Shaman464
No u
I agree, but the Wings have a ton of veterans. Abdelkader, Howard, Helm, DeKeyser, Kronwall, LGD, Nielsen, etc etc. The team has multiple players that are vets, and can act as mentors for players.
Holland Finally Admits Wings are Rebuilding
- Thread starter A Few Good Males
- Start date
I agree, but the Wings have a ton of veterans. Abdelkader, Howard, Helm, DeKeyser, Kronwall, LGD, Nielsen, etc etc. The team has multiple players that are vets, and can act as mentors for players.
Z's done and the quotes suggest everyone knew it was likely. Kronwall might be finished at any moment. Nyquist and Howard are likely traded sometime this year, and Daley and Glendenning may well be on the table too. This roster is not a stable one, and better to have too many players and trade some away than not enough and no trade assets...
But not everyone is a role model. I don't think Howard, Helm, and DD would be great mentors. LGD is questionable having graduated from U of M.
What an utterly stupid thing to say. Mike Green, even with his decline has a career 0.6PPG. At his peak he had 2 PPG seasons. He's had a 30 goal season from D and 4 30+ assist seasons, including one with nearly 60. Despite being not as good at the same age as Hronek is. If Hronek can have a first 7-8 years in the NHL as good as Mike Green's, he'll be a nailed on top 4 PP specialist and one of the best offensive D in the NHL. I think most fans would take that....
So 1 quote from a few years ago 1 reporter for a basket case organisation that says a late season acquisition upset a team's harmony but is capable of special things, and one entirely ambiguous quote from an underachieving coach who has struggled to get the best out of a wide range of players = the player in question is a locker room cancer and a bad role model.
As I said elsewhere, even IF Vanek wasn't a great team guy a few years ago (which given it has only been suggested by those with an axe to grind for overpaying in terms of trade or salary, with a healthy dose of people trying to make excuses for their own incompetence), his last two NHL seasons have garnered nothing but praise from the 'rebuilding' teams he played for. As for the Chemistry issue, its true that he does seem to be a player who needs to find chemistry with linemates to be effective and can under-achieve when he doesn't. Happily he found chemistry with about half the red wings roster last time out...
If he comes to Detroit and like last time puts up points, helps young players develop, gets on with everyone and makes DET look like an attractive destination to talented Vets whose slight decline makes them cheap, then frankly, who cares what some fans or hacks in Montreal looking for someone to blame 5 years ago think...or Mike Yeo who managed to achieve the worst results in years with STL
Henkka
Registered User
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
If Hronek can have a defensive game like Mike Green's last 4-5 years in the league, we should trade him for picks while we still can.
Also, I'm just floating this out there, but you guys should check out this new thing called hyperbole. It's sweeping the internet, you know. Your grandchildren might have heard of it.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
Pessimists find the flaws in optimists' solutions that they were too broad-stroked and cheery to care to look for. Believe it or not, the two groups work well together. Sorry if this detracts from your message of casual condescension!
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 10,989
- 8,740
So every formerly successful player is automatically a good teacher and mentor, and will pass on their success? Did Green do that with Brendan Smith or Jakub Kindl? Has he been doing that with Jensen and Hicketts?
Last I checked, being a very good player 5-10 years ago, but now coasting during opposing team odd man rushes and taking entire shifts off isn't an optical recipe for having others follow your lead.
kliq
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2017
- 2,727
- 1,319
Extreme's on both ends are not good, but what I see around here are extreme pessimists who get so upset if anyone says anything positive. There are a couple who are on the other end of the spectrum, but I think the majority who posters like yourself accuse of of being overly optimistic, are just evaluating things as they are. You do realize that to say Holland made a good signing in 2018 DOES NOT mean you support every contract/move he's given.
A good way to see if a person is just sticking "to a side" regardless of logic and rationale reasoning, is see if they both praise and critique Holland. I do it all the time, when he makes a good move, I say it. When he makes a dumb move, I say it. I dont think I've ever read a positive post towards Holland from you, maybe I'm wrong and I apologize if I am, but your agenda seems pretty clear. Heck, you identity on this board literally is tied to the notion that you want him gone.
A perfect example of this is your comment towards @BinCookin. Paraphrasing, he said Green can be used to help in the offensive development of Hronek. Your response, "We don't want Green to teach Hronek anything. Certainly not the defense position." isn't a counter, its just throwing a negative spin on something without contribution. You can accuse me of "casual condensation" but when you resort to strawman arguments and negative one liners, what do you expect?
kliq
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2017
- 2,727
- 1,319
Why are you bringing up Kindl? Kindl played 25 games while Green was a Red Wing. Either way, I dont think anyone is saying that having Mike Green mentor a young D-man is a guarantee for success. In the cases of Kindl and Smith, they simply didnt have it. Call them bad picks, poor development, take your pick, those two were 100% flops that the Wings messed up on.
At this stage Hronek is arguably our best defensive prospect (other then maybe Chowolski) and he has an offensive upside. I don't understand the backlash in saying that Green could help him in his OFFENSIVE development. Is it a guarantee that Hronek will be a superstar? Of course not, but I do believe, and I think others do as well that having a veteran who has a unique skill set, is a good think to have for the kids. Move pretty much any other veteran D, I dont think it matters, but Green I do believe can help.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
So there's a thing that happens a lot on forum communities these days. It's posting over the top, poor quality comments in the understanding that everyone will view them as intentionally stupid—and thus amusing. I can't actually tell you what it's called because of forum rules, but it should be instructive to refer to it as "s-posting." I don't actually think Mike Green has nothing to teach Hronek.
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 10,989
- 8,740
Does Mike Green have a skill set that potentially could help Hronek learn to be an offensively adept NHL defensemen? Yes.
But he's also a lazy bag of donuts that lets scoring chances unfold while he coasts to the bench.
So on a franchise obsessed with working hard and doing things the right way, even when the team is at the bottom of the standings...why are they so confident that a guy with a niche skill set, but a lousy work ethic, will be able to convey that knowledge effectively? And really, so effectively that it's worth any issues caused by his poor example of hussle on the ice?
Pessimists are just that. There are always flaws to everything because anything can literally happen, even if its unlikely. Since Mike Green is part of the discussion here... Lets not forget that when we did not have a puck moving defenseman, the cry here was that Holland was unwilling to trade for one or that he 'made things so horrible' that they just wouldn't sign here... Now the drum is that he should have went for the rebuild back in 13.. Except at the time, the drum was that he was holding back the young picks for his country club and therefore wasting the last best years that Z and D had left in them and therefore icing a less competitive team as a result... And again, at the time, Holland was kicking tires on acquiring a PMD...We lose to Boston and Tampa and generally the cry was that our team is too soft. Then we resign the only grit on the team that we have. (To market value despite the BS on here) and well, country club crap again.
You folks here make no room for the fact that in that same time-span Weiss went south, as did Kronwall, Franzen is pretty much retired, Cole never even got a chance to play, Datsyuk ditched on his contract, (How dare Ken Holland not anticipate that a player under contract will actually not honor it) Babcock went to Toronto, Nyquist and Tatar showed no improvement....
So yes, Holland did try and keep this team competitive and for good reason too. He still had his core in D and Z and Kronwall at the time with youngsters looking good really out of the gate. Way too many things went absolutely wrong and therefore it didn't work out. However, go re-read where and how the complaints were pretty much going at the top of this very post and it's pretty clear that at the end of the day, none of you had a clue to begin with and make very selective use of hindsight to cry about the man that actually knew where he wanted to steer the ship at the time. Even now, where your cries have actually been addressed, you pretend like you never made them, to begin with and wanted something different....
Howard is not “likely being traded this year”
And there is absolutely no reason to trade Daley.
Daley will get moved next year, whether it's in the offseason or trade deadline.
With the Red Wings signing Bernier to a multi-year deal and bringing in Harri Sateri, that to me signals Howard is on the way out.
kliq
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2017
- 2,727
- 1,319
You're asking questions that only a person who is in the locker room can truly answer, but if I had to guess I would think that if Green were a guy that caused major issues by his poor example of hustle on the ice, he would not be back. Fair question though.
Personally, I work in business. Anytime I make a major decision, I have to look at both the pro's and the con's. Very rarely does a choice have all pro's and zero con's. I assume this situation was one where Holland and co. did just that, and after doing so felt that bringing Green back would do more for the kids, then against the kids.
kliq
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2017
- 2,727
- 1,319
On here that is hard to tell lol as many post very similar things and are dead serious. But cool, Ill know for next time.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
Shaman464
No u
And in the 80s they needed depth. And in the 70s they needed a young core. All those teams can teach you what acquiring the right piece at the wrong team gets you. Spoiler alert: the answer is no where. Adding PMD after Rafalski left would have been great. Adding one after the rest of the defense was in a nose dive was rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
As for Datsyuk, that's bunk and you know it. There are sources abound that Dats was adamant that he was going back to Russia sooner than later. He, as a player, per the CBA had the right to retire from that contract whenever he chose. Holland decided to gamble by talking him into a longer contract and hoping he wouldn't retire. So don't say 'he ditched on his contract' because he exercised an option he had per league rules to retire from NHL play. And it was after he had an experimental surgery, so its not like he did it while he was at the height of health.
And, finally good reason? The team was maligned for having a major lack of depth at defense and goal scoring. The only thing that changed that thought was Nyquist having a good rookie season. Subtract that Datsyuk was becoming oft injury. Z hadn't had a healthy season in a while either. Kronwall was fine, but never a surefire #1 guy, and made worse by the extreme lack of depth behind him. After 2012 the team was never a move or two away from contending, the wheels were coming off and Holland thought good luck and duct tape would hold the team together. It was no surprise to anyone that the wheel did come off. And all your argument boils down to was 'well you wouldn't have done any better', well guess what? None of us are being paid millions of dollars to build a hockey team. Holland is, and this is the product he gives us. Sorry for expecting him to do the job he's paid a literal fortune to do and to do it better than random people on a hockey forum could.
BinCookin
Registered User
If you wouldn't mind... Don't do that. There are many highly knowledgable fans here, who really would like to hear a more complicated real thought from you. There is a lot more value in "actual posting" than "S-posting". I can tell you as a certain fact, many would be engaged fans leave this community and do not post here anymore due to the rampant negativity from some posters.
I understand there are always things to complain about. And I think we should do that at times. But I think at the very least, lets complain using real, thought out posts, as opposed to S-posting.
I very much like to hear more complicated analysis of our team from knowledgable fans. And one thing i can say for sure, most posters here are very knowledgable.
Yeah, as pointed out already, (which you conveniently ignore) is that you were singing a very different tune at the time; only to go back on the very parts that Holland did do that you were screaming for and pretend like that's not the case now. In other words, you'll cry no matter what. Nice try
Datsyuk leaving to Russia and not re-signing after his contract was done, was the most realistic prognosis at the time. You suggesting otherwise is nothing but hindsight bs and you know it damn well. That's really the biggest frustration on here with 'we hate Holland' camp. You're not honest in your assessment and the only ones who re-arrange 'Titanic deck chairs" to keep crying about something. Instead of yourself admitting that your view was a wrong one at the time, you'll double down and pretend you had some different view at the time.
Yeah, it was a good reason. We had a good run in 2013, against the top team that year. You want to pretend otherwise? Did you at any time called for D and Z to be traded for futures? I dare you to pretend like you did! No, what you were calling for was for youngsters to be given priority over vets because 'we were wasting D and Z's chance for another cup'. Go ahead, tell me that's not the case. Did you not complain about having a RH PMD all the way up until we actually acquired Green? (I know I was calling for one as well) What happened then? Yeah, Franzen out, Kronwall took a nose dive and Datsyuk left altogether. Instead of acknowledging that, you'll pretend like we didn't need him, you made no call for him and Holland is doing a bad job therefore.
Yeah, the only problem is that there are random people on this forum who think they can do the job but are probably not even qualified to flip burgers. They can flip their bs all the time though to pretend like they have a clue. That they do very well.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Well since 2015 they've taken D with 8 out of 18 picks in the first 3 rounds, with 2 being goalies so 50/50 really in terms of D/F since then. I think that is a strong focus, one that would have been even stronger if things had turned out a little differently. If Zadina doesn't fall we likely take a D. If Veleno doesn't fall we likely take a D. Not going for the immediate need but instead focusing on what you think is the best talent is long-term thinking imo. I don't see it as some kind of short-term solution. We know our D is bad, we also know we need more than just a few D-men in order to be a contender. Why miss better talent in order to fix a pressing issue when our rebuild is just starting?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pelicans Lahti @ Tappara Tampere - Tappara leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $14,588.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
