Is it time to move Mike Green? (aka the equally confused thread) x2

[RandyHolt]

 

[Ajax1995]

Me too.

What kind of loss are you prepared to take on Green? I'm not saying I think he should be kept around but you aren't going to get top dollar for the guy at this point. Is that ok and if so what do you think is a reasonable trade for the guy? I'm ok with letting him go for less than I feel he is worth but I am not sure what exactly that point is exactly.

 

[BobRouse]

Sometimes its easy to forget just how good #52 is. Clearly his health is a concern but he is an impact player even when he doesn't get on the score sheet.

His D has improved greatly in his own zone and he instantly relieves pressure by making good breakout passes and his sick sick skating skills.

 

[Mothra]

Sometimes its easy to forget just how good #52 is. Clearly his health is a concern but he is an impact player even when he doesn't get on the score sheet.

His D has improved greatly in his own zone and he instantly relieves pressure by making good breakout passes and his sick sick skating skills.

I could not disagree more that he is an "impact player" whether he scores or not.....

He hasnt been anything close to that since 09-10....I dont accept health as a good reason. If you cant stay healthy how does it help the team? A player certainly doesnt get a full on pass for not being able to play do to injuries. I feel bad for them but in the end.....you have to play to help the team.

52 has never been good at protecting himself.....in all zones. When he is on his game he makes quick decisions....when he is off his game he tends to hold on to the puck too long, gets hit, and throws the play off. Last night for example.....coming out of the D zone he holds it too long, finally makes a slick little move on the guy pressuring him and makes a short up ice pass to 19 near the boards. The problem there was the play was read because 52 held onto it too long. 19 has a man on him right away, its a turnover and a chance the other way. Now.....19 turned it over but it was 52 that put him in that situation.

Similar to the goal Pitt beat the Caps on a few years back in the playoffs. Gonchar gets all the crap for turning it over but it was the experienced Linden (i think thats who it was) telegraphed his pass to a guy who now had to make a near perfect play to avoid a turnover...Caps went golfing

52, along the boards, is not good. Way too often when he is in the corner/behind the net/along the boards his man makes the play. Give 52 some space and he can usually get it out....this is EXACTLY why teams dont give him space and pressure him all the time, its effective

 

[MrGone]

Sometimes its easy to forget just how good #52 is. Clearly his health is a concern but he is an impact player even when he doesn't get on the score sheet.

His D has improved greatly in his own zone and he instantly relieves pressure by making good breakout passes and his sick sick skating skills.

The best player in the world is worthless when he is not on the ice. It does not matter how good he was or how good you still think he is. As long as he is a part time player getting paid like a #1 D we are loosing out. The day he is gone and we can put that money into a player that will stay on the ice. The team will be much better off.

 

[BobRouse]

The best player in the world is worthless when he is not on the ice. It does not matter how good he was or how good you still think he is. As long as he is a part time player getting paid like a #1 D we are loosing out. The day he is gone and we can put that money into a player that will stay on the ice. The team will be much better off.

Seems like you have already written him off then. I haven't. I think the day he overcomes the injury problems is when we will be much better off.

Like someone else said...do you believe it to be a coincidence that the Caps were a dominant team the years 52 was healthy and a rather pedestrian one the years he was hurt?

 

[Mothra]

Seems like you have already written him off then. I haven't. I think the day he overcomes the injury problems is when we will be much better off.

Like someone else said...do you believe it to be a coincidence that the Caps were a dominant team the years 52 was healthy and a rather pedestrian one the years he was hurt?

define dominant.....They had 1 great regular season and play in the weakest division in hockey. Im not saying they werent good but this is a team that was anything but dominant when it mattered most.....and 52 was never the player in the postseason he was in the playoffs

 

[Halpysback*]

Seems like you have already written him off then. I haven't. I think the day he overcomes the injury problems is when we will be much better off.

Like someone else said...do you believe it to be a coincidence that the Caps were a dominant team the years 52 was healthy and a rather pedestrian one the years he was hurt?

You can do the same correlation with Fleischmann.

The reason they weren't dominant without Green was because their defense without him sucked at puck movement. If you're getting rid of Green, the idea is that you're replacing his puck movement one way or another. Not having current D lineup minus Green.

 

[Marshall]

I move him. Don't feel like he's ever going to be the player he was. Too fragile. Some really strange hesitations in his game, most especially passing when in the offensive zone on the power play. He's not scoring. His defense, while underrated, isn't enough to cover that price tag and a lack of offense.

I thank him for his service, keep an eye open for a reasonable package in return, and I move him.

 

[MW6]

I'd rather have a lesser PMD than Green ~80 games per year (and the capspace saved) then Green 60-65 games where 10-15 of then are him shaking of his rust.

Trade him for Giordano and a pick!

 

[txpd]

with his injury history he is much more valuable on the team than off of it. a $5m-6m defenseman anymore is not nearly the impact player that he is and the asset or assets that he would bring back would not come close to replacing him.

 

[MW6]

with his injury history he is much more valuable on the team than off of it. a $5m-6m defenseman anymore is not nearly the impact player that he is and the asset or assets that he would bring back would not come close to replacing him.

No, but the free'd up capspace might!

 

[msrulo]

I thought he played fantastic yesterday. This thread shouldn't be brought up yet!!

 

[Mothra]

with his injury history he is much more valuable on the team than off of it. a $5m-6m defenseman anymore is not nearly the impact player that he is and the asset or assets that he would bring back would not come close to replacing him.

seriously my friend.....re-read that. How valuable is a player you cant count on being able to....you know....play

his return in trade would be almost nothing....and thats fine. Time to move on from this player....put money saved towards a better player on the blueline

I dont hate the guy/player or anything like that....he is just nothing close to the player he was. I dont see it coming back, at least here.....and more importantly, he cant stay healthy. He may have had some unlucky breaks with that but I think for the most part he brings that on himself. He does not protect himself well....Larry Murphy used to be similar but he eventually learned to make quick reads/decisions and how to protect himself.

 

[g00n]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../adam-oatess-ray-bourque-rule-for-mike-green/

Green and the "Ray Bourque Rule".

My question is, why would you want to advertise this? Aren't you tipping your strategy to the opposition and saving them some scouting? Now they know they can sag more and look for a shot or a pass from any d-man with the puck who's getting near the top of the circles. Or, they can step up and pokecheck or hit because they know a deke and a move around to the net or boards isn't likely.

 

[ChibiPooky]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../adam-oatess-ray-bourque-rule-for-mike-green/

Green and the "Ray Bourque Rule".

My question is, why would you want to advertise this? Aren't you tipping your strategy to the opposition and saving them some scouting? Now they know they can sag more and look for a shot or a pass from any d-man with the puck who's getting near the top of the circles. Or, they can step up and pokecheck or hit because they know a deke and a move around to the net or boards isn't likely.

I don't think any pro-level teams scout through the media.

 

[g00n]

I don't think any pro-level teams scout through the media.

Of course they don't try to, but they read what's printed and it gets around.

If you find a $100 bill on the street, are you doing to walk past it because you weren't looking for it, or are you going to pick it up???

 

[ChibiPooky]

Of course they don't try to, but they read what's printed and it gets around.

If you find a $100 bill on the street, are you doing to walk past it because you weren't looking for it, or are you going to pick it up???

I mean that Oates can say anything he wants to the media. The tape shows what actually happens. Pro teams can't gamble on Oates telling the truth, or Green being unable/unwilling to execute. Top of the circles is already a good scoring area. You can't risk letting a guy with Green's wrist shot get inside you to the middle-low slot, even if he swore up and down he wouldn't.

 

[Langway]

Green is a ghost offensively either way so it doesn't really matter. He's turned into Jay ****ing Bouwmeester, except he misses games.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Green is a ghost offensively either way so it doesn't really matter. He's turned into Jay ****ing Bouwmeester.

Bouwmeester without the size.

 

[g00n]

I mean that Oates can say anything he wants to the media. The tape shows what actually happens. Pro teams can't gamble on Oates telling the truth, or Green being unable/unwilling to execute. Top of the circles is already a good scoring area. You can't risk letting a guy with Green's wrist shot get inside you to the middle-low slot, even if he swore up and down he wouldn't.

You're basically saying that more information rather than less is useless in this case, and I disagree. Unless it's all a public bluff for some reason, which could easily be sniffed out very quickly once it becomes obvious that it's not true and thus not worth the effort/ruse, then you're letting the opposition know what you're TRYING to do, even if you don't do it all the time.

That is usually STUPID in any sport. When a 60/40 trend can make or break a gameplan, why do the number crunching for the other guy? At least make him work for the observation, and question its validity.

Even if MG ends up pinching closer sometimes, you still know how to play him most of the time. And if you do see him extending himself beyond where he's supposed to be, you can start looking for breakdowns elsewhere because other players may not be prepared for him stepping outside of his role.

 

[ChibiPooky]

You're basically saying that more information rather than less is useless in this case, and I disagree. Unless it's all a public bluff for some reason, which could easily be sniffed out very quickly once it becomes obvious that it's not true and thus not worth the effort/ruse, then you're letting the opposition know what you're TRYING to do, even if you don't do it all the time.

That is usually STUPID in any sport. When a 60/40 trend can make or break a gameplan, why do the number crunching for the other guy? At least make him work for the observation, and question its validity.

Even if MG ends up pinching closer sometimes, you still know how to play him most of the time. And if you do see him extending himself beyond where he's supposed to be, you can start looking for breakdowns elsewhere because other players may not be prepared for him stepping outside of his role.

The thing is the only way to "sniff it out" is to call the bluff. And if you do that, it means you just let Mike Green behind you into the slot into a wide open spot you just created by leaving it - if you're wrong. If it's the playoffs, maybe worth it. For one game, that could be the difference.

 

[Mothra]

You're basically saying that more information rather than less is useless in this case, and I disagree. Unless it's all a public bluff for some reason, which could easily be sniffed out very quickly once it becomes obvious that it's not true and thus not worth the effort/ruse, then you're letting the opposition know what you're TRYING to do, even if you don't do it all the time.

That is usually STUPID in any sport. When a 60/40 trend can make or break a gameplan, why do the number crunching for the other guy? At least make him work for the observation, and question its validity.

Even if MG ends up pinching closer sometimes, you still know how to play him most of the time. And if you do see him extending himself beyond where he's supposed to be, you can start looking for breakdowns elsewhere because other players may not be prepared for him stepping outside of his role.

I think what he was saying, and I could be wrong, was that teams will still be scouting the Caps.....and what they see means a lot more than what they read in the paper, or wherever.

Youre worked up over nothing IMO.....if anything its good that he is working with 52 on this sort of thing....even when things were at their best 52's best and most productive work came up high....If he was below or deep in the circles (and having success) it was usually off backdoor plays. When he carries the puck in deep, good stuff happening isnt the norm.

Getting him making quick decisions with the puck is the key....in all zones

 

[Robert Theodorson]

Thread bump?

A win tonight against the Isles is gonna make it real hard to trade anyone, even though I definitely support the title of this thread.

 

[Marshall]

Green is not providing a bunch of reasons not to shop him this evening.