Buppy

So basically, your whole argument about paying AA what he's worth is a bunch of BS, and you just want him signed, even if that means "lowballing" him even more in the long run and hoping he's stupid enough to bite on it.

He can still be added to the roster after, it would just have to be done simultaneously with another move so we stay cap compliant. He does have to sign prior to December something though (couldn't find the exact date), or he has to sit out the whole year.

I'm not positive, but I believe Ras has to play 2 more years in junior before he could play in the AHL. You have to be 20 or have 4 years in the CHL. Age-wise, he wouldn't be eligible until the 19-20 season. I'm not sure if the games he played for Tri-City in 14-15 count toward the years, but if not he would need 2 more years. But I think it's likely that he'll skip the AHL mostly, and still make the Wings within 2 years.

Yes, it's an oversimplification, I know. But the argument being made was that Frk being used in the "Ovechkin" spot would be the impetus behind our theoretical improvement. And a big part of that is, in fact, waiting for the rest of the players to set him up. I was suggesting that our ability to set things up is our problem, and thus is unlikely to be fixed by a strategy that relies on our ability to set things up. Of course he would be more involved, but the further we step away from that aspect of his game, the more you have to acknowledge that Frk would then not be the driving force behind the improvement. Unless you want to argue that Frk is just an all-around better player than what we have/have had, which I'd say is an even more irrational position. I said because that's what was said in the post that prompted my first response. You can replace that with "key cog" if you want, assuming you are implying some significant improvement. But you're still too focused on defending Frk to really grasp what I was saying, or notice that you have already agreed with basically all my points, aside from the conclusion.

No, I'm reacting like you're suggesting that it's reasonably likely that a 24yo borderline NHLer with 2 games played is going to be the catalyst for "great things" happening on our PP.

You missed the gist of the situation. With the D and F you list, plus Mrazek and Howard, we only have ~$930K in cap space. Not enough space for 2 more F. So there are 3 possible options (not counting injuries): 1. We go with only 12 F for the time being (probably Frk for #12, while Bert is out) 2. We make some kind of move to create additional space (too many options to give any meaningful answer) 3. There is some aspect of cap accounting which we and the cap sites are unaware of, and everything I said above is wrong (Frk for #12, and no one cares about #13 unless it's AA finally signing)

No, I assure you the goal is to score. How you try to accomplish that depends on what specific options you have available. Generalizations are fine so long as you understand that they are just that. If you want to make predictions about specific players, you have to go deeper than that. And that's really all I was saying. PPs are more complex than just having left and right shots. I'm sure you agree with that, even though you're calling it a "lame argument" here. You're offended that I don't share your enthusiasm for Frk, so you're not even trying to understand what I've been saying. So let's get past the generalizations. I will agree, as I've already said, that having both left and right shooters is nice, preferable in fact, assuming all else being relatively equal. I'm sure you will agree that having both does not, by itself, make a good PP. OK? So on to the specifics. I believe the problems with our PP are such that we would not be able to utilize Frk's skills. I think our issues are with possession and puck movement, and having those issues with 5 skaters involved, I don't think it particularly likely that it would improve with 4, plus one guy waiting for a one-timer. Could we improve? Could we show more poise, make better passes, move better without the puck? Of course, but that is something independent of Frk, and the skills are not those Frk is noted for so I wouldn't expect him to contribute to that improvement. He might benefit from that hypothetical improvement, and in that way further improve the PP, but I'd reserve judgement on that until after I see that improvement.

More of a simplistic generalization than a fact, really. Doesn't mean much outside the context of "all else being equal". If the goal was just to have optimal passing lanes, that'd be great. But the goal is to score, and that benefit could easily be negated by having an inferior player on the ice. If we were talking about Ovechkin, yeah, a real weapon like would have some impact. But there's no good reason to think Frk would garner the same respect or produce a similar result. I would expect from Frk more or less what we saw with Pulk. Teams didn't respect him (despite an elite shot), so he didn't open up any space, and because defenses weren't paying him any special attention they were able to prevent the rest of the team from effectively getting him the puck, so they didn't need to respect him. Why would Frk be any different? He wasn't even that good a scorer in the AHL. You want to dismiss Vanek on the basis that he wasn't used properly, and keep adding that caveat to hedge your bets with Frk. But that has nothing to do with Frk, so all you're really saying is that our PP would be better if our PP was better. You're not offering anything specific to Frk as to why he would make us better. Just right-handedness, which for some reason doesn't count for any of the other RHs we've had.

13 F seems unlikely if we have 8 healthy D. Maybe if we trade Sheahan and AA continues to hold out, we could see something like Frk, Svech, and PAP for a while. More likely we go with 12, with one of those 3 plus one of Sheahan/AA. At least for however long it takes for someone else to hit LTIR.

Fair enough, sorry if I overstated the level of your Holland criticism. (Though in my defense, I meant that part as more of a generalization about the board as a whole.) I still say you're wrong about the lowballing/insulting offer. At worst, he's maybe slightly toward the low end of the fair range, but nothing that should warrant criticism. Again, it's a negotiation. You are making a big assumption with this idea that Holland has just given everyone else whatever they were asking for. That it's all just Holland being more obstinate than usual. When Helm was coming off a 24 point season (and also being a good defensive center and PK leader), why are we so sure he wasn't asking for a little more than the ~$912K he got? Or Sheahan more than $950K after scoring 24 in 42 games. Or Dekeyser after scoring 23 in 65 as a defenseman and playing 20+ minutes a night maybe wanted a little more than ~$2.2M. Maybe it's AA being more stubborn than most players. When Glendening was coming off his ELC, he signed for 3 years @ ~$630K. That he (and others) have been treated well after paying their dues should, if anything, give AA confidence that he too will be treated well when his time comes. The same argument you are making could be used to say AA should get more than Helm or Abdelkader, or a similar deal to Nyquist, Tatar, and Nielsen. But no one (not even AA) thinks that because everyone knows he's not in the same situation. So he shouldn't be compared to Glendening either. And maybe you're right that having more free cap space would make Holland more amenable to paying more. But the reason I don't believe that is the main issue is the math I mentioned earlier. Upping our offer to ~$2.3M really changes nothing in terms of what we would have to do to become compliant. There isn't really any urgency here, so it's somewhat more plausible that Holland is just waiting it out to see if we can avoid trading Sheahan. (And that might make sense depending on what, if any, offer we have for him.) Maybe we're thinking of waiving Ouellet, and expecting he'd clear, which would then give us just a hair under $2M, but that would surprise me given Sproul's injury. And even if we did want to say it's all just the cap situation, it doesn't really change anything. Being angry about past decisions doesn't give us extra cap space.

A RH shot is nice to have, but you are greatly exaggerating the benefits, especially in reference to a borderline player like Frk. If you recall, we started last season with Vanek....far, far, far better than any reasonable hope for Frk...and the PP was the worst we've had in 30 years, then fared pretty well at the end of the year without Vanek (or any RH shot). 12-13 we had Brunner, PP was below average. 13-14 we had Alfie, PP was below average. 14-15 all we had was rookie Pulk for 1/3 of a season, with a whopping 1 PPG and the PP was actually good, then back to below average the next year with still just some occasional Pulk. All of those players are as good as or better than what we should expect from Frk. Again, I contend that our shooters have not been our problem on the PP (at least not to a degree that Frk could be considered the solution). There is absolutely nothing even remotely close to special about him; no reason to think he would have some great impact when those other players didn't. And before you bother to respond with the 'I'm just saying give him a shot' angle; that isn't what I'm arguing against. I'm saying lack of a RH shot isn't our problem.The problems we have are with effectively setting up any kind of coherent attack...exactly the kind of problems that would prevent us from "utilizing him properly". If we could find the ability to do that, the PP would improve even without him (or any RH shot). Depending on what players are healthy (and signed), probably even better without him. So sure, try him out while some guys are missing. No harm in it. But we shouldn't be thinking "great things might happen" because he did something nice once against a prospect roster in a preseason game.

Different arguments. I said I didn't think $3M would be a bad deal, and I don't. I like him and I think he would be worth it, especially if it was for a longer term. But I also said it was above market value, which it is, and which is what I'm arguing now. Maybe I am contrarian. I get annoyed by this whole dynamic. Something doesn't go exactly the way we want and it's 'so and so is an idiot', or 'that guy sucks', always attacking something, everything extreme. There aren't any villains here. Neither side is really wrong, and you'll notice I haven't once been critical of AA for holding out or asking for more. It's a negotiation. It would be great if every one went smoothly, and both sides got exactly what they wanted on day one, but that's not how the world works. Judging by the closest comparables we can find, what Holland is offering is a fair deal. AA and his agent are trying to make their case as to why he deserves more (and I would assume that case amounts to more than calling Holland an idiot for past decisions and saying "no one compares to AA"). That's what we should expect. Kind of sucks that it's taking this long, but that happens sometimes. If we can keep our difficult RFA negotiations down to once every 20 years, then we should all send Holland and all of the agents he's dealt with a fruit basket or something.

You're exaggerating a bit. His goals/60 was tied for 29th among forwards playing 30 or more games, trailing such "superstars" as Brett Connolly, Nazem Kadri, Michael Grabner, and Tyler Pitlick. While it is very good, you shouldn't ignore that it is a small sample size. Magnus Paajarvi scored at an almost identical rate and just signed for 1yr/$800K, because he isn't actually good despite his great stats in a small sample. Vanek, who was a UFA, better in every way while with the Wings, and has a history of very good scoring just got $2M for 1 year. I would also argue with your second point. We have 7 other forwards who could potentially score 20+ goals (or 6 if we don't think Zetterberg can do it anymore). Another handful that could score in the teens. I don't believe our scoring issues have been the result of individual ability, nor that AA is as vital as you suggest. I think Svech could probably step into AAs role and give reasonably close results. Parenteau scored 20 just two years ago. You've said previously that you believe Frk could be a decent depth scorer. The most we should reasonably expect from AA over whatever replacement is maybe 5-10 goals. He's not a make-or-break player. And I don't think anyone has any issue with trading Sheahan. I think Holland just doesn't want to trade him and then see AA sign in Russia anyway. Probably not in love with the idea of trading low on him either. But it should be noted that we do not have to trade Sheahan (or anyone else) before we sign AA. We can go over the cap by another ~$4.5 million for now, so we have plenty of room. We would just have get compliant by the start of the season. In the end, everyone is making this out to be a way bigger deal than it really is. There's usually a few RFA holdouts every year, and most are likely due to things we fans would think are small issues. A little money, or an extra year. Why don't they just give it to him, or why doesn't he just take the deal. It'll eventually get worked out, and everyone will forget about it.

Frk's going to be our new Callahan. No one going to give up on him until he's gone. Our problems on the PP, when we have had them, have been in establishing offensive-zone possession and efficient puck movement; not our shooters.

3C isn't a position you would look to "solidify". It's a tweak you make, if needed, once you've got the important stuff covered. Like PVD, I think Sheahan has become superfluous with all the centers we have for the short/mid-term (and I even think Sheahan has the tools to be a better 3C than Helm), plus Larkin, Ras, AA, future picks and/or UFAs..., our center depth should not be an issue. If anything, we should worry about having too many 3C options without any good 1C options (and I think that probably is the fear of most). I had some hope that a switch to wing might result in a Franzen-esque emergence for Sheahan, but then basically the exact opposite of that happened. I don't necessarily want to just get rid of him for cap space. But if we can get that plus also some decent asset for a player who doesn't seem to have much of a role here going forward...

Self-awareness on Tavares' part. A somewhat too subtle insinuation that he isn't capable of being "the guy", and therefore should be looking to play second fiddle somewhere.

If I were going to pay a player ~$9M+ I would expect him to believe that he gives me a chance to win a cup rather than someone looking for a team to carry him. If even he doesn't believe he would be "the answer" here, it would just be more evidence that he, in fact, wouldn't be (not that his career thus far isn't ample evidence of that). So we shouldn't even want him. I understand that if he becomes available we more or less have to make a bid, but I hope you all are right and he wouldn't want to come here. Would both save us from signing him and demonstrate a refreshing level of self-awareness.

It may be true that the RFA market is changing, but it's certainly not drastic. Some players are skipping the typical bridge deal, most still aren't (albeit very often because they don't yet have enough NHL experience when their ELCs expire). But the ironic thing here is doing so would generally be a bad thing for the player, as it would delay their big payday. If there's someone looking to resist that trend in the RFA market, logically it would be AA. And we're not looking for a discount, per se, just market value (as could be derived from the deals given Donskoi, Lindberg, Faska, Hyman, Dzingel, Andrighetto, Nemestnikov, Rieder, Baertschi, Borwn and probably a few I missed). You could say that all RFAs are a bit of a discount relative to UFAs, or you could go the other way and say UFAs cost more (without being "worth" more) because you have to pay a premium in order to acquire them. It might be true that we would have already made a better offer if we had more cap space, but the fact that we don't have the space to offer what we're already offering and could in fact already offer more based on the logical move we would already have to make suggests otherwise. I'm guessing they'll end up settling somewhere in the $2.1-2.3 range.

I said, "partner who complements his skills", not, "elite superstar to carry him". He meshed pretty well with Quincey, and looked like a decent top pair in 14-15. Blashill messed them up a bit, but still wasn't terrible. Someone positionally reliable who can make a good pass. Like a Spurgeon or Stralman type, though ideally someone with the muscle to clear the crease when needed.

I think it was a combination of Green/Jensen and Blashill, plus just the overall bad luck of the team, making Dekeyser look bad. His role and usage has not changed much since he started here, and his first two years under Babcock were significantly better. In Blashill's first year, paired with Quincey mostly, was also better despite being somewhat more defensively deployed. I think he is a passable top pair, with a partner who complements his skills at least. Not sure we have that partner for him though.

You're off base on this one. For one, even to give the $1.9 offer he has to move Sheahan (or do something similar). Doing that would actually give us ~$2.3 for AA if we replace Sheahan with Bertuzzi (or ~$2.1 with Svech), without making any other moves or any LTIR besides Franzen. It doesn't seem likely that the cap situation is the main issue, or even necessarily an issue at all. Looking around the league at comparable players puts the market value at right around $1.9 for 2 years; just what we're offering. Unlikely that is a coincidence. Is he worth more? Maybe, depending on how you want to define "worth", and I would guess we'll end up settling a little higher. But we are absolutely not lowballing him, much less insultingly so. You like AA, so you're letting your emotions cloud your reasoning.

Sign Holland to a 20 year extension!

That is highly unlikely due to the cap situation. Might be possible if we were to dump both Ouellet and Sproul, and let Witkowski serve double-duty as both 13th F and 7th D, but I don't see that happening. Could also work if Mrazek gets dealt, but I don't think the interest is out there right now for that. Assuming no one gets hurt, Sheahan seems to be the only realistic trade candidate, then either go with just 12 F or dump one of Ouellet/Sproul and sign Parenteau or call up Svech. Though I'm guessing someone will end up hurt.

Fisch is now titled as, "Director of Player Evaluation". Sounds like he's moved to more of scouting role, but still somewhat similar.

Lol. You say that like crowded trough pissing is any better when you know the people.