Babcock's departure leads to Larkin signing

[Bench]

Even so, it's still a needlessly inflammatory headline. The difference was between Larkin signing as a 19 year old and signing as a 20 year old. It's not like he was going to refuse to play for the Wings if Babcock was there.

It's a fact like my tiger repelling rock repels tigers since there's no wild tigers in Michigan. Look, I hope some people are right and Babcock was a major issue in terms of letting younger kids play. I just don't think Holland was the guy always getting the short end of the decision stick while Babcock was forcing kids to stay in the minors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw

I get what you guys are saying. And I'm totally with you that this isn't Larkin tearing down Babcock at all. Someone could slant the headline that way, but I don't think that's the case at all.

Upon Babcock's arrival, the Wings have been an organization that has had a singular goal of competing in the playoffs and have done so mostly through the use of veteran players. Off-seasoning signings and trades exclusively involved guys with ample experience and Babcock's lineups mirrored the signings of Holland.

But 10 years later, a coaching and culture change brings opportunity for a 19-year-old that previously wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of being a Wing. He's still got an uphill battle, but Babcock's departure (whether you think it's good or bad) does offer new hope to the youth movement and that the Wings will move away from the stale retreads.

Larkin was always going to be an A chip prospect for the Wings, but what he was driving at in the article is that the door is just a little more open for him now. And I think he's right.

 

[Heaton]

I think a lot of it is timing though, and would've been inevitable. Datsyuk and Z are getting old and we need a replacement. We happen to have a 19 year old wonder-kid closing in. I don't know if Babcock staying or leaving would've changed his course. What were the alternatives? Babcock talked the last two seasons about needing to limit their minutes, but he had no one else to take their spot. I like Sheahan, I like Glendening, they aren't taking any pressure off of Datsyuk or Z. Nyquist and Tatar cannot do it either, since they're wingers. It has to be another center, it has to be Larkin.

 

[Bench]

I think a lot of it is timing though, and would've been inevitable.

Well, take it up with Larkin. He's the one that suggested the coaching change was a reason he signed when he did, otherwise what was the point of what he said?

 

[Frk It]

I have a couple issues:

1) Smith/Tatar. It kind of seems you are trying to have it both ways. You say Smith going back to the AHL lead to a stagnation. However, you aren't acknowledging that when Tatar went back to the AHL, he found a level he had never before demonstrated in the AHL. If you are including the time back in the AHL for Smith as part of the development (or lack there of), then you should be consistent and do the same with Tatar. If you do include that extra AHL time with Tatar, its clear another level of development occurred in that playoff run. Simply put: You are including that extra time in the AHL as part of the development curve for one player, and not the other.

I don't see how I am trying to have it "both ways". No surprise Tatar lit up the AHL that year, considering I thought he looked like he belonged in Detroit that same year. Also the advanced stats said he did too. I think Tatar would have benefited just as much staying with Detroit.

2)XO/Marchenko. I think its a little to early to determine with these too. We don't yet know what kind of players they are, so its hard to say the time they spent in the AHL was too much/not enough.

I can see that. I guess I put a lot of stock into Babcock wanting Ouellet on the team last year. Marchenko I am more lukewarm on, but I think Ouellet should be on our NHL club. Like I said, if I could see some offensive progression, I would be more in favor of leaving him in GR.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Well, nothing is undisputed. Some people don't even think Nyquist was there too long, which I think is hilarious.

But in my opinion: Nyquist, Tatar, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Marchenko

And if Smith was allowed to continue his call-up where he looked great, that would have completely changed his development.

That's the magic sauce necessary to complete all these 'Holland screwed up a prospect' sandwiches.

If they came up and did well, Holland screwed up by not bringing them up sooner so they would have been doing well in the NHL longer still.

If they came up and did poorly, Holland screwed up by not having them up sooner so they would have done better when they first arrived.

Detroit's philosophy is that when they bring a prospect up who they project to be an X, he's supposed to pretty much be able to be a successful X when he steps into the dressing room. Not 'grow into an X after 150 NHL games', not 'well, even if he's not an X we'll just make him a Y so who cares'. The team typically has other guys they envision as Y's.

By definition, that means the team is going to err on the side of occasionally missing a season of a prospect to make sure they are fully ready when they come up so they don't get tagged by a half or a full season of the prospect clearly not being ready. And heck, even with that strategy there's nearly a zero list of guys who didn't make it to Detroit who left and were good elsewhere.

And putting those 4 dmen on a list of players left too long in GR is just hilarious. The only guy with an even moderate case is Nyquist, whose entire resume to beat out Alfreddson or Weiss for a top 6 spot was one huge camp and two good AHL years balanced against two long NHL callups of ineffectiveness... and even that 'disaster' only cost him ~20 games.

 

[Frk It]

That's the magic sauce necessary to complete all these 'Holland screwed up a prospect' sandwiches.

If they came up and did well, Holland screwed up by not bringing them up sooner so they would have been doing well in the NHL longer still.

If they came up and did poorly, Holland screwed up by not having them up sooner so they would have done better when they first arrived.

Detroit's philosophy is that when they bring a prospect up who they project to be an X, he's supposed to pretty much be able to be a successful X when he steps into the dressing room. Not 'grow into an X after 150 NHL games', not 'well, even if he's not an X we'll just make him a Y so who cares'. The team typically has other guys they envision as Y's.

By definition, that means the team is going to err on the side of occasionally missing a season of a prospect to make sure they are fully ready when they come up so they don't get tagged by a half or a full season of the prospect clearly not being ready. And heck, even with that strategy there's nearly a zero list of guys who didn't make it to Detroit who left and were good elsewhere.

And putting those 4 dmen on a list of players left too long in GR is just hilarious. The only guy with an even moderate case is Nyquist, whose entire resume to beat out Alfreddson or Weiss for a top 6 spot was one huge camp and two good AHL years balanced against two long NHL callups of ineffectiveness... and even that 'disaster' only cost him ~20 games.

I didn't even say Holland "screwed up" those prospects. I just gave a list of those I felt were in GR longer than necessary.

The only one in my list that I think the Wings "screwed up" would be Kindl, and I blame that more on Babcock than Holland.

At the end of the day we will never know what a different development path would have yielded, so it's hard to say who should or shouldn't have been developed a certain way. Nyquist and Tatar still came out really good players. Could they be even farther along as of today? Maybe. Could Smith be more than a bottom pair guy at 26? Maybe. I don't think the Wings screwed these guys up, I just wonder what the alternative would have been. Maybe it changed very little in the end. Well never know though.

 

[Henkka]

The only one in my list that I think the Wings "screwed up" would be Kindl, and I blame that more on Babcock than Holland.

In reality, Kindl hasn't had the best luck with developing coaches. First Curt "prospect killer" Fraser in AHL, then Babcock-mindgames at Detroit.

 

[InjuredChoker]

HiHD still seems to have trouble understanding that nyquist's track record in those NHL callups of ineffectiveness was better than half the forwards on red wings roster, there were plenty of other spots available on the roster than weiss' and alfie's spot (like the one where he played in the playoffs) and he was one of the best players in the AHL those years. he was the only players who was over ppg in both years while playing more than 50 games. he also lost more than 20 games.

 

[Winger98]

At the end of the day we will never know what a different development path would have yielded, so it's hard to say who should or shouldn't have been developed a certain way. Nyquist and Tatar still came out really good players. Could they be even farther along as of today? Maybe. Could Smith be more than a bottom pair guy at 26? Maybe. I don't think the Wings screwed these guys up, I just wonder what the alternative would have been. Maybe it changed very little in the end. Well never know though.

This is my problem with the Wings' development philosophy. It seems to work okay for forwards, but our development of blueline prospects leaves a lot to be desired. I know some have tried to point to it being a numbers game, where we just need to draft more defencemen, but I don't find that argument wholly persuasive and I think it too wants to ignore the possibility that our system has failed the prospects just as much as the prospects have failed the system.

While dragging out the development as long as possible may not harm forwards much, it might just be a horrible way of developing quality blueliners.

 

[Winger98]

HiHD still seems to have trouble understanding that nyquist's track record in those NHL callups of ineffectiveness was better than half the forwards on red wings roster, there were plenty of other spots available on the roster than weiss' and alfie's spot (like the one where he played in the playoffs) and he was one of the best players in the AHL those years. he was the only players who was over ppg in both years while playing more than 50 games. he also lost more than 20 games.

Nyquist's production rates were also fairly similar to the rookie seasons of Flip and Hudler. Coming up and going at .5ppg or better is usually the land of Calder candidates.

 

[Retire91]

I think the headline/article are slightly misleading.

Not completely. He had the option to continue his college hockey and not sign with the wings. Maybe even move on to another team as an FA after 3 years like Justin Schultz.

Almost certain Dekeyser used his FA status to garuntee he would not go through the wings development program becasue he spent only a couple games in the AHL after he first signed when they were in the playoffs. Pretty sure the Nyquist situation turned some heads around the minors. If I had the leverage I would also be thinking twice about signing up for 4-6 years in the AHL before getting a shot.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

In reality, Kindl hasn't had the best luck with developing coaches. First Curt "prospect killer" Fraser in AHL, then Babcock-mindgames at Detroit.

Fundamentally, Kindl is afraid to get hit. No amount of coaching is going to change that.

 

[TheMule93]

I'm just ecstatic that we found what we believe to be our next franchise centre. Those are hard to find.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I didn't even say Holland "screwed up" those prospects. I just gave a list of those I felt were in GR longer than necessary.

The only one in my list that I think the Wings "screwed up" would be Kindl, and I blame that more on Babcock than Holland.

"And if Smith was allowed to continue his call-up where he looked great, that would have completely changed his development."

At the end of the day we will never know what a different development path would have yielded, so it's hard to say who should or shouldn't have been developed a certain way. Nyquist and Tatar still came out really good players. Could they be even farther along as of today? Maybe. Could Smith be more than a bottom pair guy at 26? Maybe. I don't think the Wings screwed these guys up, I just wonder what the alternative would have been. Maybe it changed very little in the end. Well never know though.

But that's the thing, Frk. The presumption is the alternative would have been better. The alternative could just as easily either make no difference (my opinion) or be worse.

Some time back I talked about how people automatically bake in 'upside' when they talk and think about prospects. 'Prospect is going to get better, but the only way he can get better is to play in the NHL.' That phrase or something very much like it runs on a constant loop in the subconscious of people who tend to take the approach you do with regards to development.

By a fairly big majority, the most likely reason Ouelett or Marachenko or Sproul or whoever haven't made a larger NHL impact is that... they just aren't that good. Happens most of the time with prospects. Whether you wait until the day before their waiver exempt status ends to call them up or put them on a plane to Detroit that leaves right from the draft podium, there's next to nothing a team can do to alter how good a player actually is short of causing them injury.

All of the stuff people are doing here is just wishcasting. 'Hey, I thought this guy was good and I hate the guy the team has, so obviously the guy I think is good should be playing instead and if he's not I have to create a rationale which explains that away and makes my preconceived conclusion accurate by default.'

That's how we end up with different groups of fans all agitating for Prospect X Y or Z to be playing... and heck, every once in a while using the powers of hindsight that's not the worst decision available. But a bunch of the time it would be, or at the very least not make any actual difference.

 

[Henkka]

This is my problem with the Wings' development philosophy. It seems to work okay for forwards, but our development of blueline prospects leaves a lot to be desired. I know some have tried to point to it being a numbers game, where we just need to draft more defencemen, but I don't find that argument wholly persuasive and I think it too wants to ignore the possibility that our system has failed the prospects just as much as the prospects have failed the system.

While dragging out the development as long as possible may not harm forwards much, it might just be a horrible way of developing quality blueliners.

Have you seen what kind of turnaround they did this summer?

They HAVE NOTICED, that our past system of developing defencemen hasn't worked.

And what happened:

First of all, signed Todd Nelson to Grand Rapids who was praised by Oiler-guys of his ability to develop DEFENCEMEN at Oklahoma/Edmonton.

Got short-term help by signing UFA Mike Green, which kind of swept away the instant need (of latest wasted years) of a puckmoving leading defenceman.

Then they went to draft right-handed prospect defencemen like Saarijärvi and Holway, have signed Hicketts a year ago and now signed Russo. Getting talent from here and there.

Also called a bunch of undrafted righties to our development camp and some of them are joining our team as tryouts at Traverse City and at training camp.

So, it looks obvious that this summer, they did put a big "DEVELOP A GOD DAMN HOME-GROWN DEFENCEMAN" -program on the move.

We'll see the results in few years.

They know it hasn't worked, now they also acted. And I like what I see they are doing.

 

[HockeyinHD]

HiHD still seems to have trouble understanding that nyquist's track record in those NHL callups of ineffectiveness was better than half the forwards on red wings roster, there were plenty of other spots available on the roster than weiss' and alfie's spot

Look, the Wings don't call up forwards they envision having large roles on the team to come up and play totally dissimilar roles, just to get them on the roster.

It's dumb to do, it completely scrambles line responsibilities and matchups, it wastes depth for no reason, and it teaches that player literally nothing other than where his locker is. So they don't do it.

So, you can continue to feel like Nyquist should have gotten Andersson or Cleary or Tootoo or Miller or whoever's depth 10th-14th forward spot and how it was those signings and not the signings of top 6ish forwards that pushed him out that year (oh, and also that Tatar was on the opening day roster ahead of him).

That's fine. It's also a) deliberately ignoring why Detroit does what they do roster-wise and b) wrong.

he also lost more than 20 games.

"~"

 

[HockeyinHD]

This is my problem with the Wings' development philosophy. It seems to work okay for forwards, but our development of blueline prospects leaves a lot to be desired.

Jiri Fischer is 35 years old. If he has a 'normal' career to what degree is your opinion changed?

I think it too wants to ignore the possibility that our system has failed the prospects just as much as the prospects have failed the system.

Which defensive prospect left Detroit's system and demonstrated any substantive ability in the NHL, ever? Quincey?

Unless you're presenting the argument that Detroit's minor league system actively makes players worse, we'd have to see Detroit miss somewhere with guys who were good elsewhere to think what you are suggesting is accurate.

 

[Frk It]

"And if Smith was allowed to continue his call-up where he looked great, that would have completely changed his development."

But that's the thing, Frk. The presumption is the alternative would have been better. The alternative could just as easily either make no difference (my opinion) or be worse..

Definitely true. Smith could have been worse off had he been allowed to stay with the team in his first run, where he looked excellent. But then again, we have a 26 year old Smith who is *fighting* for a spot on our bottom pair. So, what was there really to lose?

By a fairly big majority, the most likely reason Ouelett or Marachenko or Sproul or whoever haven't made a larger NHL impact is that... they just aren't that good. Happens most of the time with prospects. Whether you wait until the day before their waiver exempt status ends to call them up or put them on a plane to Detroit that leaves right from the draft podium, there's next to nothing a team can do to alter how good a player actually is short of causing them injury.

I think there's some truth to this. After thinking about it more, I would actually remove Marchenko from my list altogether. Overall he has not impressed me that much. But I don't think your "they just aren't that good" statement really applies to Ouellet. Babcock thought he deserved to make the team last year. He outright said so. I think we just have an excess of defenseman, and I don't think roster spots are actually determined by the play in camp. So I think Ouellet is just the victim of some hoarding on the back end.

That's how we end up with different groups of fans all agitating for Prospect X Y or Z to be playing... and heck, every once in a while using the powers of hindsight that's not the worst decision available. But a bunch of the time it would be, or at the very least not make any actual difference.

In most cases, I don't think the end result would be much different. Admittedly, I tend to be impatient as a fan, so I would rather see young exciting talents like Nyquist and Tatar sooner rather than later. Nyquist I also thought was able to provide a significant impact, which he proved by scoring the most goals in the NHL over a 4 month span or so in the same season where he was left of the team for the first 1/4 of the season. But I do wonder moreso about the guys who flamed out, like Kindl and to a lesser extent Smith. Was there an alternative course of action for those guys to end up with more than what we have? Or is that just what they are, and nothing was going to change that?

 

[HockeyinHD]

Have you seen what kind of turnaround they did this summer?

They HAVE NOTICED, that our past system of developing defencemen hasn't worked.

And what happened:

I would add to that list that they offered Ryan Suter something in the neighborhood of eleventy beeeeellion dollars to come here and be a #1 for a millennium.

Detroit spent 5 picks on the blue line in 2011 (2 2 5 6 7)trying to have someone ready to step up as Kronwall and Lidstrom aged, after spending #1's in 05 and 07 that didn't progress, along with scattered picks here and there in between.

Those picks all appeared to have dumped and Suter figured he'd rather go sledding. It happens. So, they do a lot of the things Henkka's mentioned already and try and figure something out since they haven't quite yet managed to replace maybe the greatest defenseman of all time, and that sort of thing leaves a bit of a vacuum.

There is no question that Detroit is better at getting forwards and goalies in the draft than they are at getting dmen there, though. Part of that is pick dispersement, yes, but the other part is that Detroit plays a style that forwards can excel in but which relies (or at least it has until the past couple years) very heavily on it's dmen.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Look, the Wings don't call up forwards they envision having large roles on the team to come up and play totally dissimilar roles, just to get them on the roster.

It's dumb to do, it completely scrambles line responsibilities and matchups, it wastes depth for no reason, and it teaches that player literally nothing other than where his locker is. So they don't do it.
except they did exactly that with nyquist when he was called up before the final time and stayed up permanently.

So, you can continue to feel like Nyquist should have gotten Andersson or Cleary or Tootoo or Miller or whoever's depth 10th-14th forward spot and how it was those signings and not the signings of top 6ish forwards that pushed him out that year (oh, and also that Tatar was on the opening day roster ahead of him).

That's fine. It's also a) deliberately ignoring why Detroit does what they do roster-wise and b) wrong.

cleary was on the third line wing to start the season and actually got top 6 ice time on the opening night for total toi. wings third line of nyquist-andersson-brunner was very effective in playoffs as a scoring line. wings struggled mightily to score outside of the top line. those top 6 signings contributed to that but cleary signing was the LAST one when it was known that wings wouldn't be able to get nyquist on the roster if they signed cleary to that deal.

also for christ sakes stop with the tatar on the opening night roster crap. i don't know if your crap goes by others so you keep doing it but that is so easy to check in couple of minutes. tatar was not on the opening night roster. he was healthy scratch.

let me repeat again.


TATAR WAS NOT ON THE OPENING NIGHT ROSTER IN 13-14 SEASON. HE WAS HEALTHY SCRATCH AND WAS SO FOR 8 OF THE FIRST 9 GAMES TO START THE SEASON

and also, andersson signing didn't prevent nyquist for making the opening night roster. same with tatar. them being off the roster wouldn't have cleared enough cap space. tatar had also lost his waiver eligibility.

where do you see tatar's name?

unbelievable.

"~"

lockout shortened season and the games he missed early 13-14 come out as lot more than that.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Definitely true. Smith could have been worse off had he been allowed to stay with the team in his first run, where he looked excellent. But then again, we have a 26 year old Smith who is *fighting* for a spot on our bottom pair. So, what was there really to lose?

That's why they call it 'hindsight'. If you get Jon-Erik Hexum to whisper into Holland's ear that 'hey, Smith is going to be barely hanging onto a spot in 2015 anyway so give it a roll if you want, big man!', then sure.

Also, IIRC Smith was a bit of a nutball at the time. Part of the decision to send him down could very well have been as much focused on emotional development and on-ice development.

Babcock thought he deserved to make the team last year. He outright said so.

He also didn't say who the team should have waived to make room for him, nor suggested doing so.

Now granted, that'd be a fairly bodacious addendum to float out there, but it's a pretty easy stance to take, is what I'm saying. 'Gee, yeah, XO should be playing!' "Coach, who are you willing to demote so he can?" 'Wait, what?'

Yes, everyone, I can hear you all screaming 'QUINCEY!'. I get it.

I think we just have an excess of defenseman, and I don't think roster spots are actually determined by the play in camp. So I think Ouellet is just the victim of some hoarding on the back end.

5 goals
28 assists
122 AHL games.
t-6th on the Griffins in dman scoring in 2013-14.

That's just not going to get a bigger look when what the team desperately needed was an offensive hand back there.

But I do wonder moreso about the guys who flamed out, like Kindl and to a lesser extent Smith. Was there an alternative course of action for those guys to end up with more than what we have? Or is that just what they are, and nothing was going to change that?

That's why I ask where the 24 year old dmen who got out of Detroit's system and went on to do something somewhere else are. If I'm going to believe that these guys just got passed over by Detroit because Detroit was dumb and they were good players all along, then I need to see these guys go somewhere and show me Detroit was dumb and they were good players all along.

I have yet to see how playing two or three years in the AHL eviscerates any players ability to play NHL level hockey. I don't think Lidstrom would have gotten worse by playing two years in GR. I don't think Kronwall would have gotten worse by playing another year in GR. Again, allowing for injuries that de-rail careers.

I just cannot think how if a guy played 5 years of non-NHL hockey his ability is somehow lessened compared to a guy who played 4, or increased over a guy who played 6. Or 3 vs 7. I mean, is Larkin a 'better' AHL player or even just player overall now because he jumped ship on Michigan and got to the AHL at 19-20 instead of 21-22 after playing through his junior season? If he is, how is he?

To me, the only way to look at this is to say that the talent drives the opportunity. If the whole thing is just random chance so lets give everyone 50 NHL games to find out... I mean, that's anarchy or madness or something. I don't know what.

 

[Henkka]

HiHD still seems to have trouble understanding that nyquist's track record in those NHL callups of ineffectiveness was better than half the forwards on red wings roster, there were plenty of other spots available on the roster than weiss' and alfie's spot (like the one where he played in the playoffs) and he was one of the best players in the AHL those years. he was the only players who was over ppg in both years while playing more than 50 games. he also lost more than 20 games.

Let's speculate, that Nyquist lost one season in NHL at 2012-13. Season 2011-12 wasn't realistic to expect NHL dominance yet, that was his first good season in AHL, and should have been promoted after that.

So, at 2012-13 as a full NHL regular:

Babcock will build 3 line TOP9 offence:

Centers:

Datsyuk 15+34 = 49p
Zetterberg 11+37 = 48p
Filppula 9+8 = 17p

Net-front Grinders
Cleary 9+6 = 15
Abdelkader 10+3 = 13
Bertuzzi/Andersson (7 + 38 games split up) Bert 2+1, Joker 3+5, combined 5+6 = 11 points


Soring wingers:
Franzen 14+17 = 31p
Brunner 12+14 = 26p
Tatar/Nyquist (18 + 22 games split up) Tatar 4+3, Nyquist 3+3 = 7+6 = 13 points combined

Tootoo - Emmerton - Eaves was the most common 4th line.

Did it look that both guys were ready? Guy from Swiss league (who is out of NHL already) came and outproduced them.

Whine everything about Cleary, Abdelkader, Bertuzzi or Andersson, but it was Babcock's strucuture, where every line has that type of guy (Nyquist and Tatar isn't), so it was better to develop them on the minors. Because there was no open spot for both. Signing Damien Brunner was the biggest reason for that. Not a single veteran, if you guys don't mean 31-point Franzen.

 

[HockeyinHD]

TATAR WAS NOT ON THE OPENING NIGHT ROSTER IN 13-14 SEASON. HE WAS HEALTHY SCRATCH AND WAS SO FOR 8 OF THE FIRST 9 GAMES TO START THE SEASON

You get how NHL rosters work, right? 23 men total, split them up between the positions, don't have to play them all, etc?

Tatar was on the 23 man roster. The one the team had to start the year. Him being there took up a) a roster spot and b) a roster spot at forward.

Emmerton was up too. Maybe his being there caused Nyquist to be down while we're at it? Darn Emmerton.

and also, andersson signing didn't prevent nyquist for making the opening night roster. same with tatar. them being off the roster wouldn't have cleared enough cap space. tatar had also lost his waiver eligibility.

There are all kinds of moving parts that impact roster/cap space. Shouldn't the team had sent Emmerton and Andersson down to make roster and cap space for Nyquist then?

That's why I'm not so tunnel visioned as to presume that just one decision forced a roster outcome. I am aware that there are a whole bunch of things at play simultaneously. Nyquist got squeezed out because the Wings signed a whole bunch of guys, Satan's representative here on earth being among them may-his-name-never-be-uttered, the top 6ish spots for him dried up, they didn't want to expose Tatar, and they ran out of money. C'est la vie.

Picking one signing as the root cause of the event is like picking one cigarette and blaming it for shortness of breath. I mean, you can... I just don't know what the point would be.

lockout shortened season and the games he missed early 13-14 come out as lot more than that.

Oh, so you're saying he should have been up full time to start the 2012-13 season? Alllllllrighty then.

Hand count, is that opinion of IC's shared very widely? It's fine if it is, just... wow. Hadn't run across that particular one before.

 

[InjuredChoker]

You get how NHL rosters work, right? 23 men total, split them up between the positions, don't have to play them all, etc?

Tatar was on the 23 man roster. The one the team had to start the year. Him being there took up a) a roster spot and b) a roster spot at forward.

Emmerton was up too. Maybe his being there caused Nyquist to be down while we're at it? Darn Emmerton.

except emmerton wouldn't have cleared enough cap space either.

There are all kinds of moving parts that impact roster/cap space. Shouldn't the team had sent Emmerton and Andersson down to make roster and cap space for Nyquist then?

There are all kinds of moving parts that impact roster/cap space. Shouldn't the team had sent Emmerton and Andersson down to make roster and cap space for Nyquist then?

sure if that would have worked but it wouldn't have cleared enough cap space. you really don't get that do you?

there was no way to get under the cap (without LTIR) after cleary signing without trading someone. emmerton, andersson, tatar, bertuzzi, sammy and so on wouldn't have cleared enough cap space by just sending them down/waiving them.

There are all kinds of moving parts that impact roster/cap space. Shouldn't the team had sent Emmerton and Andersson down to make roster and cap space for Nyquist then?

That's why I'm not so tunnel visioned as to presume that just one decision forced a roster outcome. I am aware that there are a whole bunch of things at play simultaneously. Nyquist got squeezed out because the Wings signed a whole bunch of guys, Satan's representative here on earth being among them may-his-name-never-be-uttered, the top 6ish spots for him dried up, they didn't want to expose Tatar, and they ran out of money. C'est la vie.

it seems like you're the one with tunnel vision and isn't aware of the whole bunch of things at play simultaneously as you can't seem to understand that waiving the likes of emmerton and andersson wouldn't have cleared room for nyquist.

Oh, so you're saying he should have been up full time to start the 2012-13 season? Alllllllrighty then.

Hand count, is that opinion of IC's shared very widely? It's fine if it is, just... wow. Hadn't run across that particular one before.

it most certainly is. he was matched up against legit top6 NHL Fs during the lockout season and came ahead on those many times.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Let's speculate, that Nyquist lost one season in NHL at 2012-13. Season 2011-12 wasn't realistic to expect NHL dominance yet, that was his first good season in AHL, and should have been promoted after that.

So, at 2012-13 as a full NHL regular:

Babcock will build 3 line TOP9 offence:

Centers:

Datsyuk 15+34 = 49p
Zetterberg 11+37 = 48p
Filppula 9+8 = 17p

Net-front Grinders
Cleary 9+6 = 15
Abdelkader 10+3 = 13
Bertuzzi/Andersson (7 + 38 games split up) Bert 2+1, Joker 3+5, combined 5+6 = 11 points


Soring wingers:
Franzen 14+17 = 31p
Brunner 12+14 = 26p
Tatar/Nyquist (18 + 22 games split up) Tatar 4+3, Nyquist 3+3 = 7+6 = 13 points combined

Tootoo - Emmerton - Eaves was the most common 4th line.

Did it look that both guys were ready? Guy from Swiss league (who is out of NHL already) came and outproduced them.

Whine everything about Cleary, Abdelkader, Bertuzzi or Andersson, but it was Babcock's strucuture, where every line has that type of guy (Nyquist and Tatar isn't), so it was better to develop them on the minors. Because there was no open spot for both. Signing Damien Brunner was the biggest reason for that. Not a single veteran, if you guys don't mean 31-point Franzen.

filppula and zetterberg played fair amount on the wing that season. it took quite a long time before bottom 6 forward for red wings scored a goal. iirc it was like 20 games or something ridicuous and that was one the powerplay for patrick eaves.