Saturday, August 11, 2012

The State of the Red Wings: Non-sensationalized edition.





Wings fans are in panic mode and it shows. There is no intellectual debate here about hockey, the team, the CBA, and what is said almost nothing but mis-attribution or highly emotional.  It is almost like polarized politics when talking to Wings fans; making links between things that don't exist and blaming everything on the thoughts you don't have.  Saying debt destroys jobs, or appealing to your constituency is flip flopping is as ignorant and illogical as saying the Wings need to make a blockbuster trade or miss the playoff. 

I appeal to you all just to actually look at the sport and notice the common threads, instead of making threads on here to further your blinder viewpoints.


One last appeal to logic.
1. Defense wasn't an issue last year under a new systems coach.
2. Under this new system, the top time on ice player was Ericsson and not Lidstrom or Stuart.
3. Stuart and Lidstrom are huge losses and no player is going to step in and equal them, even the ones we missed out on.
4. Assuming a step down on defense, we have to look at what roles the players had and how we can mitigate the losses. 
5. Lidstrom was a positional player who was peerless. with great puck moving skills and a power play specialist.
6. We have many puck movers, but might be lacking in the power play specialist.
7. The system improved the positional play of everyone, and perhaps will allow a committee replacement of Lidstrom.
8. Every other team is lacking of a Lidstrom caliber player.  Every SINGLE OTHER TEAM.
9. The Wings were never successful relying on one player, nor was any team, including when we only had Yzerman.
10. The team roster right now has 4 proven top four defensemen, a rookie slated to be a top four defenseman, and a first round pick who has experience in the system as a number 7 guy.  There is a clear number one guy, and three guys that seem capable of being the number two dman based upon their past numbers.
11. There is nothing more that can be done to improve this team, even if we wanted to tear apart the roster.  No one wants to trade us anyone that is an upgrade.  Deal with it.
12. we can still sign a couple of depth guys with upside that could surprise people.  
13. The roster on paper is still better than the rosters of the teams that finished 9-15.

The flip side of the argument.

1. The defense wasn't the issue, the offense was the issue and it was not addressed, if anything it was made worse.  (I think Tootoo is completely worthless and a scumbag who isn't classy enough to be on the team, let alone for the money paid to him.)  Though I would not be quick to say how much worse it is, but we clearly focused on the wrong type of players. They needed a puck hound, high energy guy who could fix chemistry issues on the top two lines. I feel there were three of those available and the Wings missed out on all three of them.
2. Stuart will be the bigger loss, just because there is only one person on the roster with the size to clear the front,which was our biggest problem to begin with, and it is Ericsson who hasn't shown the will to do it.
3. There is a ton of farm skill on offense, not much on defense for a few years, and there is no way to adequately exchange in trade on a 1:1 ratio to fix this divide. 
4. the age of free agency as a major component is ending.

Now compare these things... you should notice that if we cannot fix things via free agency, trade seems unlikely at a 1:1 value, the team has playoff caliber as is, and developing players is becoming more important.  It makes sense to put those together and determine these logical outcomes.

1. The Wings will be competitive, though will take a significant step back.  
2. The step back might be out of the playoffs, but it isn't wise to assume that will be the case.  This is based upon the fact that there are unknowns, but the quality of the players left behind isn't one of them.
3. Patience and safe moves will prove to be the most effective when you cannot make mistakes disappear with ease.  
4. Holland is a cautious guy and all of this means inaction will be common for now.
5. We don't know what Holland will do if the Wings are on the outside looking in, what kind of emergency mode he would go into.
6. Why don't we just enjoy the games until we have a concept of what we are left with, and what needs to be done rather than making wild accusations.
7. If they play in the fall, thanks Bettman.  WHY AREN'T YOU FIRED!!!



Friday, July 20, 2012

Gun control v. That second amendment

Hi, have to put my two cents in about the "discourse" about guns... STOP MAKING FOOLISH ARGUMENTS! Guns are not inherently bad, but they are EXTREMELY easy to use tools that provide far more negative than positive. I am not saying people cannot handle guns, I just have to admit because I have some logic in my head that if guns are easily available then people die more often. Nutjobs with knifes don't kill dozens at a time.
By your logic about guns not being the issue, would you allow everyone to have nuclear weapons??? They are no worse inherently than guns, but we can recognize that if they fall into the wrong hands that many people could die senselessly. How many people have died senselessly from guns? Far more than from nuclear weapons. It just makes so little sense to defend the second amendment. The purpose was to appease those who thought their guns provided safety. This was before the age of professional around the clock security/policing, before the age of the massive federal defense spending, and certainly it was before the point where guns became useless of defending the rights of men against the government.
No weapon in the hands of any citizen will do anything to the U.S. Armed forces if it was necessary to fight the government. (please don't let me try to stop you if you want to test this...) The only practical purpose guns have is hunting, and we don't even need to do that anymore. The second Amendment didn't even help right after it was created! Check out Shays' Rebellion, though I will refrain from citing WIKIPEDIA in my argument and leave it up to you to check it out as I know that is where you will go. Stop the red haring fallacies folks. I guess guns do make you look pretty cool and can make you feel like a big action star. Yet Batman, Wolverine, Superman, and Spider-Man is way cooler than the Punisher.  Hell, even Legolas and Hawkeye were better than Punisher.  I guess you lose all the debates gunners.

The Dark Knight Rises.


Here is how you know the newest Batman is great art. The fact that it was a very good film and it became even more by being a mirror. When it became a meta film via the corresponding and coexisting tragedy, the film covers itself and the shooting by having a philosophical conversation about the audience while drawing them into an entertaining experience.However, this is ultimately lost on almost everyone.  I was sad to say that people booed after there was no post credit clip.  I overheard one say, "This is why Marvel is better than DC."

Interesting, because while Avengers is far and away the better action film, it doesn't hold a candle to the The Dark Knight Rises because of the true substance of the film.  Avengers was about working together and was an allegory for the greatness of America.  The Dark Knight Rises was about the darkness of society being vanquished by hope while paying hope the respect as a poison for the hopeless.  I would have like them to explore the class warfare a bit more, but in a three hour film I can't imagine them succeeding in tying together such a controversial component no matter how important to the reality of life.

In the end it was a story about meritocracy offering a light to some and darkness to others, those who look back and regret as they can't learn the lessons of the past, and those who look forward ready to lose everything for a simple and good act.  I am glad there was little humor or action to it, as it was something that spoke to me.  I hope that I can rise up, and I know that I am not alone in such a feeling.  The emotions and rewards for this are only that which I expect, and like the most humanized Batman ever it really is about finding someone who wants to give you a chance.  Beyond that I don't think there is any reward you shall ever receive that would be greater.  Even if society deserves to be tore down, the act of hope can kill one person and lift another up.  I hope people remember this, because I can't think of any way more memorable to share this than through another Nolan masterpiece.

I think you should see this film and put out of your mind that people died while watching this movie. Put it out of your mind and digest this film.  After you have watched it all, watch it again.  Think about your life, and how you felt during this movie.  Then I want you to think about the people who died just wanting to watch a film of this nature.  After all, there is a good chance that the people who were murdered in Colorado had similar problems as you.  It is likely that they enjoyed Batman because he was a superhero that had no powers except the power of money.  That they could dream they could rise to such heights of money and power and that they would, like Bruce Wayne, remain above corruption.  That they could hope for a few hours and escape, watching the greatness that is a story of one man with the power to affect positive changes.  Those who died, did so hoping for a good time, and without ever saying anything I would wager they were hoping for a better world.

For those of us left behind, let's hope for a better world and actually take some action.  I am especially looking at you Billionaires, you better take notice at what bad and good you can do via your actions. The rest of us should also remember mob mentality isn't only a violent thing, and can be used for good.  Let us all start thinking about the consequences of our actions on each other and remember that we can stand together to push others down, or we can stand together to help others up. While certain people have much more power than others, we can all stand together and create hope.  Hopefully.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Wings should think outside of the box.

The Wings biggest problem right now is lack of chemistry. Much of that has to do with not having the right guys going to the net to take advantage of the skills we already have.

Cleary, Bertuzzi, Franzen, Homer... they all go to the net. None of them mesh well in the top two lines to make it work. Mostly because only Cleary is fast enough to get there in time, but not big enough to push his way there. Combine that with the fact that Val, Hudler, Zetter, and Pavel all are players who can't push their way there and are better suited away from the net., and you have problems.

I think Brown and Morrow fit this build of having that combination...

Now you can also add a sniper to find soft spots away from the front and make it work. Once again, they need to mesh with the passers. I think Semin, Vanek, Pomminville, and Selanne fit the bill...

I kind of doubt anything is going to happen with either of these routes.

The big problem here is who ever could be had will be costly, and at the same time you have to make sure, you would be able to make both top lines work.

I think if we were to add Semin, we could find him working well with Pavel on the top line, but then you really have the same problem on the second line. If you put him on the second line, who would you move to the top line? Bert, Franzen, Hudler, Cleary, all have issues. Anyone you add, the second line STILL has the same problem of having unworkable or at least inconsistent, chemistry.

I believe the best set up would be Zetter, Pav, and Brown or Franzen on the top line. Getting a player who can shoot from the outside and go at the net while allowing the second line to have the other guy. Bert, Fil, and Franzen have all shown an inconsistent but workable scoring touch. Really if Bert would pick up some speed, all of our problems could be solved without any moves, and the same goes for Franzen.

They both act like anchors for the top two lines. That is why I would put them both together perhaps with Abs, Helm, or Fil and hope they can manage to keep up enough not to allow so many scoring chances. Yet, they need someone to make the Euro Twins finish. I would kill to have a Hull type show up.

I would like to say, that if Holland was really smart, (and he has been so often) he would find someone who isn't a big name and that can fill a role such as what I described.

You should be able to find a “nobody” whose style of game would fit in. I mean look at how some other duos in the league can add anyone and they become point producers. Mikael Samuelsson did that with the Wings once and the Canucks once. We should be able to find someone like that, but not him as he has his faults, which are well known.

We could fix the top two lines by adding people that go to the net, or just adding people whom might have the right mix of other skills to compliment what we do have.

Brown would be the best addition.

Others that might work well include:

Jason Pominville

David Clarkson

Scott Hartnell

T. Plekanec

Milan Michalek

Drew Stafford

Kris Versteeg

Michael Ryder

Blake Wheeler

Matt Cullen

Shrewd moves would include:

Justin Williams: He might be a great add if not Brown. He has an affordable contract that will last for a few years but is only 30 years old and brings almost everything the Wings are missing. Quick and gritty in the traffic areas, shoots first and has hit 30 goals before in a similar system in Carolina. He would fit in extremely well on the top line or the second line freeing up Johan to go up top for a power line with Pav and Hank.

Daniel Winnik: This guy has a ton of shots on net, 151 at time of writing this and fits the right handed big defensive depth role we were supposedly looking to acquire. Winnik, with his size and grit and the fact he shoots the puck a ton, could be put on the top line with Dats and Zetter to form at the very least form a shutdown line. My hunch is that he could at the best turn into a huge goal scorer the same way Bertuzzi did when getting a shot with a couple of elite players a while back in Vancouver.

Bryan Little: Younger and better than Hudler, even if he plays a similar game. Yet has a better shot, which makes all the difference in the world. He would score more goals in the same role as Hudler. Has two years on the contract, and could be flipped next year in a deadline deal. If you doubt it, check the scouting report. "Is a good playmaker who can be employed on the wing, as well as his natural center position. Owns a good wrist shot and sound defensive instincts. Is a tireless worker. Can snipe, too." The problem here is Winnipeg most likely would not trade him. I would at least inquire.

Milan Hejduk: Right handed with quick release. He could be a Hull type fixture with the Euro Twins while coming cheap. He might not fit in though with our past history with the Avs, and he is one of the only players on their roster left you can say that about.

PA Parenteau: I really like the look of this kid, and think his game is on the rise. UFA and therefore could be cheap. Parenteau is a right-handed player who will shoot the puck and is ready for a bigger role offensively. The problem is he is a pass first type and would be a better addition to the second line with Val. I still believe if you added him next to Val, that you would have a similar set up to the top line with the Euro Twins. Then, perhaps, you can use Franzen on the second and Bert on the first and have two top lines that are balanced. Unfortunately, each will be streaky.

Kyle Brodziak: His contract is friendly though long, so he likely would not be moved from Minnesota. Described as a checking line center, we could be shrewd and use him in a bigger role as he will shoot before he passes. He is defense first, and on the top line with Zetter and Pav, he could focus more on offense. The problem is he would contribute to the poor skating problems of the top two lines. If he didn't pan out, we make the logjam at the bottom problem worse while taking money away from resigning our major players.

Ray Whitney: Yeah, we all know what he does not bring. I just think he is one of the cheaper major point producers available while adding a righty. We could do worse out of a rental.

Patrik Elias: Okay, getting him would mean taking ourselves out of the Parise sweepstakes next season, and would allow NJ to keep them. Now here is why it would be a shrewd. One, the move it allows us to make the Devils happy, and create a stronger trading partner in the future. Two, it would give us a PPG player for two seasons that would mesh extremely well on either top line. Three, it would make it easier for Bert and Franzen to produce more by creating balance in the top six. Four, it would allow Hudler someone to emulate his game upon in a countryman. Five, he also would help the power play. Elias would be the biggest star we could add at the deadline, and would actually help the leadership of the strongest leadership team in the league. His contract would expire in time for our hardship year at the cap, and he could return on a vet level cheap contract afterwards. He provides the best opportunity to add a PPG player the Wings have without sacrificing the future.

This is just some ideas, to think outside of the box. Unfortunately, it seems as if these moves are less likely than the world ending at the end of the year. Instead, the Wings will add Paul Gaustad who will not bring anything to the team, but some bad penalties and less ice time or a lost roster spot for players like Emmerton and Mursak. I still say if we are to lose either of those players, I would rather it be a part of a trade for someone with a bigger impact than Gaustad or Moen. I would rather keep what we have than force something stupid. I would rather think outside of the box and take a run at someone like I described.