Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Kraken Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

SpikeDDS

Supporting Member
  • Content Count

    1,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

SpikeDDS last won the day on June 30

SpikeDDS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

794 Excellent

About SpikeDDS

  • Birthday 06/06/1969

Profile Information

  • Location
    Georgia
  • Specific Location
    Fayetteville, GA, USA
  • Favorite Team
    Red Wings
  • 2nd Favorite Team
    Lightning

Recent Profile Visitors

8,549 profile views
  1. Show me one place EVER when I suggested that the worst team should be given the #1 pick. Show me one place EVER where I have said that a losing team should be awarded a franchise player. I’ll wait... Do I think the worst teams should be the ones in the lottery for the first couple of picks in the draft? Yes I do. I am going to disagree with you on that, as does EVERY SINGLE PROFESSIONAL TEAM SPORTS LEAGUE. Name one that agrees with you. I’ll wait... Here’s the logic for you: If you are going to try to have a competitive team sports league, trying to get away from one team dominating over and over, you balance it by giving worse teams the opportunity to select the best talent as they see it. Just because you get the top pick guarantees you NOTHING! Which is why this still works. It might be different if the top pick guaranteed you winning. It doesn’t. Tanking may suck—we agree on that, at least—but an uncompetitive league sucks worse. And most everyone seems to get that. But there are exceptions, I suppose. And apparently you are one of them. I’ll just be over here with everyone else.
  2. @CreaseAndAssist @pilldoc The lottery at it is is asinine! I have been saying it for years. And if there was a lottery that illustrates what I have been saying all along, it is this one! It is wrong that the worst team only has an 18.5% chance at the first pick. I agree that it should NOT be a coin flip. We don't want tanking to give a team too reasonable a shot at it, because tanking sucks. I get that. But less than a one-in-five chance at it? No. That's wrong. And the possibility that the worst team, if they don't win ends up picking 4th? That's wrong too! Rarely has there been a year with two prospects who are BOTH considered generational players. The whole idea is to make getting that generational player that comes along every so often NOT guaranteed to the worst team, so that they are discouraged from tanking. But it shouldn't relegate them that far down if they miss the pick. They should still get a very good player. IMHO, picking 3rd for the worst team makes more sense for the game. And that the worst team has almost a coin flip chance of picking 4th? That's just wrong too. And the possibility of a decent team losing in the qualifier round and then getting Frenchie is wrong too. It could be Edmonton! And they've had more 1st and 2nd picks that any other team in the past decade or so! NONE of this is right! None of it! TBH, as a Red Wing fan, I can't be happy with this result AT ALL. But I will say this: I expected to be picking 4th. I had a coin flip chance of picking there, and so I didn't set myself up to think that we would be picking higher. I had already assumed we were going to get screwed, and we did! So disappointment is minimal for me. But my argument for change just leveled up 5 levels. It's time for hockey to correct this.
  3. My fellow HFers will back me up that I have been saying FOR YEARS that the lottery system is FAR too unkind to the worst team(s). I was saying it long before we were near (or AT) the bottom. But if there is a draft lottery that is a shining example that I have been right, it is this one! You wanna see tanking? Wait until a team goes down 0-2 in their qualifier series and watch what happens. Lose for a decent chance at Frenchie! That’s just wrong! You know what else is wrong? That the worst team is only guaranteed 4th. And lookee here! We are missing the top 3, which seem to be gapped from the next echelon of prospects. This is wrong! i realize by saying this it is self-serving. And if I hadn’t been saying this FOR YEARS, that would be legit. But I have been saying it: That less than a 1/5 chance for the first pick for the worst team is just wrong. It shouldn’t be a coin flip, but it should be greater than 18.5%. Significantly greater. 25-30% sounds about right. And if they lose, they shouldn’t go down beyond #3. i really think the bottom 5-7 teams should be in the running for the first pick. You can add the others for the second, but give the teams that need the most help the most help, even if it is in a different order. I saw that Brian Burke commented and seems to agree with me. I’ll bet he’s not alone as far as GMs go. The fact that a team like Edmonton could end up with that first pick and the Wings get 4th? There’s no better word for that than disgusting! The NHL needs to eliminate the possibility of “disgusting” happening with their lottery.
  4. It's either Rossi, Drysdale, or Askorov if you ask me. I'm with you on Drysdale as my first choice, if for no other reason because our depth at the blue line is pretty thin. He would be a lovely addition to the PP units. I think that a good bit of our offensive problem is our inability to get the puck out of our own zone. We need more talent to be able to activate what talent we have up front. I like the Askorov idea also. We need SERIOUS help in net. Rossi should be considered. I didn't see you mention him. If we are adding up front, he'd probably be my guy. And you know how I roll, @yave1964, with regard to expectations. We are picking EXACTLY where I expected us to pick. P.S. ain't no way we are getting Stutzle or Byfield. If either somehow do not get picked, we pick them, but I think our chances of that are far worse than our chances were for getting the first pick of the draft. Expectations. Keep them low so disappointment is at a minimum. That's how Stevie seemed to play it at the post-lottery PC. He must have read my text to him.
  5. Here’s hoping our 18.5% chance becomes 100% reality! Good luck today! LGRW
  6. Format announced yesterday. And I think the Wings lose again...well, they have at least an 81.5% chance of losing again. This format doesn’t help us AT ALL! In fact, it hurts us more than it helps us. Other teams get more time for prospects to train and for young developing players to get competitive playing time and experience. Oh and if a Cup run doesn’t work out, they can still get Lafreniere! Our players get better at Call of Duty. And our odds of getting the help we really need didn’t change at all—still 18.5%. In other words, we still have an 81.5% chance of disappointment, and more than a coin flip chance of TOTAL disappointment on June 26–where we would get the 4th pick. What a fitting end to the year we have had that would be! I still say the odds of the worst team getting the first pick are too low as they stand. And don’t try to say I’m only saying it because my team is in that position. I have said it for the last few seasons. The balance needs to swing back the other way. 75% chance of not getting the first pick should be enough disincentive for tanking. Hard for me to justify higher odds than that. Wish we had better news. And now back to our regularly-scheduled coverage of Coronavirus.
  7. When you listed Blackhawks as 1, I thought you were ranking them #1! Obviously, I thought you were off your rocker! Then I read the whole thing. It was a list, not a ranking. Whew! And P.S., that Yzerman goal was 2OT. Game 7 too! I remember it well! Gary Thorne with the call. Etched forever! Vladdy coughs up a juicy puck to Wayne Gretzky--of all people!--who by the grace of God was too gassed to handle it. Yzerman picks it up on the move, blue line and GAME OVER! SERIES OVER! LEGEND! And I may be biased, but NO rivalry had the intensity that Wings/Avs had. Some may have been longer. But hatred-wise, hard to remember one that compares. You could still see it in the Legends game when they played outdoors a few years ago. Wings lost, and it STILL stings! Bitter pill! The combination of skill and competitiveness on BOTH teams peaking at just about the same time was as close to the impact of unstoppable force and immovable object that hockey has produced in my lifetime.
  8. @yave1964 This is pointed DIRECTLY at you! Mock draft: Building three teams from the Red Wings’ 25-year playoff streak The Athletic is subscription only. I enjoy the Red Wing coverage and analysis. But for the Red Wing geek, this is as good as it gets! Custance, Burke and Bultman do a mock draft of any Wing that played during the 25-year streak to build three Red Wing teams that would theoretically play each other for a Cup. One caveat: You get the player at his peak AS A RED WING, not necessarily at his career peak with another squad. After the draft, they show the teams to Darren McCarty for his take on the teams. And then they get a surprise pick from an unannounced guest which I will leave unnamed to not spoil the surprise! If you want to read this and don’t have a subscription, text me privately.
  9. @WordsOfWisdom I live in ATL, and I agree with you, never again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I’m a freaking idiot!! I will say that the Thrashers were doomed because of several factors, the main one being that leadership was able to keep their jobs throughout the ENTIRE 12-year experiment. That Don Waddell was never replaced despite zero playoff wins until they were already being moved was ridiculous! But add to that that you are trying to build a hockey team where there is no hockey culture. If you can build a winner quickly, like Carolina did, you have a chance. But lose and lose badly for a decade, and you are toast, UNLESS you have hockey in your culture like Detroit did in the Dead Thing era. Atlanta does NOT have hockey culture. Atlanta also has the other three major sports that to some degree compete with hockey. Plus, they have a competitive MLS soccer team that has a TREMENDOUS following. If you try hockey here, you HAVE TO win and win relatively quickly. Vegas-like. The Thrashers sucked and sucked HARD. For 12 years. Straight. With the Falcons going to the Super Bowl in the time. With the Braves in the middle of 19 straight years of playoffs. With the Hawks playing at the same time. It was doomed from the start. And the Ferrari accident didn’t help anything either. With the addition of a successful soccer team, with no hockey culture here, we should NOT see an NHL franchise in Atlanta again in my lifetime.
  10. You must reasonable about this. It is NOT just about the kill rate. Right now--at present--the kill rate is still less than flu. Legitimate expectations are still 1.X%. That alone is not worth panicking about. But that is not the whole story. 1.X% of WHAT? How many people are expected to get infected is an important stat in figuring out what the appropriate level is to react to this. If 2/3 of the country eventually get infected, but the virus still kills 1.X% of 2/3 of the nation, that's a LOT of people dead. WAY more people ill, but will recover. Do we need to turn our lives upside down? Probably not. Many of us are probably gonna get sick. Most of us will recover. BUT, if you or your loved one are the 1.X%? Do I think the NBA and NHL are overreacting? Perhaps, but the previous poster is right when he/she said that they did it to avoid the inevitable lawsuit from the few who will have loved ones die who went to that game that the NHL didn't cancel, regardless of whether or not they actually got the infection there or not, and regardless of whether or not they would have otherwise been infected by other means. That is unfortunately the state of our culture in America today. "I'm gonna get me mine." And because of it, we lose the rest of the season. Not because of the true lethality of the virus, but because the one mutant would potentially ruin it for the rest of us. <sigh> And yes, BTW, the DDS in my moniker is because I'm a dentist, so I am working in what is likely one of the highest risk environs of just about anybody other than those directly treating the confirmed-infected. Be smart. Be reasonable. Nothing wrong with taking a few precautions. But don't let it take over your life. My $.02.
  11. GREAT NEWS! We haven’t lost in 3 days! That’s all I’ve got.
  12. That might actually be bad for this idea. Usually, it is when the top 3-4 players are highly valued that teams want to move up. If it's more Frenchy than anyone else, and then everyone else is about the same, no one's gonna want to move up any, especially if they have their eyes on forwards. They KNOW we will be taking a Dman. So it would have to come from a team a few picks down that wants A certain player amongst the deep group at the top.
  13. Welcome @Altzy91. You are not wrong. It’s high time to move on. It’s not all his fault right now, but he’s dreadful and so are the Wings when he’s in the net. I’m sure you were responding to the 7-1 drubbing by the Wild. To be fair, he was moving too much on the first goal, which made that one an easy score, but a number of those MN goals, including one on Bernier after he relieved Howard, were top-corner snipes that are gonna go in even if Carey Price is in net. Especially if the patient shooters are open at the back door as widely as the D is leaving them open. But yeah, it is time for Howard to go. But truly, I don’t know what you are expecting right now. They are asking this collection of “leftovers” and building blocks to play for their pride against teams who have more talent and have actual reasons to play to win other than simply playing for pride. I gotta say that that is a tall order, especially for a leadership group like we have here. Dylan Larkin does NOT know how to lead a team out of this kind of place, because I don’t think he’s ever been here before in his career, even before the NHL. He looks and sounds like a guy searching for answers. Having a good goalie in net in this game would have simply made the score 5-1 rather than 7-1. And I promise you that that game would still demand to be turned off as much as the 7-1 drubbing did. This is simply unwatchable, no matter who is in the net right now.
  14. @yave1964 We—as we do often are—are in agreement. Dunno if you watched that Yzerman P.C. that I shared, but this is exactly his thinking also. We need just about as many 1st and 2nd picks as possible because truthfully, not all 1st round picks work out. We WANT and EXPECT them to, but sometimes what can look right doesn’t end up BEING right. And of course injury plays into that some. But in answering the question why still trade AA for less than a 1st, Stevie answered it directly: For is to pull out of this within 5 years, some of our 2nd and 3rd round picks are gonna have to rise above expectations. In other words, we are gonna need some luck on our side. More picks give more of a chance of that happening. But he wasn’t bashful about saying that somewhere between 5 and 10 years is how long it takes to do this right, u less you get EXTREMELY lucky and land a generational player. I am glad to see Veleno starting to play more like we expected. It was really early, but the start of this season had me wondering if he might be more of a dud. I don’t think so now. I think he just needs time. The good news is that Stevie seems to understand that. The bad news is that WE have to understand that too, and it’s tough when watching curling is better than watching Red Wing hockey. We are just gonna have to be patient and pray that our almost-1-in-5 chance of landing the top pick actually happens. Unfortunately, there is more of a 4-in-5 chance that we WON’T. Truly, I think that the odds of the worst team getting the best pick should be better than 18.X%, regardless of whether our team is that worst team or not. It shouldn’t be a coin flip, but it should be more than 1-in-5.
  15. @yave1964 So, I take it, depending on how strong the other non-Dman prospects are below Frenchy, you would consider possibly trading down a 2nd or 3rd pick if it didn't look as though the top D-man prospect would go top-4 or -5, yah? As long as we were "safely" above where the top D prospect will probs go? Might get a prospect or extra pick for it for the right team that might want to move up.

Game Room 1

    You don't have permission to chat.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...