Minnesota Wild General Discussion - 2023-24

[Sota Popinski]

Option 1, hey? Looks as bad as I imagined. There really are no good options right now.


You're right, I'm saying Rossi is a 3rd liner and should get no shifts with the top lines. You're not misrepresenting me at all. Cool. Glad that's clear.

justify - show or prove to be right or reasonable

I don't see how you aren't justifying playing rossi in the 4th line in your posts. You are saying it's reasonable for Hynes to do it because he doesn't have another option to make the players on the 4th line viable.

If they aren't viable on their own, send them back down and call someone else up. Gaudreau is making 2.1M for the next 5 years. If he can't be part of a serviceable 4th line, why is he here?

 

[AKL]

The correct move? Shit, I don't know if there is a the correct move when the options are this bad. The point of my posts have been that Hynes wants to make that 4th line viable, and that there's logic to how he's going about it (never minding why Rossi is the one stuck in that situation). Apparently some around here (and Hynes) can't understand that a player doesn't just have to play the line he's slotted into on paper, though. I feel like that isn't hard to understand, and yet I also feel like people are reading 'The fourth line needs Rossi right now' and stopping there when the full context is 'The fourth line needs Rossi right now, but Rossi should also get shifts on higher lines because he's a good player'.

The issue has never once been you saying he should get shifts further up the lineup.

The issue is, and always has been, that he shouldn't have any shifts with Lettieri and Lucchini on the fourth line. And I think some people aren't understanding that, despite the fact that it's also not a complicated concept.

If your only goal is to babysit Lucchini and Lettieri, you can move another player to that line where you're not sacrificing the offense Rossi brings (Gaudreau for example, a defensive specialist who brings nothing offensively anyway). As is, even giving Rossi additional shifts up the lineup, you're still completely wasting two-thirds of his ice time every game on baby sitter duty. There are better options than that.

Again, I understand Hynes point of view, I don't need you to repeatedly explain it to me as if that's the part that's in question. I don't need you to tell me Lucchini and Lettieri aren't NHL players. I agree there's logic in trying to improve the fourth line. The point of contention is that the solution Hynes deployed, choosing Rossi to be the one to move down there, to be blunt, sucks, because it is a complete waste of one of the top four even strength players on this roster.

 

[AKL]

If they aren't viable on their own, send them back down and call someone else up. Gaudreau is making 2.1M for the next 5 years. If he can't be part of a serviceable 4th line, why is he here?

This is just it. This is what Gaudreau is made for- to be a defensive presence in the bottom six. That's why he got a 5 year contract for more than any fourth liner should. If he can't do the job he shouldn't be here. If Lettieri and Lucchini aren't adequate fourth liners, get someone like Petan or Milne or Walker up here to try something different. If none of those are viable, spend a 6th or 7th to get another Maroon if it's that important to you.

Rossi to the 4th line should be one of the last resorts. You should be out of fingers to count your ideas on before that one comes up.

 

[BagHead]

The issue has never once been you saying he should get shifts further up the lineup.

The issue is, and always has been, that he shouldn't have any shifts with Lettieri and Lucchini on the fourth line. And I think some people aren't understanding that, despite the fact that it's also not a complicated concept.

If your only goal is to babysit Lucchini and Lettieri, you can move another player to that line where you're not sacrificing the offense Rossi brings (Gaudreau for example, a defensive specialist who brings nothing offensively anyway). As is, even giving Rossi additional shifts up the lineup, you're still completely wasting two-thirds of his ice time every game on baby sitter duty. There are better options than that.

Again, I understand Hynes point of view, I don't need you to repeatedly explain it to me as if that's the part that's in question. I don't need you to tell me Lucchini and Lettieri aren't NHL players. I agree there's logic in trying to improve the fourth line. The point of contention is that the solution Hynes deployed, choosing Rossi to be the one to move down there, to be blunt, sucks, because it is a complete waste of one of the top four even strength players on this roster.

This is spot on. It's sometimes hard for the business side and the meritocracy side of hockey to square up completely, and when things are close, the higher paid player is usually the one who plays the higher role.

I think there's still room for Rossi on the 2nd line. Hartman - Rossi - Zuccarello seems like it would have promise, at least enough to give it a trial run. I imagine that the problem with that, though, is that it puts Johansson on the Lettieri - Lucchini line, and that looks bad enough on paper that I don't even want to try it in real life. I don't think Hynes is punishing Rossi, I think he just has shitty options and is trying to maintain the ability to play 12 forwards instead of 9. It sounds like he knows how good Rossi is, and is using that to make a terrible line halfway viable.

I'm going to go back to my original post here, which trigged this whole damn thing. It was about how the nature of hockey as a business sometimes clashes with it's nature as a meritocracy, how I think Rossi still has a place on the 2nd line, but how I can understand why Hynes is putting him on the 4th and that it's not to punish him, but instead to make the line function. (I later said I think Rossi needs to be on that line for it to function, and I think he does, otherwise it needs to be broken up)

Now point to the spot where I said Rossi belongs on the fourth line, since you've spent the last 2 hours trying to make me say that I did.

The fact is that I don't know what the best option is, and you don't either, because it's not the type of thing you can run a controlled experiment on. I'm ok with them trying alternatives, I just think all the alternatives also suck for the Wild, and probably just as much.

 

[AKL]

I'm going to go back to my original post here, which trigged this whole damn thing. It was about how the nature of hockey as a business sometimes clashes with it's nature as a meritocracy, how I think Rossi still has a place on the 2nd line, but how I can understand why Hynes is putting him on the 4th and that it's not to punish him, but instead to make the line function. (I later said I think Rossi needs to be on that line for it to function, and I think he does, otherwise it needs to be broken up)

Now point to the spot where I said Rossi belongs on the fourth line, since you've spent the last 2 hours trying to make me say that I did.

The fact is that I don't know what the best option is, and you don't either, because it's not the type of thing you can run a controlled experiment on. I'm ok with them trying alternatives, I just think all the alternatives also suck for the Wild, and probably just as much.

Justifying this move by Hynes, and saying Rossi belongs on the fourth line due to his play, are not the same thing. The former you have 100% unequivocally done, and continue to do. The latter I have never accused you or anyone else of, it's seemingly just a straw man argument.

 

[BagHead]

Justifying this move by Hynes, and saying Rossi belongs on the fourth line due to his play, are not the same thing. The former you have 100% unequivocally done, and continue to do. The latter I have never accused you or anyone else of, it's seemingly just a straw man argument.

The hangup here seems to be that I'm explaining, not justifying.

Justify: show or prove to be right or reasonable.
Explain: make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.

I didn't Hynes was right, nor do I think he is completely right. Heck, I've said that I don't know what the right thing is, if such a thing even exists.
I did explain why I think he took those actions and that I didn't think those reasons were punitive.

Saying I "justified" them means that I think those actions were right. This is misrepresentation of my beliefs, and that is something I won't abide.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Count me in as somebody who doesn't really care if the 4th line is any good. If they're not, you make the best 3 lines you can and just play them.

 

[AKL]

This is getting ridiculous.

1) Justifying the decision by Hynes doesn't inherently mean you would do it yourself, it means you're trying to defend Hynes' decision as a right or reasonable action

that a player doesn't just have to play the line he's slotted into on paper

No, it is not. I'm not advocating playing him in the bottom-6, like that's where he belongs. It's the nuance of needing to put him on that line vs. wanting to put him on that line. I don't want him there. The Wild need him there. The only way to make a Lettieri - Lucchini line even halfway-viable in the NHL is to put them with a really good player, be it Rossi, JEE, Boldy, or Kaprizov

This is you defending the action as right or reasonable. The Wild need him there. It's the only option (that or one of the other three).

2)

Saying I "justified" them means that I think those actions were right. This is misrepresentation of my beliefs,

Personally, I think they should be giving Rossi that AHLer shift

Pick one and stick with it. If you think he should be getting the AHLer shift, you can't then claim it's a misrepresentation of your beliefs to say you're defending the decision to give him the AHLer shift. Let's be realistic here, I am not the only one who "misunderstood" your "explanation" as a justification.


If all of this was you explaining Hynes' POV, then you shouldn't have done that, for starters, because I never needed his POV explained, but you should have made it explicitly clear that you were explaining Hynes' POV, instead of using language like "I'm not advocating..." and "I don't want him there", "Personally, I think they should be giving Rossi that AHLer shift". Because at that point you're sharing personal opinions and beliefs, not your interpretation of others' personal opinions and beliefs.

Again, just so this is as clear as can be, I don't need you to explain Hynes' POV to me. I already know his POV, and I know how he justifies it to the public. My point is and always has been, that his reason behind this, while logical to an extent (improving the fourth line), resulted in a bad decision (choosing Rossi to demote), that is unjustifiable for an NHL caliber head coach.

 

[57special]

Only reasons i'm not outraged about Rossi's usage are;

- I'm thrilled about his year so far, and expect him to run into a wall soon. Limiting his minutes should help with that.

- This team isn't going anywhere this year, so I'm ok with us having stupid lines. Nice to see Boldy/JEE/Kap become a thing, at least.

- lack of a good line mate for Rossi with the characters we now have on the 1st line.

I'm pretty much in pack it in mode, so my comments pretty much reflect that. Love what Faber, Rossi, and Boldy are doing, but they can't overcome what is a poorly put together team with a 15M cap hit, besides.

 

[AKL]

- This team isn't going anywhere this year, so I'm ok with us having stupid lines. Nice to see Boldy/JEE/Kap become a thing, at least.

For me, it's kinda the opposite. Team isn't going anywhere, so what's the point in propping up the fourth line? What's the point in giving Zuccarello and Johansson all these minutes and trying to spark their games? What's the point in having guys like Mermis, Merrill, Lettieri, Lucchini play over guys like Beckman, Milne, Lambos, Hunt. Not to say you wouldn't also prefer that, I think you probably would.

I do get the general apathy of course. I would just rather see them look towards the future if they're more or less phoning it in. At this point I can't tell what they're doing. Like the entire wheel (rim and everything) came off the mini van 85 miles ago and the windshield is shattered, but they're still driving it home.

 

[Luceni]

its simple: You don't bury the second best Rookie forward of the league onto the fourth line, playing 10 minutes a night with carreer AHLers. You're looking for secondary scoring at even strength? Rossi has delivered that but instead of rewarding him Hynes chose to demote him and limit his TOI. While other players who haven't done shit in their 5vs5 minutes are getting rewarded with top 6 roles on the team.

If u havent enough talent on the team to roll 4 lines you gotta create 3 lines and play them. There is just no serious argument hynes can make for this boneheaded decision regarding Rossi. Period.

All the Users who try defend that move: Open your eyes and get real. I know that's almost impossible to be sober after a wild game if you take a shot after every Zucc turnover. Just try it once in a while - i cant believe that some of you are defending Hynes in that case.

 

[Roman Maroni]

I kinda feel like Rossi is a victim in the sense that he suffers less minutes because the guys that he is playing with are the only players in the second line and below who have a pulse right now. They are going pretty good where they are at and probably won’t fair as well moving them up to the 2nd line or whatever. So, Rossi gets moved down to play with them.
Yes there are some guys who definitely should be demoted, but would probably be so pissed that they wouldn’t be productive there either. So then offensively you become a total one line team.
Somebody needs to have some stones and just demote a few guys.

It's not like he's being demoted to me, it's trying to keep him going.
There are more than one player above him who can't play down the lineup due to their style of play.

 

[MNRube]

If u havent enough talent on the team to roll 4 lines you gotta create 3 lines and play them. There is just no serious argument hynes can make for this boneheaded decision regarding Rossi. Period.

Agree with you here. People are talking about making our 4th line relevant when we haven’t even had a 3rd line all season. I think you gotta split up Zucc & Rossi and give Mojo to one and Hartman to the other. That’s a more balanced middle 6 IMO. The Iowa Italians have heart but Rossi deserves more skill to work with

 

[Webster]

@AKL you need to relax on these Zuccarello turnovers you constantly talk about. I was looking for that in the Jets game and didn't see a single one from him. What I did see was several Boldy turnovers...

And I also tried to explain why Rossi was moved down. Keep in mind that he's already had long stretches on the top line playing with the best, coaches were obiously not that impressed. But he's a rookie who's still learning.

 

[BagHead]

This is getting ridiculous.

1) Justifying the decision by Hynes doesn't inherently mean you would do it yourself, it means you're trying to defend Hynes' decision as a right or reasonable action


This is you defending the action as right or reasonable. The Wild need him there. It's the only option (that or one of the other three).

2)


Pick one and stick with it. If you think he should be getting the AHLer shift, you can't then claim it's a misrepresentation of your beliefs to say you're defending the decision to give him the AHLer shift. Let's be realistic here, I am not the only one who "misunderstood" your "explanation" as a justification.


If all of this was you explaining Hynes' POV, then you shouldn't have done that, for starters, because I never needed his POV explained, but you should have made it explicitly clear that you were explaining Hynes' POV, instead of using language like "I'm not advocating..." and "I don't want him there", "Personally, I think they should be giving Rossi that AHLer shift". Because at that point you're sharing personal opinions and beliefs, not your interpretation of others' personal opinions and beliefs.

Again, just so this is as clear as can be, I don't need you to explain Hynes' POV to me. I already know his POV, and I know how he justifies it to the public. My point is and always has been, that his reason behind this, while logical to an extent (improving the fourth line), resulted in a bad decision (choosing Rossi to demote), that is unjustifiable for an NHL caliber head coach.

What I actually said was...

Personally, I think they should be giving Rossi that AHLer shift, plus shifts with other lines in order to keep using him to a degree that makes sense.

The second part of that quote was important, which is why I included it. I think my whole quote is probably the best option in this situation (but not definitely). It's also not the thing Hynes is doing. I'm literally advocating for a change from the current situation. Just because I agree with a part of what he's doing doesn't mean I agree with the whole of it. When I said "that makes sense", I thought it would be clear that what Hynes is doing with Rossi's ice time does not make sense, otherwise why would I say it?

This is why I take umbrage with the term "justify". It implies that I think Hynes is right, but not only do I not think he's utilizing Rossi right, I'm not even sure there is a right and wrong solution here. This is just seeing bad options, picking one of them to see if it works, and using it until it either does not work, or stops working. "Justify" makes it sound like I'm some crony for Hynes, agreeing with his decisions, when reality is that I've been neutral to mildly negative about him so far. I can't honestly remember praising him for something he's done (which is probably unfair to him, as he did put the first line together).

I also said...

I don't want him there. The Wild need him there.

You've changed the emphasis of the words I said, which normally would be understandable on a message board, but I actually italicized those words in the post so it'd be clear where the emphasis lay. Changing that changes the meaning. Let me state the meaning in extremely clear terms: I think he's best suited to the top-6, but I think the Wild do need him in the bottom-6 right now if they want to run 4 lines. They just don't have enough talent, even defensively, on that line to make it work without someone like Rossi. That doesn't excuse Hynes from only giving him those 4th line minutes, however. He needs to find him minutes in the top-6, additionally.


Addressing the last two paragraphs you wrote, I clarified what I meant originally since you, and a couple other people, made comments that I thought indicated that you misunderstood the intent of my words. I thought maybe I hadn't been clear enough, so I explained how I actually feel about the situation. You're right that I also injected what I felt would probably be the best option for the Wild at the moment, which is different from what Hynes is doing, as I felt that differentiated my personal POV from Hynes's in a way that would clarify the meaning of my words, rather than muddle them. I was obviously wrong about the outcome of that. I hope, now, I have sufficiently explained the difference between what I want (Rossi to get some ice time in the top-6 still) and what Hynes is doing (not giving Rossi ice time in the top-6) at this point, because I too find this conversation to be ridiculous.

Finally, I don't know what you already know and what you don't, so your advice to not post things you already know is not going to happen even if I wanted to comply. I will, however, do my best to state everything as clearly as possible in the future so we can avoid this type of conversation.

 

[NHL1674]

I've never seen so many fan bases wanting JEE and thinking that he is available. He's not moving. The guy is a part of their foundation. And he's cheap as heck! He is way too damn important to this club. And that was before he was teamed up with Kap and Boldy.

 

[57special]

He is singlehandedly destroying our tank, though.

 

[roon]

I don't know about you guys - but I am super jacked for that 21st overall pick again. What this team needs is another dude that will sit in Iowa for 3 years and slot in on our 3rd line as a grinder.

Can't wait.

 

[57special]

I don't know about you guys - but I am super jacked for that 21st overall pick again. What this team needs is another dude that will sit in Iowa for 3 years and slot in on our 3rd line as a grinder.

Can't wait.

I think it will be a 15th, just after the major talent is picked over, but we'll see. Tonight's game against SEA will help determine a lot as will any remaining games against NSH and STL, both of whom we usually suck against.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I don't know about you guys - but I am super jacked for that 21st overall pick again. What this team needs is another dude that will sit in Iowa for 3 years and slot in on our 3rd line as a grinder.

Can't wait.

Can always trade it for quicker help.

 

[JiricekSaveUs]

If we’re picking 10-15, I would consider trading that pick for Lundell. Friedman said that his name has been out there. I think he would shine here given more responsibilities.

 

[57special]

If we’re picking 10-15, I would consider trading that pick for Lundell. Friedman said that his name has been out there. I think he would shine here given more responsibilities.

Boo.

 

[Jbcraig1883]

Got the newest THN magazine (had a sub since as long as I can remember). This issue has Faber and Rossi on it, which is awesome in and of itself, but it's the "Rookie Issue". Well I have not gotten that far, but they show the average age of every franchise and Wild are 31 of 32. You all may have already know that...but my gosh...just another variable onto dead cap, injuries, etc.

Also, just another reason to hate the Zucc, Foligno, and Hartman extensions. And for those of you who are happy with 1, 2, or all 3, it is not necessarily that I hate the player or whatever (I do hate the term and $ amount, but thats another point), it's that the Wild could have revisited them in the offseason after flipping them at the TDL, getting some youth in the form of draft picks or prospects, and then seeing what the roster looks like in FA, etc.

 

[f7ben]

Got the newest THN magazine (had a sub since as long as I can remember). This issue has Faber and Rossi on it, which is awesome in and of itself, but it's the "Rookie Issue". Well I have not gotten that far, but they show the average age of every franchise and Wild are 31 of 32. You all may have already know that...but my gosh...just another variable onto dead cap, injuries, etc.

Also, just another reason to hate the Zucc, Foligno, and Hartman extensions. And for those of you who are happy with 1, 2, or all 3, it is not necessarily that I hate the player or whatever (I do hate the term and $ amount, but thats another point), it's that the Wild could have revisited them in the offseason after flipping them at the TDL, getting some youth in the form of draft picks or prospects, and then seeing what the roster looks like in FA, etc.

Hartman is probably underpaid and is a good player. It’s idiotic to include him with the other two

 

[Jbcraig1883]

Hartman is probably underpaid and is a good player. It’s idiotic to include him with the other two

Underpaid this contract, agreed. 4 mill for next contract as a 29 year old who will not put up the points he did two years ago and will be surpassed by others...not at all idiotic, because again, we could maybe have re-signed him. It's not that hard to understand that you don't re-sign these guys prior to the season starting...there was no reason to. Business 101.