Recalled/Assigned: Simon Edvinsson recalled from Grand Rapids

[Detroit Knights]

Correct, I do not believe Ed will get the same points. Mo will get PP1 and the bulk of top line starts. Does Ed have the ability to do so? Yes. But he doesn't have the availability. Those 20ish PP points will not be there for Ed.

Not going to retype for a 3rd time to people here about the powerplay. Already included that multiple times. Ed will be on the pp.

 

[norrisnick]

Not going to retype for a 3rd time to people here about the powerplay. Already included that multiple times. Ed will be on the pp.

Not PP1.

 

[Detroit Knights]

Not PP1.

Why not?

 

[norrisnick]

Why not?

Because current NHL coaches do not put 2D on their top PP unit. Most don't on their 2nd unless they are really top heavy (and or starved of talent).

I think Kubalik or Zadina should be where Raymond has been parked for the last few weeks on PP1 (lack of lefty over there is problematic) but that doesn't mean that's going to happen.

 

[Detroit Knights]

Because current NHL coaches do not put 2D on their top PP unit. Most don't on their 2nd unless they are really top heavy (and or starved of talent).

I think Kubalik or Zadina should be where Raymond has been parked for the last few weeks on PP1 (lack of lefty over there is problematic) but that doesn't mean that's going to happen.

we all understand your infatuation with zadina from the other thread, but zadina shouldn't be on the powerplay if not the team in general. I 100% agree with kubalik and hate that he isn't used on it because his one-timer is great.

Regardless, having the pp1 with ed and mo makes a tremendous amounts of sense and just because they haven't done it recently, doesn't mean they won't do it again. We do not have the forwards capable to be doing 4F and 1D on both lines, we just don't. I refer you to my research paper i posted on the page before this where I explain why.

I don't understand how this could not be a feasible possibility:

PP1
Raymond - Larkin - Kubalik
Mo - Ed

PP2 - A
Rasmussen/Perron - Berg - Soderblom - Copp/Kasper
Walman

PP2 - B
Perron - Soderblom - Berg
Walman - Maata

Both have net front, production ability on back end, shooters and passers. I added Maata for the second PP because he can keep pucks in the zone and that would have tremendous value when people are trying to clear it out on the PK. I am not as insistent on that one, but thought to throw it out there.

 

[norrisnick]

we all understand your infatuation with zadina from the other thread, but zadina shouldn't be on the powerplay if not the team in general. I 100% agree with kubalik, but he would be good for the second pp.

Regardless, having the pp1 with ed and mo makes a tremendous amounts of sense and just because they haven't done it recently, doesn't mean they won't do it again. We do not have the forwards capable to be doing 4F and 1D on both lines, we just don't. I refer you to my research paper i posted on the page before this where I explain why.

I read it.

Rafalski being a 40-50+ point producer in the NHL prior to coming to the Wings got him on PP1. That and he was a right-hand shot. The only guys he had to beat out were Chelios, Maltby, Downey, McCarty, and Mikael Samuelsson.

Ed does not have that kind of leverage.

 

[DoMakc]

we all understand your infatuation with zadina from the other thread, but zadina shouldn't be on the powerplay if not the team in general. I 100% agree with kubalik and hate that he isn't used on it because his one-timer is great.

Regardless, having the pp1 with ed and mo makes a tremendous amounts of sense and just because they haven't done it recently, doesn't mean they won't do it again. We do not have the forwards capable to be doing 4F and 1D on both lines, we just don't. I refer you to my research paper i posted on the page before this where I explain why.

I don't understand how this could not be a feasible possibility:

PP1
Raymond - Larkin - Kubalik
Mo - Ed

PP2 - A
Rasmussen/Perron - Berg - Soderblom - Copp/Kasper
Walman

PP2 - B
Perron - Soderblom - Berg
Walman - Maata

Both have net front, production ability on back end, shooters and passers. I added Maata for the second PP because he can keep pucks in the zone and that would have tremendous value when people are trying to clear it out on the PK. I am not as insistent on that one, but thought to throw it out there.

well, since coaches stopped putting 2 defensemen on PP, league average PP% rose by something like 5%. It is not coming back

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

well, since coaches stopped putting 2 defensemen on PP, league average PP% rose by something like 5%. It is not coming back

From about 1996 until about 2007 there also weren’t a lot of super high scoring defensemen drafted, either.

Notables I can think of in that timeframe are Letang, Keith, Phaneuf for a couple of years. Maybe you can count Weber and Suter?

 

[SirloinUB]

There's theoretical benefits to either option. Remember an 8-year deal isn't automatic after the ELC. Giving the player less time to prove themselves on their ELC reduces the chances they are willing to sign long-term.

Example-

Path A: 9 games -> 3-year ELC -> 8-year contract
Path B: >9 games -> 2-year ELC -> 2-year bridge -> 8-year contract

Of course there is Path C, Path D etc. depending on a multitude of factors.

Id prefer Path C: 10 gams -> 2 year ELC -> 8 year contract. Of course that's all assuming he turns into a quality dman.

60 games in the AHL + 2 more ELC seasons in the NHL puts him around the 200 NA pro games at 22 years old. That is primetime for a breakout and a potential opportunity to lock him up at a bit of a discount.

Ultimately development is unpredictable and this strategy is really just betting on a specific outcome that may or may not happen, so, I recognize there is no right answer. At one point I called the organization cowards for this decision but I meant it tongue and cheek.

I just think an athletic giant that is still growing into his body is the perfect candidate to negotiate a long term contract asap lol.

 

[SCD]

I think people overlook that Walinder could soon be in the PP discussion.

 

[Ricelund]

I miss powerplay units with two defensemen, tbh. I expect it will come back eventually.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Id prefer Path C: 10 gams -> 2 year ELC -> 8 year contract. Of course that's all assuming he turns into a quality dman.

60 games in the AHL + 2 more ELC seasons in the NHL puts him around the 200 NA pro games at 22 years old. That is primetime for a breakout and a potential opportunity to lock him up at a bit of a discount.

Ultimately development is unpredictable and this strategy is really just betting on a specific outcome that may or may not happen, so, I recognize there is no right answer. At one point I called the organization cowards for this decision but I meant it tongue and cheek.

I just think an athletic giant that is still growing into his body is the perfect candidate to negotiate a long term contract asap lol.

Right, it would be a great path assuming the player is okay with locking himself in to 8-years with a small sample size. It’s only really a big difference if a significant breakout happens in season 3 though.

 

[Retire91]

Just going to take in a moment that we are now a team that doesn't have to be forced to bring their prospects up by the eligibility rules. Goodbye tie goes to the veteran days.

 

[ridilon]

Just going to take in a moment that we are now a team that doesn't have to be forced to bring their prospects up by the eligibility rules. Goodbye tie goes to the veteran days.

It'd be sad and funny at the same time to compile a full roster of 'tie went to this veteran.'

Abdelkader/Cleary/Nielsen
Quincey/DeKeyser

Just to get a starting 5 out there.

 

[jkutswings]

It'd be sad and funny at the same time to compile a full roster of 'tie went to this veteran.'

Abdelkader/Cleary/Nielsen
Quincey/DeKeyser

Just to get a starting 5 out there.

A starting five that goes absolutely nowhere.
Ironic, in a "funny uh-oh" sort of way.