An NHL team hasn't scored this little of goals since the 01-02 Columbus Blue Jackets. They scored 164 while we scored 166 goals. We did score 12 more goals than them 5v5, but even we had a potent power play at 15.1% over their 14%. They did have more opportunities and scored 9 more PPGs.
We scored 94 goals at home and 72 on the road. Pathetic. Only 49 goals scored in the first period. It doesn't help to start every game from behind. Only a .619 winning percentage when we are leading after the first period? Ew. And we'd only win 3 out of 4 if we led after the second period.
If we score first, which we did in 30 games, we still lost HALF the time. We were 9-11-4 when outshooting the other team. I don't think we need to go into shots per game because we all know how the team did this year.
I'm glad I didn't get to see more than 25 games this year. This was a team that tried to win through indifference. This was sh**y.
Yeah...he didn't come back because he's a competitor and felt healthy and wanted to do the job he's being paid for...and captain his team...no way couldn't be that.
He knew their wasn't a point in coming back and playing hurt. They had already been eliminated by a couple weeks. There was no freaking point. He knew the smart decision was to get healthy for next season. But because he knew it would come back on him and lower his reputation if he played in the WC, but not at the end of the NHL season.
I can see it from both sides. But the WC is a big thing for those overseas. I don't think any of us could care less about it. Most of us would rather see him get healthy for next season than try to defend Finland's championship. I'm not questioning his heart to play, but I'm saying he knew the better decision for the Wild, and the better decision for himself and Finland. Considering the Wild are the ones paying him, I'm upset with this.
By putting a "C" on their jersey? Being forced into leadership does not make a good leader. Didn't Lemaire's rotating captaincy philosophy teach us that?
By putting a "C" on their jersey? Being forced into leadership does not make a good leader. Didn't Lemaire's rotating captaincy philosophy teach us that?
I don't know. I think not having any labeled captains, and each player steps up to do their part and motivates teammates to do better. I can dream, at least.
The “rebuilding” excuse is the exact same cop out a lot of people are perfectly willing to use with the Wild. They got "devastated by injuries" just like the Twins did last year. Sure they did. BUT, they did not have enough depth to overcome those issues because of inadequate planning by the GM, Chuck Fletcher.
...
This past summer, Fletcher managed to sign:
Mike Lundin, $1.0M
Josh Harding, $750K
Those two guys. That's it. On a team that was nowhere near the salary cap ceiling. He knew the team was paper thin on depth and did nothing about it.
That's why, in my opinion, he screwed up big time this year. He didn't prepare for success, and when it came and left, he got ZERO CRITICISM for it from the fans and the media. Everyone gave him a complete pass because of the prospects while maybe two people I’m aware of (including myself) called him out on it.
The other person would be SoH, unless I'm forgetting someone.
The other person would be SoH, unless I'm forgetting someone.
Just as when you've brought this up earlier in the year, I couldn't disagree more. Your solution continues to be "prevent flexability, and mortgage the future to purchase a 1st round exit this season."
Find me these numerous amazing free agents or trades we could have made for depth that would have been gone by the 12-13 season (or capable of playing a major, positive role there) and you can possibly have a point. Of course, I could offer you $10MM to do that with perfect comfort because of the potential responses.
The other person would be SoH, unless I'm forgetting someone.
Really enjoyed that post. I hadn't really thought of it that way before to be honest, it's just so easy to say injuries happened and we didn't have the depth, but the real question then becomes why didn't we have the depth? It's on Fletcher to be ready in case that scenario happens.
As far as next year goes, I don't think we're going to see him signing a ton of depth players because he wants to give prospects chances. I mean search the bargain bin and see what you can find, but is Christensen worth giving a contract to and then realizing he just isn't that good and having to eat that salary because a younger player is much, much better than he is? I don't know. I feel like Fletch has done well to rebuild the prospect pool, but his NHL teams sure have not been good, and his first coaching hire did not go too well either. Yeo seems better, but he did lead to the most epic collapse in NHL history. The jury is still very much out on Yeo. I don't think we need to fire Fletcher yet, but the seat should be getting hotter than before.
In addition to the depth idea, I think it will be better next year, but I'm not sure how ready all of these guys will be. I'd like them all to get a good year in Houston and develop and play together. All prospects have different developmental paths, but we need better options than counting on Bouchard and Latendresse. From his end of year news conference, I know he was saying that he hopes that they both can play, and it seemed like he was more or less fine with rolling with Bouchard. Or maybe, he was saying that he doesn't want to sign a $4M a year player that can put up 50-60 points that is similar to Bouchard if/when Bouchard doesn't have a concussion. I guess he's in a tough spot, but we need better depth than Jed Ortmeyer and Warren Peters, that much is for sure.
Perhaps the way to construct the team for next year is to put together three NHL scoring lines, one solid NHL checking line, and replace as many mediocre AHL players with quality prospects on two-way deals.
So instead of our usual line 1, line 2, checking line, crap 4th line, try and make 3-4 good NHL lines for that kind of depth.
It also means not filling out the third pairing with players like Falk and Prosser who are inconsistent but with having three pairing of quality NHL players or promising prospects. I mean, there are extra roster spots you can keep fringe players around instead of putting them in the lineup.
The other person would be SoH, unless I'm forgetting someone.
I disagree. We didn't lack depth on our NHL roster. We lacked depth in Houston. Fletcher couldn't exactly go out and sign NHL UFAs and put them in Houston to be ready for future injuries.
Risenbough was god-awful at drafting. From 2004 to 2008, the Wild only got half-way decent contributions from 3rd Rounder Stoner, 3rd Rounder Clutterbuck, 4th Rounder Falk, and 2nd Rounder Scandella. That's 1 quality talent and 3 depth players in 5 drafts.
No team can survive when there are no reinforcements coming.
What was Fletcher going to do? Trade away the entire Wild squad to get back 5 years of wasted drafting? I'm guessing people would have been even more pissed if that happen.
As far as I am concerned, the only significant mistake Fletcher has made was the Leddy-Barker trade. Which is big. But its not any bigger than each time Risenbough busted in the 1st round.
Last edited by nickschultzfan: 04-13-2012 at 11:13 AM.
I have no problem with Fletch this year. The only thing that will be annoying is if Harding doesn't get signed again. Pretty sure we could've had a second for him right?
Radim Vrbata 3 year contract, greatly inhibits the ability of the team to act in 12-13 and 13-14. Had a career year, but easily could have been Cullen instead
Michael Ryder 2 year contract, more tolerable than Vrbata, but also two years older
Chris Higgins 2 year contract, there's a reason he was on 5 teams over the previous 3 years, would have been a moderate risk/low reward move, would have demanded more term and money than the Nucks got him for
Simon Gagne notsureifserious.jpg
Alexei Ponikarovsky After his disastrous stints with LA and Pittsburgh, this signing would have been heavily derided. However, it would have been a very low risk move that would have been fine
Sheldon Souray Obvioustrollisobvious.jpg
Ian White This would have been a fine signing, but I don't think we would have gotten anywhere near the same price/term as Detroit did
Don't think signing any of these guys would be "mortgaging the future".
Out of those, you could try argue Ryder as a good move. Higgins and White would have been fine (but it would have been a bidding war for an aging player where the other bidder is a popular cup favorite). Ponikarovsky would have been relatively poor as a signing, but considering the price the Devils paid for him, maybe we should have tried to swing a trade (but Carolina was in playoff contention when we were looking, so they may not have been willing).
So you have a couple bidding wars we would have lost and two maybe moves we might have been able to swing. Hardly what anyone could have called options, especially when we could have ended up with Leino or Wisniewski or other such problems/disasters instead.
I think the center of the argument is that we shouldn't accept and expect mediocrity just because of past failures.
The words "respectability" of a franchise means something. Yes, in the NHL it's not really possible to buy a high end team year after year, and yes you need to hit on draft picks, and occasionally you need a really high draft pick.
But it's that Jekyll and Hyde season and complete collapse due to lack of depth that irks me. And the "free pass" that it's a "rebuilding" or "transition" year. No, it really isn't. You don't make trades like Havlat for Heatley and Burns for Setoguchi and just stand pat on July 1st.
I mean, look at St Louis and Phoenix, neither of them have superstar players, both are not big markets, neither of them made big UFA acquisitions (lots of smart moves though), neither of them had big expectations, but both of them actually are on home ice right now in the playoffs.
The team's got a bright future but I would hate to see Fletcher roll the dice on another "got to stay healthy" season.
I don't see how a 2- or 3-year contract would limit the Wild. Especially with the amount of expiring contracts after this coming year and the following one.
Radim Vrbata
Michael Ryder
Chris Higgins
Simon Gagne
Alexei Ponikarovsky
Sheldon Souray
Ian White
Don't think signing any of these guys would be "mortgaging the future".
Out of all of those players, only maybe THREE would have been viable options for anything relevant to what we have. And you would have needed to sign them to multi-year deals. Once again, as I told people on my car board who were flipping out at Ken Holland for not spending money in the offseason on FA's....there is always a method behind the madness. Or does everyone forget who is a free agent this offseason that are actually relevant 1st/2nd line players? Out of all the players you listed, the only one that could fill that type of role is Gagne who typically misses as much time as Gaborik used to. Ya, that is all we need. Another player that cannot stay healthy. We had 3 damn players who played all 82 games. And only 5 more (I believe) who played 70+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick
I don't see how a 2- or 3-year contract would limit the Wild. Especially with the amount of expiring contracts after this coming year and the following one.
I'm not really seeing anything in the fourth that's making me say "oh yeah, shouldn't have one after better free agents". Or with that third pairing.
As it has been discussed in the past, Free Agents do not want to sign here. They just don't. So you have to entice them another way...by fattening their wallets up. Do you honestly think we are getting Parise or Suter for $7.5 when every other team that are currently in the playoffs (and consistently at that) are going to offer them that much? And who is to say any of those FA's from last year would have even wanted to sign here unless they got a Mittens like contract that is far beyond overpayment for their skillset?
As an old saying goes, that fits well into this realm: "For every hot girl out there, there is a guy who is tired of her ****"
