What teams might be (dis)advantaged by a short season?
View Single Post
12-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Join Date: Nov 2012
Red Wings. This off season reminds me a lot of the 2010 season. They lost a bunch of key guys and brought in some decent talent but not enough to fulfill it. In 2010 if there would have been a shortened season Detroit would've finished like 12th or 13th in the West.
Though with the Red Wings experience around the 60 game mark they broke through and went like 18-3-2 and got the 5th seed in the West and I think it was a 105 point season.
This year reminds me a lot of that. Lidstrom retiring, Stuart traded to San Jose (because he would've left for UFA) and Jiri Hudler going to Calgary. The Wings brought in Mikael Samuelsson (Former Red Wing) and Jordin TooToo. Some decent talent but neither are better than Hudler (maybe Samuelsson was better than Hudler in 08, 09) but not anymore. TooToo just brings grit.
On defense they brought in Carlo Coliacavo as their main pick up for the off season. That's simply not gonna cut it. The Red Wings were banking on Ryan Suter I get that but you need a reasonable plan B. I have to think this was plan D for Detroit. I'd like to see the Red Wings trade for someone like Keith Yandle. Then their D would be solidified.
I see the Red Wings starting the year out shaky just because of youth and inexperience... especially on the D end. Kronwall and White are about the only two proven D men back there now. Ericsson is inconsistent as hell and Coliacavo still needs to prove himself in the Red Wings system. Brendan Smith and Jakub Kindl look promising but once again they still need to prove themselves as regular NHLers.
I think if the NHL played a 48 game season like in 94-95 they would be hurt by it. Because like in an 82 game season they wouldn't have enough time for the Veteran Leadership to kick in like it did in 2010. I guess we'll see
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by RedWingsForPresident