Waived: Nestrasil

Status
Not open for further replies.

probertrules24

Registered User
Jul 10, 2007
2,901
1
Canada
You won't broke what is working, so keep Andersson-Glendy-Miller together.

Understand what your saying but Babcock didn't seem to mind breaking up Abby Sheahan and Tatar and they were really starting to click. I think replacing Helm with Joker on the 4th line would only make it better not worse. Joker doesn't bring a whole lot to the table but adding Helms speed with Miller and Glendening could make for very tough match ups.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
Understand what your saying but Babcock didn't seem to mind breaking up Abby Sheahan and Tatar and they were really starting to click. I think replacing Helm with Joker on the 4th line would only make it better not worse. Joker doesn't bring a whole lot to the table but adding Helms speed with Miller and Glendening could make for very tough match ups.

Agreed. This would be ideal if Weiss can contribute consistently.
 

HIFE

Registered User
May 10, 2011
3,219
250
Detroit, MI
i disagree it's working. they are getting hemmed into their own zone all the time.

usually they play hard minutes but last game they had zero, i mean none, defensive zone starts and still lost their matchups badly.

I disagree with your disagreement. :) May be the last few games, but overall the 3 have been better than thought possible, killing penalties to boot. I think Babcock is in a deep love affair with Glendening, Miller, and Andersson. It may seem stubborn but no way he'll break that line up.
 

Big Poppa Puck

HF's Villain
Dec 8, 2009
20,530
932
D-Boss' Dungeon
We get way too worked up over losing marginal players on waivers, Ritola, Jan "Silver Lining" Mursak, Nestrasil, etc.

Of course Cleary deserved to go more but Nestrasil was gonna get bumped off the roster sooner or later anyway with or without Cleary.
 

SirloinUB

Registered User
Aug 20, 2010
4,643
2,121
Canada
Not quite.

I have no delusions that any team should or could win it all every year. Not even remotely possible.

But I also think the notion of, "Just make the playoffs and anything can happen" is a lot more nonsense than good sense. A Cinderella Finals run is the rare exception, not the rule, and even those exceptions are almost always followed by a prompt return to irrelevance.

Factually speaking, you are quite disillusioned.

Since the 2004 lockout there have been 9 Cup Finals, meaning there have been 18 Finals appearances. As we obviously know, 16 teams make the playoffs.

A top 5 team made the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 8th or worse seed has gone to the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 10-16 seed has gone to the finals 5 times.

History has shown, that its as likely for a team from the bottom half of playoff teams, has as good of a chance of making it to the finals as a top 5 team.

So the notion "Just make the playoffs and anything can happen" is a lot more fact, than non-sense.
 

BinCookin

Registered User
Feb 15, 2012
6,160
1,377
London, ON
Factually speaking, you are quite disillusioned.

Since the 2004 lockout there have been 9 Cup Finals, meaning there have been 18 Finals appearances. As we obviously know, 16 teams make the playoffs.

A top 5 team made the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 8th or worse seed has gone to the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 10-16 seed has gone to the finals 5 times.

History has shown, that its as likely for a team from the bottom half of playoff teams, has as good of a chance of making it to the finals as a top 5 team.

So the notion "Just make the playoffs and anything can happen" is a lot more fact, than non-sense.

Facts... oh snap !
 

probertrules24

Registered User
Jul 10, 2007
2,901
1
Canada
Factually speaking, you are quite disillusioned.

Since the 2004 lockout there have been 9 Cup Finals, meaning there have been 18 Finals appearances. As we obviously know, 16 teams make the playoffs.

A top 5 team made the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 8th or worse seed has gone to the finals 8 times since 2004.
A 10-16 seed has gone to the finals 5 times.

History has shown, that its as likely for a team from the bottom half of playoff teams, has as good of a chance of making it to the finals as a top 5 team.

So the notion "Just make the playoffs and anything can happen" is a lot more fact, than non-sense.

SirloinUB, your advanced stats/facts have no place in hockey. :)
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Sigh...last 20 Cup winners by seed:

2014 LA 6
2013 CHI 3
2012 LA 8
2011 BOS 3
2010 CHI 2
2009 PIT 4
2008 DET 1
2007 ANA 1
2006 CAR 2
(2005 lockout)
2004 TB 1
2003 NJ 2
2002 DET 1
2001 COL 1
2000 NJ 4
1999 DAL 1
1998 DET 2
1997 DET 3
1996 COL 2
1995 NJ 5

Sure, you've proven lower seeds can get there, but the above data shows that they hardly ever win it, & LA (who was a lower seed due to major injuries) is the only one to retain their success.

There's a short list of elite teams, & they're the ones who bring home the real hardware.
 

opivy

Sauce King
Sep 14, 2011
867
111
Columbus, OH
Sigh...last 20 Cup winners by seed:

2014 LA 6
2013 CHI 3
2012 LA 8
2011 BOS 3
2010 CHI 2
2009 PIT 4
2008 DET 1
2007 ANA 1
2006 CAR 2
(2005 lockout)
2004 TB 1
2003 NJ 2
2002 DET 1
2001 COL 1
2000 NJ 4
1999 DAL 1
1998 DET 2
1997 DET 3
1996 COL 2
1995 NJ 5

Sure, you've proven lower seeds can get there, but the above data shows that they hardly ever win it, & LA (who was a lower seed due to major injuries) is the only one to retain their success.

There's a short list of elite teams, & they're the ones who bring home the real hardware.

Avg seed to win go much lower after that salary cap insertion.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Avg seed to win go much lower after that salary cap insertion.
Average before lockout: 2.20
Average after lockout: 3.33

The bottom line is that Holland has wasted chance after chance to either load up or blow it up, and the current roster isn't getting near a Cup this year.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Average before lockout: 2.20
Average after lockout: 3.33

The bottom line is that Holland has wasted chance after chance to either load up or blow it up, and the current roster isn't getting near a Cup this year.

Oh, I didn't know we are one Andrej Nestrasil off from the Cup this year.
 

14ari13

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
14,034
1,167
Norway
Sigh...last 20 Cup winners by seed:

2014 LA 6
2013 CHI 3
2012 LA 8
2011 BOS 3
2010 CHI 2
2009 PIT 4
2008 DET 1
2007 ANA 1
2006 CAR 2
(2005 lockout)
2004 TB 1
2003 NJ 2
2002 DET 1
2001 COL 1
2000 NJ 4
1999 DAL 1
1998 DET 2
1997 DET 3
1996 COL 2
1995 NJ 5

Sure, you've proven lower seeds can get there, but the above data shows that they hardly ever win it, & LA (who was a lower seed due to major injuries) is the only one to retain their success.

There's a short list of elite teams, & they're the ones who bring home the real hardware.

I think we have to see the finalists, not just the cup winners.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
You can see the 17th runner up and the list of officials, if you like.

I watch teams because I believe they have a real shot to win it all. The last 20 years show that scraping into the playoffs is a terrible strategy for winning it all. Detroit has a recent track record of scraping into the playoffs, and leaving early. Ergo, I choose to not support the current team philosophy. Feel free to root as you will, and I'll do the same.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
:sarcasm:
Sigh...last 20 Cup winners by seed:

2014 LA 6
2013 CHI 3
2012 LA 8
2011 BOS 3
2010 CHI 2
2009 PIT 4
2008 DET 1
2007 ANA 1
2006 CAR 2
(2005 lockout)
2004 TB 1
2003 NJ 2
2002 DET 1
2001 COL 1
2000 NJ 4
1999 DAL 1
1998 DET 2
1997 DET 3
1996 COL 2
1995 NJ 5

Sure, you've proven lower seeds can get there, but the above data shows that they hardly ever win it, & LA (who was a lower seed due to major injuries) is the only one to retain their success.

There's a short list of elite teams, & they're the ones who bring home the real hardware.

Oh Snap...

your facts have no place in hockey

ohhh and NOBODY cares who losses in the cup final as they're 100% irrelevant when discussing winning stanley cups(as well, they obviously didnt win)..
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
ohhh and NOBODY cares who losses in the cup final as they're 100% irrelevant when discussing winning stanley cups(as well, they obviously didnt win)..

"Irrelevant" to you, but ignoring how great the 2009 Wings were is pretty silly. They may not have finished the job, but I still think the Wings were the best team in hockey those two years.

Of course, they were a high seed, so that doesn't really change the tone of the debate, but I'm not a fan of the "all or nothing" philosophy.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
"Irrelevant" to you, but ignoring how great the 2009 Wings were is pretty silly. They may not have finished the job, but I still think the Wings were the best team in hockey those two years.

Of course, they were a high seed, so that doesn't really change the tone of the debate, but I'm not a fan of the "all or nothing" philosophy.

yes I am sure fanbases can individually reflect on a season where they came in 2nd as a success

but the ovreall notion that just making the playoffss as a lower seed gives you anything more than a shot at losing in the cup final was proven by the above poster, and losing isnt what a franchise should set out to do

sure you can make it the the cup finals as a lower seed but the chances that you win it are almost non-existent
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
yes I am sure fanbases can individually reflect on a season where they came in 2nd as a success

but the ovreall notion that just making the playoffss as a lower seed gives you anything more than a shot at losing in the cup final was proven by the above poster, and losing isnt what a franchise should set out to do

sure you can make it the the cup finals as a lower seed but the chances that you win it are almost non-existent

You're going to get more lower seed teams making runs, though, with the salary cap and the loser point clumping together the standings. It hasn't really shown in the numbers yet, but neither of those are old enough to create any kind of data points of substance.

Under the old rules, I agree, it was pretty much impossible for the low seeds to beat the 80s and 90s juggernauts like Edmonton, Detroit, and Colorado. But it's now impossible for those teams to exist more than a few seasons and if they do, it usually involves top 3 draft picks.
 

heyfolks

Registered User
Apr 30, 2007
1,748
512
We get way too worked up over losing marginal players on waivers, Ritola, Jan "Silver Lining" Mursak, Nestrasil, etc.

Of course Cleary deserved to go more but Nestrasil was gonna get bumped off the roster sooner or later anyway with or without Cleary.

Your statement flies in the face of Babcock saying the tie no longer goes to the vet. why not waive cleary and put Jurco back in the AHL?
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
You're going to get more lower seed teams making runs, though, with the salary cap and the loser point clumping together the standings. It hasn't really shown in the numbers yet, but neither of those are old enough to create any kind of data points of substance.

Under the old rules, I agree, it was pretty much impossible for the low seeds to beat the 80s and 90s juggernauts like Edmonton, Detroit, and Colorado. But it's now impossible for those teams to exist more than a few seasons and if they do, it usually involves top 3 draft picks.

i suppose thats true regarding sample size but if its all we got to work with and it supports the notion that even since the lockout only one #8 seeded team has won the cup and that team, the kings, wasnt exactly your typical 8th seeded team
 

redwingsphan

Registered User
Apr 25, 2014
325
0
You can see the 17th runner up and the list of officials, if you like.

I watch teams because I believe they have a real shot to win it all. The last 20 years show that scraping into the playoffs is a terrible strategy for winning it all. Detroit has a recent track record of scraping into the playoffs, and leaving early. Ergo, I choose to not support the current team philosophy. Feel free to root as you will, and I'll do the same.

So you are a fair weather, or bandwagon fan? Sweet, good luck to your whichever team you choose to be a fan of this year.
 

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
So you are a fair weather, or bandwagon fan? Sweet, good luck to your whichever team you choose to be a fan of this year.

By the same token, I could ask you whether you're an enabler of mediocre hockey or someone who actually wants to see the Wings succeed.

You can't really say that the Wings have been anything other than average for a few years now. Barely sneaking into the playoffs and not making it out of the first or second round in a league where over half the teams make the playoffs is the very definition of average.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->