even get high first round picks and often trade down anyway. It's really not that bad.

I've bought into the whole not giving up first rounders for rentals thing -- they're too important to the future of the team.

 

[TheRatPoisoner]

At this point it seems there is something wrong with the Wings drafting and development for a defenseman. I would not be adverse at all to trading a big package for a young one. Not someone as old as Buff obviously, but a Myers or Hamilton type deal (yes, I know neither were probably available to Holland due to division, just giving examples).

For as many highly touted offensive threats the Wings have developed/drafted the past decade, the defensive resume is almost non-existent. XO and Marchenko are probably NHL players, but even they at best are looking like 4-5th guys. The Wings have not drafted or developed their own top 3 (on a good defensive team) since Kronwall.

I think it's just really difficult to pick that #1 guy where they draft. Seems like during the past few years, they've only passed over a handful of players (Josi, Faulk, Subban, Voynov, Weber off the top of my head). Beyond that, the guys that end up having #1 potential are already off the board once their turn to pick comes around.

But yeah, I'd be for making a trade also so long as it's a player helps the team avoid disaster when Kronwall gets too old and stops being effective. Doesn't even have to be a guy that can help immediately for me. I'd be fine with them trading some prospect winger depth for an equivalent d-prospect that they think they have a shot a developing into a #1 guy.

 

[Hammettf2b]

There's depth and then there's Legwand, Cole, and Zidlicky.....

Cole was doing fine up until he got injured. Zidlicky was fantastic when he first came here. He cooled off towards the end of the season and playoffs but it wasn't like it was some catastrophic failure.

 

[PullHard]

I don't feel singled out at all, I think of it as a black hole and I don't know a whole lot about it

I was under the impression which could and likely is inaccurate that Datsyuk's Cap hit would be pro-rated by the days he misses once he returns. So for example if he misses 10 games @ 7.5 million per year. He makes (7.5mil/82 per game)*10games = $914, 634 of cap relief for those 10 games after he returns. I am also under the assumption that as it stands right now until he returns Datsyuk's entire 7,500,000 is off of the books making us currently cap compliant. Along with Kindl, Dekeyser, Helm and Marchenko's cap hits as well.

If anyone knows more about this, and can correct me on the proper way to calculate this I'm very interested.

Well, you have more of an idea about it than I do

I just know that with a contract as big as Datsyuk's missing 2 weeks+ we are opening up a fair bit of cap space, enough to not have to ever really worry about it.

And I'm sure another $2M+ contract player will be LTIR'd at some point this season (Franzen?) so I mean, it just shouldn't even really be an issue IMO

 

[19 for president]

I think it's just really difficult to pick that #1 guy where they draft. Seems like during the past few years, they've only passed over a handful of players (Josi, Faulk, Subban, Voynov, Weber off the top of my head). Beyond that, the guys that end up having #1 potential are already off the board once their turn to pick comes around.

But yeah, I'd be for making a trade also so long as it's a player helps the team avoid disaster when Kronwall gets too old and stops being effective. Doesn't even have to be a guy that can help immediately for me. I'd be fine with them trading some prospect winger depth for an equivalent d-prospect that they think they have a shot a developing into a #1 guy.

Part of it is certainly where they pick, but I think our development system for dmen is a mess.

The only legit dman that have developed in the Wings system in the past 20 years (weren't NHLers out of minors) are Ericsson, Quincey, Kindl, Smith, Lebda, Lashoff. We have one legit top 4 dman to come out of our "system" in 20 years. That is absurd. Kronwall technically played a year in the AHL during the lockout but he had made the Wings the previous season. But if you want to include him then we have 1 top 2 and 1 top 4 in 20 years. That is still horrible.

If you look at the current batch of prospects it becomes even more pronounced. I mean we had the OHL dman of the year (Sproul), Q 1st team allstar (Oulett), a guy that would have been the WJC captain for Russia (Marchenko), Solid SEL dman (Backman), NCAA Top Division dman (Jensen) and we are going to be lucky if we get 1 NHL dman out of that group, and that was just one draft. Guys like Smith and Kindl have basically bombed as well. That isn't a good sign.

 

[obey86]

Part of it is certainly where they pick, but I think our development system for dmen is a mess.

The only legit dman that have developed in the Wings system in the past 20 years (weren't NHLers out of minors) are Ericsson, Quincey, Kindl, Smith, Lebda, Lashoff. We have one legit top 4 dman to come out of our "system" in 20 years. That is absurd. Kronwall technically played a year in the AHL during the lockout but he had made the Wings the previous season. But if you want to include him then we have 1 top 2 and 1 top 4 in 20 years. That is still horrible.

If you look at the current batch of prospects it becomes even more pronounced. I mean we had the OHL dman of the year (Sproul), Q 1st team allstar (Oulett), a guy that would have been the WJC captain for Russia (Marchenko), Solid SEL dman (Backman), NCAA Top Division dman (Jensen) and we are going to be lucky if we get 1 NHL dman out of that group, and that was just one draft. Guys like Smith and Kindl have basically bombed as well. That isn't a good sign.

Also, and this has been mentioned before, but the Red Wings rarely take defenseman in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Only 7 defenseman have been taken by the Wings in rounds 1-3 since 1999. That's an average of about 1 defenseman in rounds 1-3 every 2 years. That's simply not enough spins at the wheel so to speak.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Also, and this has been mentioned before, but the Red Wings rarely take defenseman in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Only 7 defenseman have been taken by the Wings in rounds 1-3 since 1999. That's simply not enough spins at the wheel so to speak.

They didn't do that because they had Lidstrom and Chelios and Rafalski and Kronwall and Ericsson and, and, and.

The forwards were the aging group with Shanny and Yzerman and Larionov and Fedorov and Hull and Robitaille et cetera all far more advanced along the path of decline than Detroit's dmen.

Given that it takes 4+ years for a dman to mature, typically, Detroit started using #1's on dmen at about the time they figured those picks, when developed, would be ready to step in. Kindl in 05, Smith in 07. A few other dmen picked here and there too, but Detroit figured they'd have at least 1 top 3 dman between those #1's. Oops.

When those #1 picks started to look like they weren't going to pan out the team made FIVE picks on D in 2011 alone to jump start the blueline pipeline and try to fill in the developmental gaps. And then none of those picks really lit up the heavens, either.

And then in 2012 the team went very hard after Suter when he came up. And missed on him.

I think the notion that Detroit didn't try really hard to buttress their blueline over the recent period of history fails to take a lot of the context and sequence of decisions into account.

They just whiffed and whiffed and whiffed and whiffed. They didn't just forget to swing.

 

[obey86]

They didn't do that because they had Lidstrom and Chelios and Rafalski and Kronwall and Ericsson and, and, and.

The forwards were the aging group with Shanny and Yzerman and Larionov and Fedorov and Hull and Robitaille et cetera all far more advanced along the path of decline than Detroit's dmen.

Given that it takes 4+ years for a dman to mature, typically, Detroit started using #1's on dmen at about the time they figured those picks, when developed, would be ready to step in. Kindl in 05, Smith in 07. A few other dmen picked here and there too, but Detroit figured they'd have at least 1 top 3 dman between those #1's. Oops.

When those #1 picks started to look like they weren't going to pan out the team made FIVE picks on D in 2011 alone to jump start the blueline pipeline and try to fill in the developmental gaps. And then none of those picks really lit up the heavens, either.

And then in 2012 the team went very hard after Suter when he came up. And missed on him.

I think the notion that Detroit didn't try really hard to buttress their blueline over the recent period of history fails to take a lot of the context and sequence of decisions into account.

They just whiffed and whiffed and whiffed and whiffed. They didn't just forget to swing.

It's the Wings fault for not protecting themselves with more high draft picks of defenseman if Smith and/or Kindl busted. Putting all their eggs in 2 baskets (Kindl and Smith as 1st rounders) is exactly why the blue line is as it is today.

More spins at the wheel gives the team more protection from players busting. The Wings thought two spins was enough. It obviously wasn't. They were too confident in Smith/Kindl becoming good defenseman and therein lies the problem with their defenseman drafting strategy.

And yes, they made 5 PICKS IN 2011 to make up for past failures...because they had neglected drafting defensemen for too long.

They whiffed and whiffed and whiffed, but they had less quality swings (high drafted defensemen) than probably every NHL team over the last 15 years. The Red Wings had 7 swings. The other teams had 20 swings. Because of that, it's easy to see why other teams have gotten more hits.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It's the Wings fault for not protecting themselves with more high draft picks of defenseman if Smith and/or Kindl busted. Putting all their eggs in 2 baskets (Kindl and Smith as 1st rounders) is exactly why the blue line is as it is today.

They didn't put all their eggs in two baskets. They used 2 #1's on dmen and then they used 5 picks in 2011 and then they went after Suter.

Should they have used the picks they spent on Tatar or Nyquist or Sheahan or Larkin or Mantha on dmen instead? Then... what, instead of yelling at the Wings for not having enough dmen we'd be yelling at them for not having enough forwards?

More spins at the wheel gives the team more protection from players busting. The Wings thought two spins was enough.

How many #1's have they had between 2005-2012? 4. They spent 2 on dmen, 1 on McCollum, and 1 on Sheahan. They've traded out of their late 1's for multiple later picks a few times and moved one for Quincey.

You're techincally right that more picks is a better chance, but when the success rate is as low as it is picking there and it's not like dman was the only need the team was ever going to have to fill, it makes more sense to spread those picks around.

And yes, they made 5 PICKS IN 2011 to make up for past failures...because they had neglected drafting defensemen for too long.

... because they had plenty of dmen already. Hey, should Detroit start drafting goalies in the first round for the next 5 years too?

They used 1's in 05 and 07. Picks didn't (or haven't and IMO probably won't) develop. Oh well. It happens.

Would you rather have Despres, Erixson, Moore or Clark than Tatar (or even Ferraro), just so you could say the Wings spent a sufficient amount of picks targeting dmen?

Would you rather have a 1 in 10 (or worse) chance at landing Faulk vs getting one of the other 9 near washouts... or Sheahan?

Would you rather another dman in the system than Mantha? Larkin?

It's pretty easy to criticize the Wings for not doing "enough" to get better blueline prospects. It's a lot harder to do that while accurately contextualizing what they did do and understanding how doing more would have led to reductions in talent elsewhere.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Cole was doing fine up until he got injured. Zidlicky was fantastic when he first came here. He cooled off towards the end of the season and playoffs but it wasn't like it was some catastrophic failure.

Not really to both. Zidlicky scored a couple of good PP goals, but other than that, he really wasn't good at all. There is a reason he almost didn't get a contract this year...

 

[Heaton]

Not really to both. Zidlicky scored a couple of good PP goals, but other than that, he really wasn't good at all. There is a reason he almost didn't get a contract this year...

Yes really to both, losing Cole was a sizeable hole in the Wings lineup against Tampa Bay and while Zidlicky was terrible in the playoffs, he was solid down the stretch. Zidlicky almost didn't get a contract because he's like 70 years old.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Yes really to both, losing Cole was a sizeable hole in the Wings lineup against Tampa Bay and while Zidlicky was terrible in the playoffs, he was solid down the stretch. Zidlicky almost didn't get a contract because he's like 70 years old.

Cole was never good with the team because he hadn't been good in several years. Every time he was on the ice he choked up the puck and ruined possession. Cole wasn't some x-factor against Tampa, because he wasn't very good at hockey. What happened to him sucks, but boy coughing up those assets for him was pretty bad.

Zidlicky always turned the puck over, his break out passes never actually broke the puck out. He was only useful on the point, and usually during the PP. And then that stopped working out.

Zidlicky is like 70 years old and also not very good at hockey anymore.

The Zidlicky trade was fine, I had no issue with it. He wasn't very good, but he had his moments.

 

[Frk It]

Yes really to both, losing Cole was a sizeable hole in the Wings lineup against Tampa Bay and while Zidlicky was terrible in the playoffs, he was solid down the stretch. Zidlicky almost didn't get a contract because he's like 70 years old.

Cole was pretty good at the time we traded for him. I owned him in fantasy hockey, he was productive.

But giving up a pick that could've landed Kylington and a kid that just made a NHL roster at 22 stings a bit.

Eventually we have to stop bleeding out these 2nd-3rd picks and draft defenseman with them. Thank god we got Green, at least.

 

[obey86]

They didn't put all their eggs in two baskets. They used 2 #1's on dmen and then they used 5 picks in 2011 and then they went after Suter.

They only drafted all those defenseman in 2011 because Smith/Kindl looked like they weren't going to pan out (as you said). Also (as you said) it takes 4-5 years for defenseman to be ready....so 2011 was too late as we have needed quality defenseman for 3-4 years now.

And they failed going after Suter. So what? Going after Suter didn't resolve their d-man problem....it's still there.


Should they have used the picks they spent on Tatar or Nyquist or Sheahan or Larkin or Mantha on dmen instead? Then... what, instead of yelling at the Wings for not having enough dmen we'd be yelling at them for not having enough forwards?

Possibly. We have too many quality young NHL forwards or forward prospects on the cusp of the NHL as it. You don't agree it would be nice if one or two of those top tier prospects was a defenseman instead? It would definitely be nice.

If they ignored high quality offensive prospects for years on end like they have defensive prospects I would feel the same way. What's wrong with balance?


How many #1's have they had between 2005-2012? 4. They spent 2 on dmen, 1 on McCollum, and 1 on Sheahan. They've traded out of their late 1's for multiple later picks a few times and moved one for Quincey.

Yeah, and I was talking about rounds 1-3....not just the 1st round. They have had tons of 2nd and 3rd round picks over the years and most of those picks were offense as well.

You're techincally right that more picks is a better chance, but when the success rate is as low as it is picking there and it's not like dman was the only need the team was ever going to have to fill, it makes more sense to spread those picks around.

But they haven't spread their picks around. That's the point. They have ignored defense towards the beginning of the draft. Only 7 of their past 34 (since 2000) top 3 round picks have defensemen. That's 20.5%. 14.7% have been goalie picks. That means 64.7% of those picks have been forwards.


64.7% forwards vs. 20.5% defenseman. That's "spreading the picks around"? No.

... because they had plenty of dmen already. Hey, should Detroit start drafting goalies in the first round for the next 5 years too?

Who? Lidstrom, Stuart, Rafalski, Chelios, Schneider? Outside of Kronwall and Ericsson they had no young defensemen to build around. For 5 years straight? No they shouldn't. But it wouldn't hurt to mix it up.

They used 1's in 05 and 07. Picks didn't (or haven't and IMO probably won't) develop. Oh well. It happens.

Yeah and their approach to hinging the future hopes of the defense on two high picks failed...it was a bad plan.


Would you rather have Despres, Erixson, Moore or Clark than Tatar (or even Ferraro), just so you could say the Wings spent a sufficient amount of picks targeting dmen?

I don't know Moore and Clark are but there is no guarantee those players would have developed the same if they were in the Wings organization. Maybe they develop better here? I dont know. Neither do you. I sure would have liked to have a shot at more defensemen though...I know that.

Would you rather have a 1 in 10 (or worse) chance at landing Faulk vs getting one of the other 9 near washouts... or Sheahan?

No one knows the odds that a certain player will or won't work out during the draft. Our high draft pick forward could turn into a Sheahan or could turn into a Emmerton. Just like a defenseman pick could be good or bad. We don't know the odds of them becoming successful when we draft them.

Would you rather another dman in the system than Mantha? Larkin?

If they are as good of prospects as a Mantha or Larkin...why not? If we were to agree that Mantha has the high potential of a top line 40 goal scorer......you would be unhappy if instead of Mantha we had a similarly talented defenseman prospect with the potential to be a 50 point top pairing dman? I sure wouldn't.

It's pretty easy to criticize the Wings for not doing "enough" to get better blueline prospects. It's a lot harder to do that while accurately contextualizing what they did do and understanding how doing more would have led to reductions in talent elsewhere.

And what exactly is wrong with spreading our prospect talent around to different positions? Yes, I would take a reduction in our forward prospect talent if it meant we had a high end defensive prospect or two. To say otherwise would be silly.

....

 

[Actual Thought*]

Maybe some of the blame for def prospects not taking the next step falls squarely on Blashill. He coached these kids after all. He gets credited with all the forward success but he hasn't produced a single defenceman who has realized his potential.

 

[The Zermanator]

Maybe some of the blame for def prospects not taking the next step falls squarely on Blashill. He coached these kids after all. He gets credited with all the forward success but he hasn't produced a single defenceman who has realized his potential.

Marchenko (7th round), Ouellet (mid 2nd), and Jensen (5th) are all NHL-ready. It ain't Blashill's fault they're not in the show. What else is the guy supposed to do? He can't magically make someone capable of being a top 2 NHL defenseman.

Never heard any of our young guys even imply Blashill hurt their game, praise has been pretty much universal. Ah, to be a fly on the wall and hear Jurco's unedited thoughts on Babcock.