The all-purpose: Alexander Wennberg thread

[Viqsi]

I think we have a pretty strong, deep defensive core without adding Wennberg to it.

It'd be repurposing an existing player. Are you that overwhelmingly opposed to ever again seeing Wennberg in union blue?

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Still going on about this, eh?

 

[Cowumbus]

I'll beat this drum again, but I swear to the heavens that Wennberg is a defenseman in the NHL

Way too soft to be a dman. He hates contact now? Why would he be want more of it..

 

[EDM]

"Re-purposing an existing player" ???? Are you kidding me? Are we supposed to remove a defenseman from our roster who is actually a capable defenseman at this time in order to give Pooh an opportunity to "re-purpose" himself while he is paid $ 5million per year as the supposed second line center ?????? Are you really suggesting that the Jackets use actual in-game experience to "re-purpose" a player rather than use players who are actually quality defensemen NOW? The concept is absurd. That he is on the roster now is the problem, not the solution.

In baseball when a player wants to change from a position player to a pitcher or vica versa, they are sent to the minor leagues and have to work themselves back up thru the system. But a shortstop who does not work out does not get to stay on the major league roster while he tries to learn how to throw a curveball and a slider. He learns that in the minor leagues.

So .... .... if Wennberg wants to accept an AHL salary and travel around on busses through the Northeast US while he learns to be a defenseman as a member of the Cleveland Monsters, fine. Although I suspect that given that option, Pooh will scope up his puppies and run back to Europe.

The NHL is a business, not a rehabilitation facility. YES, I want to get him off the roster as soon as possible and use his roster space and the dollars he is paid to help find a real 2C.

 

[Viqsi]

Are you really suggesting that the Jackets use actual in-game experience to "re-purpose" a player rather than use players who are actually quality defensemen NOW? The concept is absurd.

Fair argument. Was just wondering if that's what you were thinking.

 

[major major]

"Re-purposing an existing player" ???? Are you kidding me? Are we supposed to remove a defenseman from our roster who is actually a capable defenseman at this time in order to give Pooh an opportunity to "re-purpose" himself while he is paid $ 5million per year as the supposed second line center ?????? Are you really suggesting that the Jackets use actual in-game experience to "re-purpose" a player rather than use players who are actually quality defensemen NOW? The concept is absurd. That he is on the roster now is the problem, not the solution.

In baseball when a player wants to change from a position player to a pitcher or vica versa, they are sent to the minor leagues and have to work themselves back up thru the system. But a shortstop who does not work out does not get to stay on the major league roster while he tries to learn how to throw a curveball and a slider. He learns that in the minor leagues.

So .... .... if Wennberg wants to accept an AHL salary and travel around on busses through the Northeast US while he learns to be a defenseman as a member of the Cleveland Monsters, fine. Although I suspect that given that option, Pooh will scope up his puppies and run back to Europe.

The NHL is a business, not a rehabilitation facility. YES, I want to get him off the roster as soon as possible and use his roster space and the dollars he is paid to help find a real 2C.

No one was suggesting he would be transitioned to D mid-season (although Lemaire did that with future Norris winner Brent Burns). This would be a months long process, and as I stated, it would begin in the offseason. This isn't learning how to throw curveballs - every basic skill of the job is something Wennberg already excels at, which is why multiple folks now have brought up the idea. I just hope someday after the Jackets give up on him that somebody tries it.

The NHL is, as you say, a business, and it's important to find the best possible use for your assets. You seem to view it as a form of charity towards someone you are angry at, but the whole premise is that he might be a much better player at D, which would be, you know, good for the team.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

No one was suggesting he would be transitioned to D mid-season (although Lemaire did that with future Norris winner Brent Burns). This would be a months long process, and as I stated, it would begin in the offseason. This isn't learning how to throw curveballs - every basic skill of the job is something Wennberg already excels at, which is why multiple folks now have brought up the idea. I just hope someday after the Jackets give up on him that somebody tries it.

The NHL is, as you say, a business, and it's important to find the best possible use for your assets. You seem to view it as a form of charity towards someone you are angry at, but the whole premise is that he might be a much better player at D, which would be, you know, good for the team.

If converting him to a dman is the best possible alternative to his current play, then the answer is to trade him for next to nothing, waive him or buy him out at 1/3rd. The odds of a successful conversion are minimal. Especially to a guy who "wants to play his own game" even when its ineffective. If he's not teachable at forward, then how does one think he'll be teachable at a whole new position?

Alexander Wennberg is no Brett Burns

 

[major major]

Alexander Wennberg is no Brett Burns

No, neither is Brent Burns.

If converting him to a dman is the best possible alternative to his current play, then the answer is to trade him for next to nothing, waive him or buy him out at 1/3rd. The odds of a successful conversion are minimal. Especially to a guy who "wants to play his own game" even when its ineffective. If he's not teachable at forward, then how does one think he'll be teachable at a whole new position?

The reason it seems like a good idea to me is because it's how Wennberg naturally plays. He thinks like a D-man, skates like a D-man, passes like a D-man. It's forward that he doesn't know how to play.

I'm not interested in debating whether it's better to just dump the player, because I think this is interesting on it's own and I just want somebody to do it. Will he be a better D-man than center? I think so, I don't really have a bank of data to draw on of previous conversion attempts. There's Burns, there's Byfuglien, who else?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

No, neither is Brent Burns.



The reason it seems like a good idea to me is because it's how Wennberg naturally plays. He thinks like a D-man, skates like a D-man, passes like a D-man. It's forward that he doesn't know how to play.

I'm not interested in debating whether it's better to just dump the player, because I think this is interesting on it's own and I just want somebody to do it. Will he be a better D-man than center? I think so, I don't really have a bank of data to draw on of previous conversion attempts. There's Burns, there's Byfuglien, who else?

Byfuglien was a defenceman when he was drafted:

When Dustin Byfuglien was drafted into the NHL, it was as a defenseman. Then Chicago made him a forward, except when they needed an extra D-man. Then the Thrashers/Jets picked him up, and he played D, then forward, then D, then forward. As it stands, he’s heading into next year as a forward

Unique Team Traits: The Winnipeg Jets aren't sure how to use their most valuable tool

Burns was initially converted as an 18 year old and had some periods of time where he shifted back to forward.

Burns has been moved back and forth between forward and defense throughout his hockey career. He played mostly right wing in juniors before being converted to defense by Minnesota Wild coach Jacques Lemaire during the 2003-04 season.

Brent Burns' Switch to Defense Makes San Jose Sharks a Deeper Club in 2014-15

So assuming that these sources are accurate, your entire premise is flawed. Badly. These were players who played defense regularly at a young age. Wennberg is 24. The conversion idea should be DOA.

I missed an "n". You missed the whole deal.

 

[major major]

Byfuglien was a defenceman when he was drafted:


Unique Team Traits: The Winnipeg Jets aren't sure how to use their most valuable tool

Burns was initially converted as an 18 year old and had some periods of time where he shifted back to forward.


Brent Burns' Switch to Defense Makes San Jose Sharks a Deeper Club in 2014-15

So assuming that these sources are accurate, your entire premise is flawed. Badly. These were players who played defense regularly at a young age. Wennberg is 24. The conversion idea should be DOA.

I missed an "n". You missed the whole deal.

Yeah I read all that stuff, hours ago when Lee first brought this up. Somehow Burns being converted to D in the middle of his rookie season, as an 18 year old, didn't give me the feeling that it would be impossible for that ancient Wennberg to do it in the offseason. And Burns was just big and fast, he didn't think the part the way Wennberg does.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Yeah I read all that stuff, hours ago when Lee first brought this up. Somehow Burns being converted to D in the middle of his rookie season, as an 18 year old, didn't give me the feeling that it would be impossible for that ancient Wennberg to do it in the offseason. And Burns was just big and fast, he didn't think the part the way Wennberg does.

Your assertion that Wennberg "thinks the part" is wild conjecture. You don't know that. The idea that you have any idea how Burns thought and compares to Wennberg is wild fantasy.

Further, the idea that a guy who simply won't shoot the puck despite the admonishment of his coach, will be quick or even able to convert to another position is wishful thinking-at best.

 

[EDM]

If this is an "asset management issue", you dump him and use his roster spot and salary for what the team actually needs: a real second line scoring center. We do not need another defense man. We are deep in defensemen both in Columbus and Cleveland and have prospects like Gavrikov and Peale. It would be a waste of assets to be paying him $5 million per year to be a redundant piece while we are trying to get together the money to make a sound offer to a real center like Duchene in the off season UFA market.

What is it with you Wennberg lovers? Most of you now admit he is a failure at the position for which he was drafted and now being paid. So now you want to give him a chance to be ineffective at another position? Give it up already. Make a tape of his puppy commercial that you can watch and rewatch over and over. Then wave good bye to him. The Jackets need a second line center not a tenth or eleventh defenseman.

 

[Crede777]

I don't think Wennberg should be moved to defense (obviously). He is no Jack Johnson afterall.

And I do think his play last season and this season does not rise to the expectations of his salary and what he has shown he is capable of in the past.

That said, is he not our 2nd best center at the moment? Last I checked, he edged out Jenner in terms of offensive production while being slightly worse in GA/60 which could be due to playing with major liabilities in Duclair and Stenlund. Wennberg is very good at killing penalties, controlling breakouts, and generally protecting the puck. Yes, Jenner receives about a minute more TOI on average which is a vote of confidence from Torts. But that confidence is in the line as a whole I think as evidenced by how Wennberg is moved around while Jenner's role remains static.

He is paid to do more. But that doesn't mean he lacks value to the team. Had Riley Nash come in and done exactly what Wennberg is doing now, I think the "dump Wennberg" crowd would have a better argument.

But as is, once the Jackets hopefully acquire another top-6 C, that doesn't push him out of the lineup. That just pushes him down a single spot and likely pushes out Nash/Dubinsky/Sedlak.

 

[Monk]

I still fail to see how Wennberg's presence is presenting CBJ from acquiring a second line center. Dropping him for nothing achieves nothing. Why not make him absolutely expendable before discarding him?

 

[Viqsi]

What is it with you Wennberg lovers? Most of you now admit he is a failure at the position for which he was drafted and now being paid. So now you want to give him a chance to be ineffective at another position? Give it up already. Make a tape of his puppy commercial that you can watch and rewatch over and over. Then wave good bye to him. The Jackets need a second line center not a tenth or eleventh defenseman.

I'm going to have to take back the credit I gave you earlier, because this statement makes it clear your interest is "make Wennberg go away", period, full stop, as though he can never be effective at anything at all.

 

[major major]

That said, is he not our 2nd best center at the moment? Last I checked, he edged out Jenner in terms of offensive production while being slightly worse in GA/60 which could be due to playing with major liabilities in Duclair and Stenlund.

This year I think Jenner is definitely better than Wennberg. Wennberg's puck protection and passing hasn't been anything special, in my opinion. Putting him with players he plays better with (Foligno instead of Duclair) could make a big difference.

I still fail to see how Wennberg's presence is presenting CBJ from acquiring a second line center. Dropping him for nothing achieves nothing. Why not make him absolutely expendable before discarding him?

I agree, I don't think most folks have a sense of where we are with the cap. There's enough room for the team to add Duchene regardless of what we do with Wennberg. It seems like folks have sublimated their desire for a better center into rage at Wennberg, which is unnecessary and kind of sad.

We do not need another defense man.

I've already said I hope some team does it, it's not about Columbus and Wennberg, it's about Wennberg and what would make him useful (likely to some other team down the road). You keep misreading this.

What is it with you Wennberg lovers? Most of you now admit he is a failure at the position for which he was drafted and now being paid. So now you want to give him a chance to be ineffective at another position?

I know you're using it as a sarcastic rhetorical question, but it does kind of seem like you're not understanding the whole point. The point is that he'd be better at D, not ineffective. It seems like your priority here is to punish Wennberg.

 

[JKinCLE]

I wonder if Stenlund being with the team is a subtle message to Wennberg. I know they need bodies, and want to see what their young guys can do, but still... young, swedish center who Torts has said on multiple occasions now has a great SHOT.

 

[thebus88]

The way the "expectations" have changed from the Wennberg defenders in a pretty quick time are what I find most telling.

The things you guys ADMIT TO NOW, are the exact things said before and the reasons that you called the supposed "Wennberg haters", haters. Now, its TRUTH and ACCEPTED and we're now moved to an entire LOWER level of expectations and excuses thrown Wennberg's way.

While the same defensive "hater" comments are thrown out in his defense.

He was FOR SURE a "future 1C", NOW, he's FOR SURE a "good 3C".

Jenner > > Wennberg

The line he centers is closer to the 4th line than it is the 2nd line.

Dubinsky, Dalpe, Sedlak, Nash, ALL BETTER OPTIONS.

 

[Viqsi]

He was FOR SURE a "future 1C"

Source? I remember folks saying it was possible, but not necessarily guaranteed. What was "for sure" was that he was a middle-6 C who'd demonstrated a lot of upside. He's got that same capacity, but that upside is looking smaller and smaller.

Dubinsky, Dalpe, Sedlak, Nash, ALL BETTER OPTIONS.

Now this is just getting silly. He's outscored all of those guys - hell, nearly all of them combined. (Off by only one point.)

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

He was FOR SURE a "future 1C", NOW, he's FOR SURE a "good 3C".

I would like to see you quote posts that actually say these things.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I would like to see you quote posts that actually say these things.

There were plenty of people saying his was going to be a #1C a few years back.

Wennberg is Ville Leino 2.0.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

The way the "expectations" have changed from the Wennberg defenders in a pretty quick time are what I find most telling.

The things you guys ADMIT TO NOW, are the exact things said before and the reasons that you called the supposed "Wennberg haters", haters. Now, its TRUTH and ACCEPTED and we're now moved to an entire LOWER level of expectations and excuses thrown Wennberg's way.

While the same defensive "hater" comments are thrown out in his defense.

He was FOR SURE a "future 1C", NOW, he's FOR SURE a "good 3C".

Jenner > > Wennberg

The line he centers is closer to the 4th line than it is the 2nd line.

Dubinsky, Dalpe, Sedlak, Nash, ALL BETTER OPTIONS.

The defenders of Wennberg are now calling for a change of position. Change of sports will be next.

 

[Monk]

The way the "expectations" have changed from the Wennberg defenders in a pretty quick time are what I find most telling.

The things you guys ADMIT TO NOW, are the exact things said before and the reasons that you called the supposed "Wennberg haters", haters. Now, its TRUTH and ACCEPTED and we're now moved to an entire LOWER level of expectations and excuses thrown Wennberg's way.

While the same defensive "hater" comments are thrown out in his defense.

He was FOR SURE a "future 1C", NOW, he's FOR SURE a "good 3C".

Jenner > > Wennberg

The line he centers is closer to the 4th line than it is the 2nd line.

Dubinsky, Dalpe, Sedlak, Nash, ALL BETTER OPTIONS.

This post is full of straw and little else.

I still have yet to see a persuasive argument that makes me think dropping Wennberg for next to nothing (yes, even if it had happened 2 years ago) would actually improve the team.

It's possible to acknowledge that Wennberg is under-performing and acknowledge that he may not improve without a scenery change, while also believing it's better to just keep him around until there's a real improvement in place.

Just because he isn't performing up to expectations doesn't mean the "keep him around" perspective is wrong.

 

[Monk]

There were plenty of people saying his was going to be a #1C a few years back.

Wennberg is Ville Leino 2.0.

A FOR SURE #1 center? I dunno about that...

 

[Cyclones Rock]

A FOR SURE #1 center? I dunno about that...

If it's so important to you, then feel free to check it out.

The idea that a large number of posters were very high on Wennberg a few years ago isn't debatable.