Buppy

Yeah, that's why I said that part. Point was you were doing basically the same thing. Letting factors other than play influence your opinion of his play. "Pretty good" may be a bit of an overstatement, but it's much closer than "trash", at least for the seasons Chaps was referring to. Still doing it too, by framing his performance in the context of his draft position and contract.

1. That isn't really true. Looking at his 4 healthy seasons from 03-04 to 07-08, he had a .908 sv% and 2.71 gaa. Average numbers for the time. 03-04 was a hair above average, 05-06 was a hair below (season after the lockout scoring was up and save% down league-wide), 06-07 was very good and earned him some Vezina consideration, then 07-08 was fairly bad. Howard had a great rookie year, then a below average year, two exceptional years, three more below average years, then rebounded with a great (albeit short) year last year. Much more comparable than you seem to think. But when people think of DiPietro, all they can think of is that he was a 1st overall pick, signed a ludicrous contract, and his career was decimated by injuries. Chaps kind of has a point. Perception has a way of distorting reality. 2. Case in point: It is actually only last year that Howard missed much time due to injury. He was not injured in 15-16, he just lost the starters job. He had more minor injuries in the two years prior to that, but like you say he played over 50 games those years. Yet despite not missing really that much time, the perception of being so injury prone has grown. Probably because the big injury was so recent, and not too far removed from the more minor injuries. Similarly, because his most recent play has also been very good, people are forgetting the previous three seasons, just as those seasons made other people forget about his play prior to that. Long story short, of course Howard isn't mediocre because he's had injuries. He's been mediocre because he's been bad more or less as often as he's been good. Hopefully that's changed, and last year was a developmental step forward rather than just a temporary upswing. If so we can trade him for a decent pick or something, Mrazek will become the old guy everyone hates, and we can start arguing Coreau vs Machovsky vs Van Pottelberghe vs Larsson vs Petruzzelli.

I don't know if anyone's heard, but Mrazek had a s***ty year last year.

What potential? Two years he couldn't crack the AHL, and is back in the ECHL this year. Newer does not equal better. No good reason to think he's anything more than a less developed version of McCollum. I think even if we had resigned him we probably still would have picked up McCollum (as insurance in case we lost Coreau or were able to trade one of Mrazek or Howard, as much as anything). Nagle likely wouldn't have been signed.

Lack of trades only in the context of the team has declined and trading is something you can easily point at and say could have been done differently. If Smith had become the next Rafalski and Sproul had developed into a stud #1 and we we're coming off a Cup win instead of missing the playoffs, no one would be making lame "Trades are hard" jokes or wanting Holland out and someone else to come in and shake things up. Conversely, if we had gotten Green, Daley, and Dekeyser via trade people would still be complaining, just with slightly different complaints. I don't believe "DO SOMETHING!" is at all justified. One, because it doesn't really mean anything. Like saying "AAARGHH!!!" is a valid complaint. It's nothing more than an expression of frustration. Secondly, we have done things, they just haven't worked very well. That people are so dismissive of that says to me that people would be equally dismissive of anything that didn't work. You can say it's ridiculous, but the fact is that going several years without "adequately addressing" a need is incredibly commonplace. I would venture to say that at any given time, at least half the league could make a similar complaint, and over the last 20 years or so I'd say every team has. I'd say the only thing that's ridiculous is our expectations. This is not to say that trades won't work, or that we shouldn't consider that option. Just that trade speculation should be considered in the same way as everything else. It belongs in your last paragraph with all the other possible, but uncertain, solutions.

Sproul wasn't worth anything; any team could have had him for free a few weeks ago. Based on his play last year, he didn't earn any further opportunity. We could have held on to him, and maybe on opportunity would have become available, and maybe he would have done something with it. Or maybe not. I would assume he probably asked for a trade when he was demoted, and Holland did the right thing and found a team that might give him a new chance. I hope he does well and makes it to NY. Always liked him and used to have high hopes for him. Expecting a 2nd for a player who had scored in only 1 of his last 88 games is a bit unrealistic (and wasn't all that good the year before either). Wilson could maybe be worth a 5th, so you could say we did get a 3rd for Sheahan. Pretty good return, given the circumstances. Wilson wasn't "needed" (4th liners never are), but he's an upgrade over what we had. Bertuzzi's still hurt, Svech just got back, and neither have yet shown they can be effective in the NHL. Turgeon has yet to show he can perform consistently in the AHL even.

The thing with hypotheticals is there's never any end to them. There's always something different that you could have done. So if you base your criticisms off of them, coupled with the assumption that whatever scenario you have imagined would be better than what we have, you're creating an unrealistic standard. Pretending for a moment that the lack of a big trade is actually what's bothering people, we shouldn't assume that it is only a matter of Holland being unwilling to make a trade. While it may be safe to assume that we could have made "a" trade, even a trade that people would consider "big", that doesn't mean that whatever specific trades you might have in mind are or would have been possible. Furthermore, we shouldn't act like making whatever trade is so certain to produce better results. As much as we like to think so, hockey teams are not the sum of their parts. At least not in any way we can really understand. Big moves sometimes have little to no impact, or even negative impact, and small changes sometimes result in big differences. Burns, on an individual level, was as successful as you could possibly hope when making a trade, but San Jose as a team became worse. Dallas, apart from the one season, hasn't been notably better since getting Seguin, Hamilton hasn't made a big difference in his two years in Calgary. But of course it isn't actually the lack of trades that has people upset; it's the decline of the team. Even though most people will acknowledge that it was inevitable, "what-if" is just too easy an argument to make.

He's a solid AHL goalie, which we needed and is what he was acquired for, and we got him for nothing. Not sure what's so stupid about it.

The "trades are hard" thing is just another stupid Holland meme from frustrated fans who think they're being clever. AA is not officially signed yet. Wilson is expected to play.

I don't know much about him, but he looks to be a decent upgrade over Booth and Witkowski.

This would be my guess. Starting today, a $1.387M contract value would pay ~$1.25M over the remainder of the season. The math seems to fit the theory.

Coyotes planning to steal our logo?

Got nothing against Galchenyuk, but if we're looking to trade Nyquist (or another forward), it should be for defense, not for a different Nyquist. Not to say we couldn't trade for him and also trade someone else for defense. Nyquist + Tatar + Green for Glachenyuk and Weber ($2M retained)

Not playing "gotcha", but... What strawman? Pretty clearly making an issue of paying him less than he's worth, and also pretty clearly implying Holland is in the wrong. Are you not saying Holland is wrong? Do you admit that 2x$1.9M is a competitive, fair-market offer and not an insulting lowball offer? If so we can drop it and move on. All the stuff about paying him what he's worth? You say my inference that you don't really care about that is wrong. Ok, I stand corrected; you definitely think AA should be paid what he's worth. But then I'm afraid I have to ask the questions that led me to that inference. Is $2.5M all you think he's worth? Obviously not if you suggest a range up to $3M. And in the post suggesting the 4 year deal you said he would likely outperform that deal in 3 of the 4 years, which I take to mean you think he would be worth more in those years. So you're clearly fine with paying him less than what you consider his maximum worth. I suppose then that would have to mean that you believe $2.5M would be still be within his worth range. Is that true? Assuming so, I would wonder how you come to that conclusion. I would argue that it is too high a minimum value now, and too low in the future. Which leads to some good ol' hockey discussion: I posted that earlier in response to one of your comments on comparable players, but you never responded. We can pursue that if you want. And finally, in response to your last paragraph, I would say yes, that could be a fair resolution. So long as you agree that there are other potential resolutions that would also be fair (For example, if 1 extra year of term should be worth $600k extra AAV from Holland, then not committing for the extra year should be worth $600k to AA, and signing for 2x$1.9M would also be fair. Or more of a compromise and say 2x$2.2M), then yes again, nothing to argue about.

Not bragging, but I'm the third richest man in the world. Proof:

I don't yell at fence posts for being crooked either.

You have been saying Holland is wrong the whole time. You say for offering less than AA is worth, but apparently you mean less than what you'd pay, and paying him less than he's worth is fine as long as it gets him signed. Basically what it boils down to is just get AA signed. Maybe I presume to much to guess how you might react in a different situation, so fine, forget that part. As for what I think is fair, I'd say anything in the $1.5-2.5 range for 2 years is fair. Even higher over longer term. I'd do $4M over 6 years. Point is, I think what is being offered is already within the fair range, and therefore doesn't warrant criticism. Regarding my posting habits, while not really any of your business, my "deal" is only that I happen to value logical, rational, well-reasoned opinions. Something often in short supply on the internet and in the emotional world of sports fandom, I know. I like to pretend that my posts encourage people to put more thought into their posts and opinions. If your bulls*** can't stand up to some scrutiny, learn better bulls*** kind of thing. Probably delusional, but it helps me sleep. I could pretend to be sorry about it if it'll make you and krsmith feel better.

I have a multiple 7-figure retirement fund. That's right - 14 figures. A couple still in the original packaging. Living the dream.

You're ok with someone challenging your opinion, but not with someone saying yours is wrong? That doesn't make any sense. And it's not like we're discussing favorite colors here. This is not a completely subjective topic. There is a right and wrong answer, we just don't have the means to say with absolute certainty which is which. You seem to think this lack of verifiability strengthens your case, when it's actually the exact opposite. At least in terms of intelligent debate. The point is less valid specifically because it can't be proven wrong (or right). It's just a hypothesis that you can't test and you're trying to use it as evidence to support a different unverifiable opinion (and sometimes vice versa). Instead of actually thinking, or analyzing what evidence we have to see if there's anything substantial that supports your conclusion, you just want to say, 'It's my opinion and you can't say I'm wrong'. And that's fine. Obviously, you don't have to defend your opinions or their underlying logic. Though if you won't, or can't, it would be nice if you'd be more open to the possibility of being wrong. Wishful thinking on my part, I suspect. Or maybe there's hope still. At least in your analogies you seem to recognize that baseless speculation doesn't justify drawing a firm conclusion. You say you've moved on, but I think it's safe to say that your opinion of our development process, and management as a whole, has been indelibly damaged, in part, by these cases. I don't think it's justified, so I'll continue to argue my case against it.

Intelligent, communicate, use tools, and form social bonds? Sounds like they could be a threat to our dominance. Better kill more of them while we still can. Who knows what they might be working on down there. Plus it's 16 wins now anyway.

Lol, called it. First of all, you're the one who gets upset when people challenge your opinions. I'm just trying to have a discussion. I have no interest in figuratively standing around high-fiving my bros because we all think alike, so naturally I lean toward debating those with contrary opinions. I welcome those contrary opinions. You give the impression that everyone who disagrees with you should leave you alone, because it's just your opinion. To address your points: No, obviously I do not think that our development record alone proves anything, else I wouldn't have bothered saying any of the other stuff. But being generally good at it (which you seem to agree with now, contrary to your previous sarcastic post) does make it less likely that any specific player has been mishandled. As I said, every year dozens of players around the league fail to meet their more optimistic expectations. Are they all mishandled? I'm sure you could dissect each case individually and come up with some hypotheticals that might have served a player better. Each player is a special snowflake and all that. But even ignoring the complete impracticality of that kind of focus, all you would really be doing is nitpicking in hindsight based on completely unsubstantiatable assumptions that something different would have been better. Your problem is that you are basing your opinion on whether or not a player is mishandled on whether or not the player is successful, ignoring the possibility that a player can be handled properly and still fail. So every time a prospect you like fails to live up to your predictions, you start hunting around for someone else to blame. So you end up distorting reality to make it fit your theory. In regards to Jurco; he was originally called up as an injury replacement. Performed decently well at first. That, and also some injuries we had at the start of the following year was enough to put him on the roster. Had a bit of a slow start, sat a few games when we were healthy, but apparently did enough that the team thought he was a better option than Nestrasil. He got back in the lineup, produced very nicely for handful of games on lower lines (Helm and Cleary, then Miller and Glendening), slowed down for a while (ironically after being moved up with Zetterberg and Nyquist), then got hurt. After coming back, he struggled to produce in a lower role, and so couldn't justify moving him up. The following year, he was passed on the depth chart by Larkin and Pulkkinen (and later AA, and Mantha's first stint). In the opportunities he had, he was unable to win back a spot. He was never asked to change his game, he was just played on lower lines because the higher lines were full of better players. He wasn't in and out of the lineup, or expected to do anything amazing. The few times he did do some decent scoring, it resulted in an opportunity on a higher line. I can't agree that he was called up to early, because the majority of success he had came in the earliest parts of his career here. Even if he had started the 14-15 in GR, he would have almost certainly been called up after Franzen was hurt. I can't believe half a year in GR would have done more for his confidence than making an NHL team, and having a stretch scoring 9 points in 12 games. On Sproul, he has had every opportunity to earn a spot. He was just never good enough. Having better players is not mishandling. He was never able to separate himself from the pack. Looked like he was going to early on, I agree, but his development stalled. And I'm not saying he can't still develop into something. Unlikely I'd say, but possible. So you admit that it's up to him, and that his career hasn't been permanently ruined. I assume then that if he moves to another organization, fails there as well, you won't continue to blame it all on the Wings?

Really? Your argument is, "Other people believe it too!"? And no, it's not a matter of me "not believing in that sort of thing", but rather the mountain of evidence to the contrary that makes me think you're wrong. By objective analysis, we have been above average in our drafting success...even through more recent years where we have not had any lucky home run picks to bolster the numbers. Our team consists mostly of players we have drafted and developed, and despite a few notable holes and popular opinion, many of them are pretty good. I can't reconcile that success with the notion that we are so bad at development that you feel it's appropriate to make sarcastic "imagine that" comments. You might then say that we aren't bad at it, and it's just a few individual exceptions. But then I would have to question the extraordinary coincidence of this supposed mismanagement only afflicting a few prospects that you happened to be notably excited about. I also can't agree with what few specifics you have given regarding how and why these players were mishandled. Sproul was bad in pretty much every way you can measure last year. His usage rather perfectly reflected the level of his play. Jurco was worse than every player used above him. Smith never demonstrated any notable scoring ability. There was never anything more than your belief in their potential to justify a different usage. And this myth that the Wings prefer defense, and that "offensive" players are suppressed based on defensive deficiencies doesn't jive with the usage and success of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Larkin, AA, and Vanek (among others in the past), nor with the fact that the offense of these players thus far is really nothing more than, again, your belief in their potential. Nor does the alleged bias against offensive defensemen fit with all the offensive defensemen we've drafted, or the Green signing. And now we have some evidence from different organizations, where Smith and Jurco were used basically the same way, with the same results, Jurco has apparently washed out and cleared waivers, Sproul clears waivers...that does undeniably suggest that at least some actual professionals around the league beyond just the Wings have drawn the same conclusions. So given all the logical incongruity I would have to accept in order to believe your theory, I find it infinitely more plausible that you just made some inaccurate predictions, and these players are just a few more among the dozens upon dozens of prospects each year that fail to meet their more optimistic expectations. But hey, at least you can still say it's all just your opinion, and I can't actually prove you're wrong.

I disagree because there is no foundation for that opinion at all. The myth of stifling offense for the sake of defense is a complete fan fabrication. The Wings have typically been one of the better offensive teams in the league over the last 30 years, only really declining as our talent level eroded (including coaching talent). Nyquist, Tatar, Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Vanek didn't have any problems problem producing, nor have any been asked for anything more than basic defensive effort. You just can't accept the possibility that you might have been wrong about Smith and Jurco (and now likely Sproul), so you have to believe the Wings ruined them.

Please. Sproul isn't even Carl Carlson.

That's disingenuous. The entire discussion you have been painting Holland as the bad guy for trying to get a "team friendly" deal. Now it's suddenly what he's supposed to do? No doubt if it were to come out that Holland did offer 4@$2.5, but AA was asking for just 2 years you'd flip back to accusing Holland of lowballing. Nothing wrong with just wanting AA signed, without any real concern over the specifics (beyond obviously not wanting a deal that hurts the team). That's probably where most of us are at. Just shouldn't be acting like the whole situation is all on Holland. Or all on AA, for anyone taking that position. RFA holdouts extending into the season are somewhat uncommon, but hardly unprecedented. I still say people are making this more of an issue than it really is. I'm sure comparable players are used in all types of negotiations. That they are not the one and only factor in setting every single cap hit, regardless of term, timing, and situation, is a far cry from meaning "dick" though.