I still hate it.
But I'm more zen that it favors the Wings own prospects and development, since it's a 2-year deal. I'm less zen that the next 2 years feature Quincey cemented in the top 4.
Confirmed with Link: Quincey Re-Signed, 2yrs/$4.25 AAV
- Thread starter King Pavel
- Start date
I still hate it.
But I'm more zen that it favors the Wings own prospects and development, since it's a 2-year deal. I'm less zen that the next 2 years feature Quincey cemented in the top 4.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Regarding Henkkas post...
I think it's good that it shows that you can put players in the league early, even if they aren't top 10 picks, and they can still develop into elite players.
You don't have to stick them in the AHL until they are 23 or 24. They don't have to have big minutes and role in AHL vs limited role in NHL.
There's different ways to develop players. We're just so used to the Red Wings way that a lot of folks are scoffing at the idea or Ouellet playing in the league at 21, and it's really not a big deal.
I think it's good that it shows that you can put players in the league early, even if they aren't top 10 picks, and they can still develop into elite players.
You don't have to stick them in the AHL until they are 23 or 24. They don't have to have big minutes and role in AHL vs limited role in NHL.
There's different ways to develop players. We're just so used to the Red Wings way that a lot of folks are scoffing at the idea or Ouellet playing in the league at 21, and it's really not a big deal.
I used to scoff the idea of 21-year-olds when the players in front of those guys were better. Not that long ago the Wings prospect pool was iffy and the veterans were better.
Kyle Quincey just isn't that good. He's not top 4 on any contender in the league, so what the hell is he doing hanging around.
Along the same vein, Sheahan would have never gotten the chance he had last year if not for injuries. While we're waiting for these guys to be perfect AHLers, their games might just translate well to the NHL. We saw it happen with Dekeyser. Lashoff (I guess, Babcock seems to like him...). Lebda. It seems like sometimes these guys step in and just run with it.
Wasting time and money. Seeing such a mediocre player brought back is just disheartening to me. In a way it's worse than the constant Cleary courtship, because at least Cleary has done something for us. He sucks now, but there is a history there. Quincey has nothing.
Nope, you're cheating. You can't just go and pick a random UFA to put in. You can only work with who they have signed/available.
Because they don't have any better options, and they think their prospects are ~2 years away. Let's even say it's 1 year. Still gotta get through this season.
Chance on Chance
Registered User
Were so used to it from before but nowadays I stead of bumping the hulls, larionovs and chelios were buying the clearys, Sammys and Quincy. Bug difference
GoAwayDanCleary
DRWCC
- Aug 6, 2012
- 10,752
- 5
Marchenko and Ouellet are better than Quincey. We've had the same argument the past few years with the forwards and once they got their shot they ran with it. I think we're looking at the same situation here... Marchenko and Ouellet are both very steady and both will translate well to the NHL.
Henkka
Registered User
I really wonder who would have been the TOP4 PK defenceman if Quincey is not signed?
PK avg Ice-times at 2013-14:
Kronwall 3:03
Ericsson 2:58
Quincey 2:26
(Lashoff 2:21)
DeKeyser 2:13
--------------
Marchenko 0:57
Smith 0:48
Niskanen 0:42
Boyle 0:15
Kindl 0:05
You need four guys for the PK. Two solid pairs and a 7th D that is capable for a PK (like Lashoff is).
If they would have signed Niskanen or Boyle? Either can't PK. Also Kindl can't PK. Smith is a liability at PK. Lashoff is a 7th defenceman, so he won't play if TOP6 is healthy and that healthy TOP6 includes only three cabable PK defenceman Kronner/Ericsson/DeKeyser. That creates a problem.
That would have forced us for a trade for a defensive defenceman. Kindl could have been the trade bait for that.
So what happened? We signed Quincey and now we have that defensive PK defenceman. But have to trade for that offensive RHD.
Mike Green anyone? Kindl would also be the trade bait for him.
PK avg Ice-times at 2013-14:
Kronwall 3:03
Ericsson 2:58
Quincey 2:26
(Lashoff 2:21)
DeKeyser 2:13
--------------
Marchenko 0:57
Smith 0:48
Niskanen 0:42
Boyle 0:15
Kindl 0:05
You need four guys for the PK. Two solid pairs and a 7th D that is capable for a PK (like Lashoff is).
If they would have signed Niskanen or Boyle? Either can't PK. Also Kindl can't PK. Smith is a liability at PK. Lashoff is a 7th defenceman, so he won't play if TOP6 is healthy and that healthy TOP6 includes only three cabable PK defenceman Kronner/Ericsson/DeKeyser. That creates a problem.
That would have forced us for a trade for a defensive defenceman. Kindl could have been the trade bait for that.
So what happened? We signed Quincey and now we have that defensive PK defenceman. But have to trade for that offensive RHD.
Mike Green anyone? Kindl would also be the trade bait for him.
Exactly what I was looking at.
Almost makes me wonder if they'd trade Smith, which of course, would be a bad idea imo, but Babs seems hell bent on getting an RHD.
Run the Jewels
Make Detroit Great Again
Nothing has changed. Petr Mrazek was put in Toledo two years ago and has completely dominated the AHL once it was obvious our "depth" in goal in Grand Rapids was a joke. Why the **** is he back in GR for a 3rd season? So we can sign Gustavsson? It's complete ****ing idiocy.
Henkka
Registered User
Nothing has changed. Petr Mrazek was put in Toledo two years ago and has completely dominated the AHL once it was obvious our "depth" in goal in Grand Rapids was a joke. Why the **** is he back in GR for a 3rd season? So we can sign Gustavsson? It's complete ****ing idiocy.
Just a hint:
Which one will develop more?
- 20 games in NHL
- 50 games in AHL
?
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,042
- 7,253
it's really not as simple as that
it completely depends on the player and where they're at
with how little Mrazek played last year and considering he's a goalie I actually agree with him being in the AHL but there's lots of guys that would actually learn a lot more from 20 games in the NHL(or more realistically in a non goalie's case,a lesser role in the NHL rather than a games difference)
players stagnate and sticking them in the AHL till the end of time sometimes helps but it also often doesn't
really when you get right down to it that's the biggest problem with how the Wings do things,they are way too caught up in thinking that more AHL time is always better instead of deciding these things on a case by case basis
can it help a Tatar? absolutely,but it can also hurt a Kindl
Last edited:
BStinson
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2013
- 2,364
- 555
You guys have probably already read this but I got a few laughs and guess who made number 4.
http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/07/03/free-agent-frenzy-the-top-10-worst-nhl-contracts/
http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/07/03/free-agent-frenzy-the-top-10-worst-nhl-contracts/
Henkka
Registered User
I think, one thing that Ken Holland knows better as anyone maybe in the whole hockey world, as a former minor-league goaltender, is how to manage goaltender mental development.
There's numerous examples how hard it is for young goaltender to make a breakthrough if you are not mentally ready.
Holland is not going to burn Mrazek down until he is 25-year-old, like he did with Howard. Mrazek is 23-year-old after next season, when his time will come.
- Henrik Lundqvist entered the league as 23-year-old
- Tuukka Rask entered the league as 22-year-old
- Pekka Rinne entered the league as 25-year-old
- Jonathan Quick entered the league as 22-year-old
- Carey Price entered the league as 20-year-old
Those are the five best and highest paid goaltenders currently who have entered the league during a cap-era. Their average entering age is 22.5 years. Nothing like Mrazek should be off badly from that figure if he enters regularily at season 2015-16.
GoAwayDanCleary
DRWCC
- Aug 6, 2012
- 10,752
- 5
Henkka
Registered User
They said there that Quincey is a turnover machine. I know he makes costly mistakes, but stats won't say so.
Total giveaways:
1. Kronwall 50 (in 79 games)
2. Smith 49 (in 71 games)
3. Quincey 39 (in 82 games)
4. DeKeyser 36 (in 65 games)
5. Ericsson 35 (in 48 games)
6. Kindl 34 (in 66 games)
7. Lashoff 15 (in 75 games)
Per total season Ice-time it will be:
1. Smith 0.0375 (giveaways per total ice-time)
2. Ericsson 0.0343
3. Kindl 0.0299
4. Kronwall 0.0260
5. DeKeyser 0.0256
6. Quincey 0.0228
7. Lashoff 0.0139
So, it looks like the the puck was a hand grenade mostly for Smith and Ericsson. Lashoff was sheltered, played super simple game, and that explains his small relative figure. But of this TOP4 (Ericsson, Kronwall, DeKeyser, Quincey) with toughest competition, somehow Quincey managed to have least giveaways per total ice-time at last season.
How can you explain that if he is a totally worthless player?
I want to know where they pulled those stats. Because I've already noted in previous threads that there have been times where Kindl's turnover stat for a particular game was listed as 0 and I could go back and watch the video and see that he obviously had more than that.
To me it seems like one of those stats that is super subjective and unreliable. Like hits.
To me it seems like one of those stats that is super subjective and unreliable. Like hits.
Henkka
Registered User
One notable mention also: Our lefties who played most on the right side (Smith, Ericsson and Kindl), have those highest giweaway relative numbers.
No wonder Babcock is wanting those right handnesses.
No wonder Babcock is wanting those right handnesses.
Nope, you're cheating. You can't just go and pick a random UFA to put in. You can only work with who they have signed/available.
Because they don't have any better options, and they think their prospects are ~2 years away. Let's even say it's 1 year. Still gotta get through this season.
But we potentially have better options. Marchenko was an AHL all star GR's best defenseman, is right handed, has size. Why is he not ready for a bottom six role instead of Kindl, Lashoff, washed up vet?
Ouellet looked very good as well, came in and was very poised in a game 5 vs Boston and has looked good the other times he was up. Why can't we try playing him in a bottom 6 role?
Jensen was better than Dekeyser in college and might be the best damn skater in the organization. Also Right handed, why not give him a chance in the bottom six?
If we try them in the bottom 6 and they don't really work a bottom six d-man isn't too costly for a trade. That's immensely better than resigning Quincey and getting what we've been getting.
There's also Backman who might be better than all of those guys as well.
Smith and Kindl are turnover machines where ever they are. Kindl loses his composure under pressure and Smith has always been sloppy. You put them on the left side and they're not suddenly going to be Lidstrom.
Dekeyser largely played the right side as a lefty and yet his giveaway numbers are much better. Why is that? Oh, because he's simply a more composed player.
You're beating this lefty/righty thing to death. In an ideal world, sure I guess. But some guys are actually more comfortable on their off side. At at the end of the day, better players win, period. As we pointed out a day or so ago, Detroit and Chicago in the past have had no problems finding success with a lack of right handed shots.
Better players win. We need better players than Kindl and Smith. Kindl needs a change of scenery and Smith needs more opportunity.
With that being said, just giving Smith PP time doesn't guarantee anything. He's still a liability too often and has to become more consistent with the puck.
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
They said there that Quincey is a turnover machine. I know he makes costly mistakes, but stats won't say so.
Total giveaways:
1. Kronwall 50 (in 79 games)
2. Smith 49 (in 71 games)
3. Quincey 39 (in 82 games)
4. DeKeyser 36 (in 65 games)
5. Ericsson 35 (in 48 games)
6. Kindl 34 (in 66 games)
7. Lashoff 15 (in 75 games)
Per total season Ice-time it will be:
1. Smith 0.0375 (giveaways per total ice-time)
2. Ericsson 0.0343
3. Kindl 0.0299
4. Kronwall 0.0260
5. DeKeyser 0.0256
6. Quincey 0.0228
7. Lashoff 0.0139
So, it looks like the the puck was a hand grenade mostly for Smith and Ericsson. Lashoff was sheltered, played super simple game, and that explains his small relative figure. But of this TOP4 (Ericsson, Kronwall, DeKeyser, Quincey) with toughest competition, somehow Quincey managed to have least giveaways per total ice-time at last season.
How can you explain that if he is a totally worthless player?
Being similar to lashoff is not a good thing. All that stat does is show that quincy and lashoff don't have the mobility or iq to be involved in the play.
Fugu, I'm not sure why you're bringing kindl and lashoff into the discussion. It's been proven over the course of years that quincy,kindl and lashoff are all below average players and there's no reason for them to be on the roster. You can easily field a roster without any of them.
Oullette is my dude. He always plays a heads up and steady game and he played well in the playoffs. I'd have no problem giving him 82 games to find his way and i wouldn't be at all worried that'd hurt his development. Why not keep oulette and sproul together with the simple change that they'll be in the nhl instead of the ahl? Some tribes used to throw their infants in the snow for a bit.
They said there that Quincey is a turnover machine. I know he makes costly mistakes, but stats won't say so.
Total giveaways:
1. Kronwall 50 (in 79 games)
2. Smith 49 (in 71 games)
3. Quincey 39 (in 82 games)
4. DeKeyser 36 (in 65 games)
5. Ericsson 35 (in 48 games)
6. Kindl 34 (in 66 games)
7. Lashoff 15 (in 75 games)
Per total season Ice-time it will be:
1. Smith 0.0375 (giveaways per total ice-time)
2. Ericsson 0.0343
3. Kindl 0.0299
4. Kronwall 0.0260
5. DeKeyser 0.0256
6. Quincey 0.0228
7. Lashoff 0.0139
So, it looks like the the puck was a hand grenade mostly for Smith and Ericsson. Lashoff was sheltered, played super simple game, and that explains his small relative figure. But of this TOP4 (Ericsson, Kronwall, DeKeyser, Quincey) with toughest competition, somehow Quincey managed to have least giveaways per total ice-time at last season.
How can you explain that if he is a totally worthless player?
The stats don't accurately measure the player. Who gets hit with the giveaway when Quincey skates himself into trouble, and he chucks it across the ice either behind his partner or into his skates? Or when he chips into center ice where the forwards scrum for it? The guy consistently puts his partner in awful spots, while hesitating too long and allowing the outlet to be botched all to hell.
This is without going into giveaways being inconsistent and entirely dependent on the scorer in each rink. Hits, another notoriously unreliable stat, had Quincey credited with 16 of them in that Boston series. Smith supposedly had only 10. Does that sound at all accurate?
They said there that Quincey is a turnover machine. I know he makes costly mistakes, but stats won't say so.
Total giveaways:
1. Kronwall 50 (in 79 games)
2. Smith 49 (in 71 games)
3. Quincey 39 (in 82 games)
4. DeKeyser 36 (in 65 games)
5. Ericsson 35 (in 48 games)
6. Kindl 34 (in 66 games)
7. Lashoff 15 (in 75 games)
Per total season Ice-time it will be:
1. Smith 0.0375 (giveaways per total ice-time)
2. Ericsson 0.0343
3. Kindl 0.0299
4. Kronwall 0.0260
5. DeKeyser 0.0256
6. Quincey 0.0228
7. Lashoff 0.0139
So, it looks like the the puck was a hand grenade mostly for Smith and Ericsson. Lashoff was sheltered, played super simple game, and that explains his small relative figure. But of this TOP4 (Ericsson, Kronwall, DeKeyser, Quincey) with toughest competition, somehow Quincey managed to have least giveaways per total ice-time at last season.
How can you explain that if he is a totally worthless player?
Nice work, Henkka. There's perception -- and we all have our favorite perceptions -- and the reality (stats) that even GMs and coaches consider.
For example, I notice every single give-away or mistake that E makes, and tend to underplay his better moments.
I hold Kronwall to a higher standard, so his bonehead defensive lapses make me want to scream-- and I remember those more than I remember Smitty's turnovers, which I calmly sweep under the rug as 'rookie mistakes.'
If I try to truly remain objective, and mainly consider the top five, I will say that Smitty, E and Kronner "seem" to give the puck away more than DD and Q, imho. DD plays a very safe game, and that's his strength. Where he started coming apart during the playoffs was when the B's really focused on him-- attacked with speed where he was, roughed him up, got him spinning a bit. I do feel he will learn and a couple years from now, you won't see him getting that close. He'll learn to leave himself some room and always try to stay between the man and the net....
I digress.
In general, it was a dynamic year. Many opinions were formed early on and then people didn't want to change their minds. As defensive partners changed, and as we got different forwards in the mix with some of these guys, they played better. Or not much changed (Kindl). The Wings system relies on quick puck movement between D and the forwards. It's not always the defender's fault when that system breaks down either.
I bring them into the discussion because I'm thinking about all the tools available to Holland. He doesn't need to handcuff himself to players he no longer needs if he has better options. Given the bottom three--- Kindl, Quincey and Lashoff, I think Q is the best one of the group. Moreover, he has played a decent amount of time, and none of these guys can fill that.
I've always been a proponent of bringing up very promising prospects sooner than later. I HOPE that the Wings will do so, but I also feel that the more conservative approach is to keep as many of your better D and then create the room, not to keep the weakest and throw the rookies in there with them.
