Confirmed with Link: Quincey Re-Signed, 2yrs/$4.25 AAV

[Fugu]

Best group at doing what? The idea is to improve and if we're not taking a shot at the cup, it's better to try and build for the future. Signing Quincey and playing Kindl/Lashoff does nothing.

So we bring up 2 rookie D and plug them in right away and they fail during the regular season, so what? What have we lost? What expectations are we failing to meet? Send a guy down who can't hack it, trade or sign one of the serviceable veterans that are always available and reassess next year.

Signing Quincey has no point other than filling a vacant spot on a defense that isn't really going to improve outside of Smith and DeKeyser's development who both should be rounding into form this year anyway.

I'm getting blue in the face here. KINDL AND LASHOFF ARE BLOCKING YOUR KIDS. MOVE THEM.

 

[Heaton]

Nah, don't buy it. We saw a bunch of Smitty which is why some of us were screaming to get him up-- and work him in. We haven't seen much of these other guys, but more importantly, defensemen take a lot longer to develop. Forwards? Yes. Peak in their early 20s. Defensemen in their late 20s. You want to throw these kids in to a shark tank, basically.

Ericsson and Kindl were given YEARS to develop. One worked out. The other one is blocking the kids you guys believe are better today. I think the potential is there, but I wouldn't want to be the person betting everything on that being the case.

You're not betting anything, the roster in October is not the roster for April. You're giving your homegrown talent a chance to prove their worth. In 2 years when Quincey is gone you're going to have to make a touch decision without a real glimpse into what they can do at the NHL level.

 

[Heaton]

I'm getting blue in the face here. KINDL AND LASHOFF ARE BLOCKING YOUR KIDS. MOVE THEM.

One of Kindl and Lashoff are a #7 D, so that's not really relevant, we don't want a young kid in that role. Quincey and Kindl are blocking them. Even getting rid of Kindl doesn't really open up a big enough door especially when we have 4 defenseman close to being ready in XO, Marchenko, Backman (who Babcock mentioned explicitly) and Sproul.

Kronwall and Ericsson should both be able to baby sit rookies for the first few months to see what we have.

 

[Chance on Chance]

Best group at doing what? The idea is to improve and if we're not taking a shot at the cup, it's better to try and build for the future. Signing Quincey and playing Kindl/Lashoff does nothing.

So we bring up 2 rookie D and plug them in right away and they fail during the regular season, so what? What have we lost? What expectations are we failing to meet? Send a guy down who can't hack it, trade or sign one of the serviceable veterans that are always available and reassess next year.

Signing Quincey has no point other than filling a vacant spot on a defense that isn't really going to improve outside of Smith and DeKeyser's development who both should be rounding into form this year anyway.

Bingo, if Holland made some bold move to sign Erhoff or make a trade for Buff or Yandle people wouldnt be complaining about the wings prospects getting IT. Quincey isnt the guy that puts us over the hump

 

[Frk It]

Right. How do you arrive at these conclusions?


And how do you figure Ouellet and Marchenko could handle 20 min per game in the NHL right now?

I arrived at that conclusion because over the first 42 games he was -13, which was worst among our defenseman. Worse than Kindl or Lashoff.

He was the worst defenseman on the team for about half the year, no lie.

Again, his minutes are not hard to replace. He's not accomplishing much of anything in those 20 minutes, except being on the ice for a lot of goals. His offense has completely dried up too, so nothing there either.

 

[Flowah]

Nah, don't buy it. We saw a bunch of Smitty which is why some of us were screaming to get him up-- and work him in. We haven't seen much of these other guys, but more importantly, defensemen take a lot longer to develop. Forwards? Yes. Peak in their early 20s. Defensemen in their late 20s. You want to throw these kids in to a shark tank, basically.

Ericsson and Kindl were given YEARS to develop. One worked out. The other one is blocking the kids you guys believe are better today. I think the potential is there, but I wouldn't want to be the person betting everything on that being the case.

Not everyone works out. Even on forward we let Emmerton go, Andersson seems pretty redundant and unnecessary now.

But we also had a bunch of winners. More winners than losers it seems to me. It's time to find out which ones are winners and losers on the back end. Smith is shaping up good imo, Kindl less so and he's had more time. E is locked in. We have 3-4 guys in the pack who made a showing in the AHL for a season, time to see what they got up in the big leagues.

Frankly, it can't be that much worse than what Lashoff or Kindl or yes even Quincey shows. And the sooner we find separate the wheat from the chaff, the sooner we can stop running around like newly decapitated chickens with regards to our defense. Chasing free agents for defense obviously has not worked for years. Trading is a joke. Let's see if the draft works for us.

 

[SirloinUB]

Best group at doing what? The idea is to improve and if we're not taking a shot at the cup, it's better to try and build for the future. Signing Quincey and playing Kindl/Lashoff does nothing.

So we bring up 2 rookie D and plug them in right away and they fail during the regular season, so what? What have we lost? What expectations are we failing to meet? Send a guy down who can't hack it, trade or sign one of the serviceable veterans that are always available and reassess next year.

Signing Quincey has no point other than filling a vacant spot on a defense that isn't really going to improve outside of Smith and DeKeyser's development who both should be rounding into form this year anyway.

None of these rookies have played the equivalent to a full season of pro hockey in North America. That's mildly concerning when you want two of these guys up full time. Given their lack of experience I am not sure they are ready to handle a full season against the best players in the world.

You also haven't acknowledged the fact that dmen take longer to develop. Just because Tatar/Nyquist can jump in around 22/23, doesnt mean a dmen can jump in at 21...

as far as what do we lose buy throwing them to the wolves? Its been proven time and time again that putting an unready player in the NHL can have significant negative impacts on their development.

 

[Heaton]

None of these rookies have played the equivalent to a full season of pro hockey in North America. That's mildly concerning when you want two of these guys up. Given their lack of experience I am not sure they are ready to handle a full season against the best players in the world.

You also haven't acknowledged the fact that dmen take longer to develop. Just because Tatar/Nyquist can jump in around 22/23, doesnt mean a dmen can jump in at 21...

I'm well aware that defenseman take a while to develop, but not all defenseman and especially considering the roles they'll be put into.

Again, my concern is the message from Holland that our team will not be actively upgraded for a bare minimum of two years. If that's the case, Quincey is just a holding pattern while we waste the last few years of D/Z. It's not like we traded for Myers or we signed Quincey after we upgraded the defense to solidify the core. We signed him as a placeholder for two years while we try to just extend the streak.

Again, what are we concerned about? Playing 2 rookie D that will have us miss the playoffs? Doubt it.

 

[Chance on Chance]

That was my original question. Thank you.

I have to run out for a bit, but start penciling in minutes per defenseman, leaving out Quincey. Let me see who you're putting out on the ice, and for how long and which situations.

Kronwall 24:00 - PP and PK
Ericsson 21:00 PK
DDK 21:00 PK and PP if needed
Smith 20:00 - PP
Rookie 17:00
Volchenkov 16:00 PK - sign him on a 1 year deal and he can take the PK minutes too

Smith gets a bump in IT and Volchenkov plays 3rd pairing. 4 PKers and 3 PP guys. Depends what rookie we have too.

 

[Chance on Chance]

I arrived at that conclusion because over the first 42 games he was -13, which was worst among our defenseman. Worse than Kindl or Lashoff.

He was the worst defenseman on the team for about half the year, no lie.

Again, his minutes are not hard to replace. He's not accomplishing much of anything in those 20 minutes, except being on the ice for a lot of goals. His offense has completely dried up too, so nothing there either.

and taking penalties

 

[SirloinUB]

I'm well aware that defenseman take a while to develop, but not all defenseman and especially considering the roles they'll be put into.

Again, my concern is the message from Holland that our team will not be actively upgraded for a bare minimum of two years. If that's the case, Quincey is just a holding pattern while we waste the last few years of D/Z. It's not like we traded for Myers or we signed Quincey after we upgraded the defense to solidify the core. We signed him as a placeholder for two years while we try to just extend the streak.

Again, what are we concerned about? Playing 2 rookie D that will have us miss the playoffs? Doubt it.

Maybe it won't be the be all and end all of making the playoffs, but throwing two 20 year olds into the NHL fulltime when they doesnt have more than 70 games of pro hockey experience is a development model the Edmonton Oilers favor. I prefer allowing the kids to mature, mentally and physically, while gaining experience before we ask them to stop the best players in the world.

Moreover, you did acknowledge defensemen take longer to develop but some how you expect not one, but two 20-21 year olds to be ready? fat chance.

 

[Heaton]

Maybe it won't be the be all and end all of making the playoffs, but throwing two 20 year olds into the NHL fulltime when they doesnt have more than 70 games of pro hockey experience is a development model the Edmonton Oilers favor. I prefer allowing the kids to mature, mentally and physically, while gaining experience before we ask them to stop the best players in the world.

Moreover, you did acknowledge defensemen take longer to develop but some how you expect not one, but two 20-21 year olds to be ready? fat chance.

What type of role do you think we're putting them in to? Babcock can easily pick their spots. We're not doing an Edmonton Oiler throw them in in their draft year type of situation.

Again, we'll find out soon enough if they're not ready. I don't think a contingency plan of making a low risk deal or signing during the season is all that difficult if they're not ready. What makes you think they'll be ready in 2 years if they're not ready for a lesser role now? Considering defenseman take a long time to develop. Holland pretty much said they'll be top 4 defenseman in 2 years. They can't be bottom pairing guys now?

 

[InjuredChoker]

That was my original question. Thank you.

I have to run out for a bit, but start penciling in minutes per defenseman, leaving out Quincey. Let me see who you're putting out on the ice, and for how long and which situations.

minutes are rounded to nearest even number except for SH as it's

last season - > this season

ES toi/g
kronwall: 18 -> 18
ericsson: 18 -> 18
dekeyser: 18 -> 18
smith: 17 -> 18
quincey: 18 -> ouellet/marchenko: 16
kindl: 15 -> kid/kindl/UFA: 16

SH toi/g
kronwall: 3: -> 3
ericsson: 3: -> 3
dekeyser: 2.13 -> 3
smith: 0:48 -> 1
quincey: 2:30 -> ouellet/marchenko: 1:30
lashoff: 2.21 -> kid/kindl/UFA: 2

last year: 13:48 -> this year: 13.30

there are even more SH mins there per player because of injuries. removing KFQ and his almost 40 minors or whatever, means also less time on the SH. so no need to replace as many mins.

kindl may not be option though as he can't pk or babs doesn't trust him to do it.

dekeyser could also play less ES and give those minutes to kids so he could handle the extra min there.


pp is easy as newcomers wouldn't play role in there. kindl's and dekyser's mins go to smith.

obviously this isn't perfect analysis as it doesn't factor injuries. lashoff played 3rd most games. 12 mins ES, little under 2 and half on pk. so i put lashoff there for PK minutes as it reflates little more accurately what happened there.

sorry for format... i suck at these.

 

[detredWINgs]

Maybe it won't be the be all and end all of making the playoffs, but throwing two 20 year olds into the NHL fulltime when they doesnt have more than 70 games of pro hockey experience is a development model the Edmonton Oilers favor. I prefer allowing the kids to mature, mentally and physically, while gaining experience before we ask them to stop the best players in the world.

Moreover, you did acknowledge defensemen take longer to develop but some how you expect not one, but two 20-21 year olds to be ready? fat chance.

Yes, ALL defenseman shouldn't be in the NHL before age 22. You can tell you're a Wings fan.

Ouellet will be 21. He has looked great everywhere he's gone, including to Boston in the NHL playoffs.

Marchenko will turn 23 in 5 months and has experience both playing against men and in North America now.

Moreover, neither of these guys are revered prospects because of their flash and bang like Kindl, Smith, and Sproul. If they become high-end players, they'll be Vlasic types, not a pack of Mike Greens. They have a great grasp on the fundamentals of own-zone play. They're safe players. They're more than ready to get their chance this season while we tread water.

 

[SirloinUB]

Yes, ALL defenseman shouldn't be in the NHL before age 22. You can tell you're a Wings fan.

Ouellet will be 21. He has looked great everywhere he's gone, including to Boston in the NHL playoffs.

Marchenko will turn 23 in 5 months and has experience both playing against men and in North America now.

Moreover, neither of these guys are revered prospects because of their flash and bang like Kindl, Smith, and Sproul. If they become high-end players, they'll be Vlasic types, not a pack of Mike Greens. They have a great grasp on the fundamentals of own-zone play. They're safe players. They're more than ready to get their chance this season while we tread water.

Its less about age, and more about experience. Ouellet hasn't played a full season of pro hockey, neither has Sproul. We know the AHL is more taxing than the Q. We know the NHL is more taxing than the AHL. For this reason I am not certain that Ouellet is ready to be an every-dayer in the best and most taxing league in the world.

Its about maturity (both mental and physical) which is as important as ability.

 

[Henkka]

How Nashville did with Suter - Weber?

They were drafted at 2003, both were born at 1985.

vs. Ouellet - Sproul, both were drafted 2011, both were born 1993. 8 year difference.

Weber spent 2 seasons at Kelowna (OHL).
Then joined Milwaukee in AHL for 2/3 season.

Suter spent 1 season at Wisconsin
Then joined AHL Milwaukee for 1 season

At his 3rd season after the draft, Suter was NHL rookie for full season, playing on the 3rd pair with 17 minutes. Their TOP4-5 was Timonen,Zidlicky,Hamhuis,Markov,Eaton + Suter as a 6th D.

Weber was also promoted up at later of the season and he got 28 games under his belt when others had injuries. Suter was injured at the playoffs (1st round exit) and Weber took his spot.

If I compare them age-vise to Ouellet and Sproul, Sproul=Suter (january-born guys) and Ouellet=Weber (july/august born guys). Both Weber and Suter were promoted in NHL at 20.5 year aged. Suter was promoted at season start, because he was half years older and Weber at middle of the season, kind of exactle at same age.

If we would had used the same path with Ouellet/Sproul as Nashville did with Weber/Suter, they should have been promoted in NHL at last season. Sproul hit 20.5 age mark at 2013-14 season start just like Suter did at 2005-06 and Ouellet in the middle of the season, just like Weber did at 2005-06.

At season 2006-07 (which is like 2014-15 for Ouellet/Sproul), Suter was Predators 3rd defenceman with 20minute role and Weber was their 5th D with 19 minute role. Season after, situation was still the same.

So these two seasons when Suter was a 3rd D and Weber was 5th, we are going to mature Ouellet and Sproul at Griffins.

When they will finally hit in NHL for 2017-18 (after their waiver-eligibility ends), both Suter and Weber (at their age-comparable season 2008-09) were promoted to 1st pair at Nashville with 24 minute roles. Suter was 24-yeal-old on that season and Weber was 23.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

None of these rookies have played the equivalent to a full season of pro hockey in North America.

Ouellet played 70 AHL games and 4 NHL games last year. That's getting pretty close.

 

[Hendricks433]

How Nashville did with Suter - Weber?

They were drafted at 2003, both were born at 1985.

vs. Ouellet - Sproul, both were drafted 2011, both were born 1993. 8 year difference.

Weber spent 2 seasons at Kelowna (OHL).
Then joined Milwaukee in AHL for 2/3 season.

Suter spent 1 season at Wisconsin
Then joined AHL Milwaukee for 1 season

At his 3rd season after the draft, Suter was NHL rookie for full season, playing on the 3rd pair with 17 minutes. Their TOP4-5 was Timonen,Zidlicky,Hamhuis,Markov,Eaton + Suter as a 6th D.

Weber was also promoted up at later of the season and he got 28 games under his belt when others had injuries. Suter was injured at the playoffs (1st round exit) and Weber took his spot.

If I compare them age-vise to Ouellet and Sproul, Sproul=Suter (january-born guys) and Ouellet=Weber (july/august born guys). Both Weber and Suter were promoted in NHL at 20.5 year aged. Suter was promoted at season start, because he was half years older and Weber at middle of the season, kind of exactle at same age.

If we would had used the same path with Ouellet/Sproul as Nashville did with Weber/Suter, they should have been promoted in NHL at last season. Sproul hit 20.5 age mark at 2013-14 season start just like Suter did at 2005-06 and Ouellet in the middle of the season, just like Weber did at 2005-06.

At season 2006-07 (which is like 2014-15 for Ouellet/Sproul), Suter was Predators 3rd defenceman with 20minute role and Weber was their 5th D with 19 minute role. Season after, situation was still the same.

So these two seasons when Suter was a 3rd D and Weber was 5th, we are going to mature Ouellet and Sproul at Griffins.

When they will finally hit in NHL for 2017-18 (after their waiver-eligibility ends), both Suter and Weber (at their age-comparable season 2008-09) were promoted to 1st pair at Nashville with 24 minute roles. Suter was 24-yeal-old on that season and Weber was 23.

That's really interesting. We always say there is no way Sproul is ready for full time or Ouellet isn't ready yet but they don't have to come in to the league ready to be a top 4 dman. They can be sheltered 3rd pair guys to learn and grow in to it. Jurco is 21 and showing that he is ready, who else is ready that's 20-22 but we aren't giving a chance to?

 

[Bench]

I took the day off from internet yesterday. How's everybody doing?

 

[ricky0034]

Its less about age, and more about experience. Ouellet hasn't played a full season of pro hockey, neither has Sproul. We know the AHL is more taxing than the Q. We know the NHL is more taxing than the AHL. For this reason I am not certain that Ouellet is ready to be an every-dayer in the best and most taxing league in the world.

Its about maturity (both mental and physical) which is as important as ability.

here's the thing though,does being certain really matter?

there's actually a lot of options,if Ouellet doesn't seem ready you can just give Marchenko a shot(or Backman,or Jensen,or even Sproul although I wouldn't just yet)

we already know what we have in Kindl and Lashoff(and even Quincey) and it's really nothing special,what exactly is there to lose?

 

[InjuredChoker]

I took the day off from internet yesterday. How's everybody doing?

i still don't like quincey.

do you, after taking time off internez?

 

[ap3x]

I took the day off from internet yesterday. How's everybody doing?

Just fine. Got a new, big poster for my room:

What about you?

 

[SirloinUB]

Ouellet played 70 AHL games and 4 NHL games last year. That's getting pretty close.

Close but no cigar as my Grandpa would say.

 

[SirloinUB]

How Nashville did with Suter - Weber?

They were drafted at 2003, both were born at 1985.

vs. Ouellet - Sproul, both were drafted 2011, both were born 1993. 8 year difference.

Weber spent 2 seasons at Kelowna (OHL).
Then joined Milwaukee in AHL for 2/3 season.

Suter spent 1 season at Wisconsin
Then joined AHL Milwaukee for 1 season

At his 3rd season after the draft, Suter was NHL rookie for full season, playing on the 3rd pair with 17 minutes. Their TOP4-5 was Timonen,Zidlicky,Hamhuis,Markov,Eaton + Suter as a 6th D.

Weber was also promoted up at later of the season and he got 28 games under his belt when others had injuries. Suter was injured at the playoffs (1st round exit) and Weber took his spot.

If I compare them age-vise to Ouellet and Sproul, Sproul=Suter (january-born guys) and Ouellet=Weber (july/august born guys). Both Weber and Suter were promoted in NHL at 20.5 year aged. Suter was promoted at season start, because he was half years older and Weber at middle of the season, kind of exactle at same age.

If we would had used the same path with Ouellet/Sproul as Nashville did with Weber/Suter, they should have been promoted in NHL at last season. Sproul hit 20.5 age mark at 2013-14 season start just like Suter did at 2005-06 and Ouellet in the middle of the season, just like Weber did at 2005-06.

At season 2006-07 (which is like 2014-15 for Ouellet/Sproul), Suter was Predators 3rd defenceman with 20minute role and Weber was their 5th D with 19 minute role. Season after, situation was still the same.

So these two seasons when Suter was a 3rd D and Weber was 5th, we are going to mature Ouellet and Sproul at Griffins.

When they will finally hit in NHL for 2017-18 (after their waiver-eligibility ends), both Suter and Weber (at their age-comparable season 2008-09) were promoted to 1st pair at Nashville with 24 minute roles. Suter was 24-yeal-old on that season and Weber was 23.

This is an interesting analysis and you make good points Hennka. The only thing is that development doesnt occur in a linear fashion nor in a vacuum. Moreover, comparing our prospects to all-world defense men is a little unfair to Sproul/Ouellet and Suter/Weber isnt it?

 

[InjuredChoker]

yeah it's interesting and thanks for posting it but i agree with sirloin.

ouellet is little more similar to suter but weber and sproul don't have much, other than booming shot and size. and handedness.

iirc, weber was seen more of a defensive defenseman who was little bit of a project when drafted.