The difference is Tatar is in the last season of a bridge contract. He makes a measly 2.65 mil. He's been a great value. The question is will Tatar also be signed to at least a 4 year deal, and for how much? A lot depends on this season. I like TT as a person but would pass on him being re-signed.
In the name of what logic would you pass on signing a free, young asset like Tatar? Like...what's the payoff?
If a GM can't get a small, incomplete player signed to a palatable deal while he's still under RFA control, he should be fired. Even in a world where UFA Darren Helm IS actually worth almost $4M on a 5 year deal, Tatar coming off a down year isn't worth a contract that breaks the bank at anyone's negotiation table.
You don't cut your losses in dumb, overstuffed, maxed-out investments by shaving knickels off your roster via cheap, incomplete talent with the potential still to round out their game.
Well, tonight he was playing with Sheahan and Abdelkader. Not sure what you can expect offensively there.
This post needs to be stickied because it's going to get recycled in some form. A lot. It essentially sums up what will be our aggravation over the next several years as well as the auto-excuse for Holland supporters.
"Well, tonight he was playing with Sheahan and Abby. Not sure what you can expect offensively there."
"Well, tonight he was playing with Helm and Sheahan. Not sure what you can expect offensively there."
"Well, tonight, he was playing with Abby and Helm. Not sure what you can expect offensively there."
Yet he's still consistently looked like one of the only people who cares.
"Looked like." Yes. You can literally say this about almost any player who has made a big career out of being an energy or bottom 6 player. Wonder why they rarely make Captain...
I'd fashion a guess that it's because it's a lottttt easier to take a shift, forecheck hard, battle in the corner, and backcheck aggressively when that's the standard expectation of a player than it is to take a shift, forecheck hard....while looking for offensive seams, battle in the corner....while looking for the open man, and backcheck aggressively...while looking for the offensive transition. It's almost as if having the added expectation of skilled offense makes those players a touch less deliberate (and likely more hesitant) in their rarely-rote roles.
To call out Helm in his own thread says a lot about the opinion regarding him: generally he isn't liked. Statistics aren't necessary to make the argument. Was he signed to be a goalscorer in the top 6? No.
Entertaining the criticism for a second I don't like the way Helmer is making moves with his head down, getting poke-checked or stripped of the puck way too often. He usually recovers but it shows a lack of consciousness. His goal-scoring touch has not developed at all, that is the main annoyance I think from fans. It kills fans who watch a guy like Helm or Glendening work hard but have like 1% chance of potting a goal.
I still defend my position, at 3.85 what Helm brings is worth the cash. He's one player who hasn't regressed. His presence winning battles and aiding the D is evident. His possession stats must be high yet again this season. He plays like a professional and I believe adds to what little standard of order within the Wings that still exists.
I'm MUCH more concerned about the role of Abdelkader, Kronwall, Zetterberg, and Nielsen. Could add Nyquist and DeKeyser to that list as well.
I'm pretty sure Helm being "called out" is more a response to someone's even hastier thread made weeks ago about how maybe we should rethink our criticism of Helm's deal because he was doing so well and scoring so much based on the first 6 or so games of his new deal.
At least with AA out for a few games, Blabhill won't have anyone to get his blood pressure up over.
You only need to look at last year's Stanley Cup winners to see what a coaching change can do.
I know we don't have Crosby or Malkin but the guys they added were young AHL guys who pushed the vets with a coach who replaced an incompetent one.
This guy is still having trouble coaching.
Like distributing time.
I wanted Mantha up but seriously 18+ minutes the first night you bring him up?
Over the regulars?
I wonder if anyone really wants to play for him?
First of all, you lose a lot of credibility when you brush off having Crosby and Malkin as though it's not worth serious consideration when talking about differences in team make-up. Not to mention a Norris candidate.
Second of all, you completely fail to consider the reason WHY having the likes of Crosby, Malkin, and Letang made the likes of Rust and Sheary so viable. Lest we forget that Hudler, Helm, Abby, Sammy, and others were considered mediocre, Walmart supplements prior to our Finals-appearing days as well. Having superstar depth tends to let the dregs of a Stanley Cup roster thrive, amirite?
As for calling out giving Mantha his due "over regulars" in the game against Montreal, I do hope you considered the overall effect of the score (and how Mantha was used on special teams). As a point of reference, no one would've been upset about AA's usage if his TOI averages were taken from out-of-reach games. The inverse is true of Z's ice time. If a coach thinks a game is at the point of...let's call it "unwinnability..." then all bets are off and getting your infants some experience trumps rallying the team to score 5-6 goals in the last 18 minutes of a game, or whathaveyou.
Lastly, you're comparing the Wings changing coaches to a structured roster changing coaches. And I dont think this point can be stated enough (and yet I've rarely seen it stated): it's a lot easier to deal with a roster where there are defined roles and a recognized hierarchy than a roster where all roles are up for grabs. Johnson's hierarchy was clearly defined with Crosby, Malkin and Letang all ready to go. But with us, it's a mixed bag.
