Buppy

According to the District Detroit map, the parking garage is in the rear off Clifford/Cass. So probably best to go 96E to 75N, then exit 50 on to the service drive for a couple blocks. then left on Clifford. Though like Kickazz says, never know what might be closed off or under construction, so best to have a GPS. Though one good thing about metro Detroit is that basically every major road goes downtown. Just head east, you'll get there.

Yeah, 3 kids with the same agent being among the last 9 RFAs to sign (though Bennett has now been signed) is a bit telling. I think this is another case of Wings fans being spoiled by success. While the KHL threat is somewhat unique for a non-Russian player, long and/or contentious RFA negotiations are fairly commonplace around the league. But the Wings haven't had a real interesting RFA problem that I can think of since Fedorov 20 years ago. (Dekeyser took a while to get signed a few years ago, but I don't recall any time when we weren't confident that it would get done.) Makes the whole thing seem worse because we aren't used to it.

There's no roster limit in the AHL, and judging from past seasons we will probably carry 8 D there. I'd expect McCarron, Hronek, and Saarijarvi will all battle for a spot in the lineup, though I wouldn't be that surprised if one or both of the latter two were to pass one or both of Lashoff/Renouf on the depth chart. Like Krsmith said, Tansey likely doesn't make the cut and Sulak will head to Finland until next year. Cholowski heading to junior seems to be set as well.

That's a mis-characterization. What was said is that he doesn't want to set the precedent of letting a player use a KHL offer to determine their NHL value. Nothing about bridge deals at all. Seeing as the KHL offer is reportedly one year, it's a bit of a speculative leap to assume that he would accept that amount over a longer-term deal. That said, $3M would probably not be a bad deal even short-term, though it is a bit above the apparent market value. Also, it's probably premature to say bridge deals are "dated". Not going to bother looking, but I'd bet there are many more recent examples of players who have signed bridge deals than not. At least for players around AA's level.

This is supposed to be serious, isn't it? Like a legitimate, non-joke, you-really-want-to-know, real question/complaint. I probably shouldn't be, but I am surprised.

Ericsson should not be traded if we have to take back something just as bad or worse, or retain much salary, or give up anything more than a scrub prospect we already know won't amount to anything. I happen to think E is a lot better than he gets credit for, even from you. Decent middle-pair if he's healthy. But he makes too much for that role, he's never been particularly durable, plus coming off a significant injury, plus has a known chronic hip condition, plus 3 years left. Too much term to appeal to contenders looking for depth, too much risk to appeal to building teams looking for experience, too much money for anyone... We'd have to pay to move him, or take something back that would negate any benefit. About the only thing I could see being feasible that would really help us would be trading him to Toronto for Horton, but they're also tight to the cap and have quite a few raises to give out in the next few years. I think there are many better options for us. Better to just eat the rest of E's contract.

I believe so.

Malik I think (or maybe I should say whoever he copied it from). They forgot to include the bonus carry-over from last year.

Pretty sure it's only Rich and LW. Everyone else is just willing to trade them for a top pair D, not just get rid of them. That said, Rich does kind of have a point. Maybe arrived there on accident for all the wrong reasons, but a point nonetheless. Nyquist is one of our better trade assets. Best I think, outside of Larkin, Mantha, and maybe AA. Free up some cap space, plus get a nice return like a high pick or good D prospect...certainly an option worth consideration. Depending on how the rebuild progresses, we may not want him back once his contract is up, or he may want to leave himself. Trade him for Haydn Fluery, sign AA and Vanek @ ~$2.5M each, call up Bertuzzi...Probably no worse short-term, and potentially better long-term.

It is a different argument. The topic is the cap. If you were talking about replacing them in the lineup, it would have no effect on the cap at all. No one is talking about the lineup at all, because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the context of the topic. You are talking about replacing them on the roster, which you are not doing with a different player that is already on the roster. You need a player that isn't on the roster. e.g. Russo, like I said, and like, I'm sure, you will now claim to have meant the whole time. You mean a 28 year old, former top-5 point-per-game center, who will have spent his best years failing to elevate his previous team, signed for $9M+ until he's 35. And I never said anything was wrong with not spending to the cap. I said we don't need to be desperate and shouldn't be looking to give away assets in order to free up space. If you don't even want to use the space, why pay to free it up?

Strong 6, bordering on 7. On the one hand, I think we bounce back to bubble status. Maybe holds my interest a little more, in game by game terms, but not really that exciting. On the other hand, there is always the possibility of a HELE. Always exciting no matter how minute the chance. On another other hand, the universe has thus far proven frustratingly unreliable when it comes to destroying things I hate, so I'm not getting my hopes up too high.

Completely different argument. You were talking about replacing Kronwall and Ericsson on the roster, so you shouldn't use other players that are also on the roster. Hence why I said change it Russo and Lashoff. (Though we do have 8 D, so amend that 'and' to an 'or'.) He might not be the problem, but he isn't the solution either. And if we got him, he'd be older and thus likely produce less, while also more expensive. Doesn't exactly scream "winning recipe" to me, and that's pretty much the best we could hope to do with an abundance of cap space. The other option would be to sign a few different mediocre FAs. The gist of it being that cap space isn't going to fix us, so we don't need to be so desperate for it. If no one ends up getting hurt, make a small move to fit in AA while hopefully bringing back a positive return. Sheahan to Pittsburgh, for example, seems like an option that would work for all involved. We shouldn't be looking to pay teams to take salary that will be gone soon enough anyway. How so? Pretty sure everyone accepts that Sproul played poorly. We have 8 D and we're over the cap. What's wrong with acknowledging the possibility that Sproul's place on the roster may be in jeopardy?

Though of course, Ouellet and Sproul are already on the team (or at least Sproul was; might have been bad enough that he no longer will be, we'll see). I guess change it to Russo and Lashoff? But whatevs, an extra bunch of cap space would be awesome. We could totally sign Tavares and maybe become the new Islanders. I gots goosebumps just thinking about it.

Yes, cap recapture penalty is applied to the team or teams that benefited from a lower cap hit, even if the player has since been traded.

Yes. Retiring now would be a penalty of just under $3M. Per https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2016/4/26/11513078/salary-cap-recapture-and-buyouts

The recapture is at its worst in the last two years. $5.083/yr

First, as a reminder, the original question was "what has changed [with Holland]", and my response was "the situation", as opposed to your opinion that "he got scared". I wasn't naysaying your opinion on what our plan should be, and in fact explicitly stated that I have no problem with the general "I want to see a trade" idea. The only flaw I take issue with is the (possibly unintended) implication that a "good" GM can do whatever he wants, whenever he needs to. Secondly, it's not that I don't have an opinion, it's that my opinion is that there is no right answer. The old "many ways to skin a cat" maxim. I could, and often do, give my opinion on moves we should try to make, players we should pursue, as well as things I think we shouldn't. But I try to keep that confined to specific hypothetical cases. Start generalizing about the overall direction, I go a bit further than you do. There are just so many things that could work. And finally, I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but rather just aware that whatever I might suggest would neither be the only nor best potential solution, nor even certain to work at all, nor necessarily possible to achieve. It's not a lack of conviction, it's a lack of hubris. I don't think that's a bad thing.

That's just the thing; there really isn't a solution. Any strategy could work, any strategy could fail. "Add talent" is about as specific an answer as I could give. I would add "Get lucky" to that, but if you could do that on purpose it wouldn't be luck.

To start, I don't think you can conclude anything about "willingness", nor that Holland has changed his philosophy. Circumstances are completely different, as is the goal you're trying to achieve. Using a thing he did one time in the past to conclude that his failure to do a completely different thing today must be the result of unwillingness is a poor argument. If your point is just, "it would be nice to see a major trade", I can't really disagree. But if your point is, "Holland could fix the team with a big trade if he wanted to, he's just too afraid now", and your evidence is, "remember that one time when he traded Kozlov", then yeah, I would argue against that.

Not counting the deadline sale this year, or fringe players, or Jason Williams, Kozlov is the only roster player he's ever traded. Saying he doesn't do it anymore is like saying the U.S. doesn't use atomic weapons anymore. There's technically a degree of accuracy, but it's misleading.

It is the situation that has changed more than anything. plus a healthy dose of exaggerating past activity. Holland has never been all that active trading. He has tended to be very patient, and most of his moves have been fairly minor tweaking. Augmenting existing talent rather than shuffling it around. Fine tuning rather than trying to build. He made a few big trades, but under vastly different circumstances. In 99, aiming for a 3-peat, it made sense to trade multiple 1sts for a 37yo Chelios. Now it would not make sense to do the same for Chara or even Keith. Looking to get back on top in 02, giving up Kozlov (who had been underwhelming the previous two years) and a 1st for Hasek was an easy choice (especially considering the UFA forwards that year included Robitaille, Hull, Mogilny, and Turgeon...), but Nyquist and a 1st for Lundqvist now would make far less sense. A 1st+ for Lang back then is better move than a 1st+ for Pavelski now.

The logic just doesn't make any sense to me at all. That you think you have his potential pegged when you probably don't know a single thing about him is bad enough. Then thinking that he isn't good, but will win a spot regardless is worse. Thinking that winning a spot would come at the expense of someone you think is better is just mind boggling. 7 points in 28 games isn't that impressive, period. Defensive play is not Sproul's only problem. His AHL scoring wasn't even that great, and he hasn't developed much at all in 3 years. Mediocre NHL scoring and terrible metrics (especially for a kid so sheltered) on top of that, and we should be starting to think that maybe Sproul just isn't very good offensively, rather than perpetuate this myth that the Wings don't value offense.

I guess all that stuff about him playing in GR was just your clever method of misdirection so I wouldn't see that "we'll have to guarantee him an NHL spot" bomb coming. But regardless, that isn't a reason for us to not pursue him, it's a reason for him to not choose us. We don't know that we wouldn't offer him an opportunity. Don't know for sure that we aren't pursuing him, or if we aren't, exactly why. Could just as easily be because we have already been told he wouldn't come here. Daley may not have been a depth signing, but he pushes others down the depth chart, as you have said yourself when arguing that we shouldn't have signed him. And was Sulak signed to play the rest of his career in Europe, or are we now just going to say that the whole depth thing only counts this year? Sure, we have a bunch of guys that could potentially play the 3rd pair. So why exactly should that mean we shouldn't want that group to be as good as possible? Why shouldn't someone get an opportunity to show that they're better than what we currently have? Your reasoning seems to boil down to: 'Because he'd be worse than what we have but for some unfathomable reason he'd still take a spot away from someone better.'

Lol. I'd like to see your adjective hierarchy if "mediocre 3rd pair/depth defenseman" falls within the spectrum of 'good'. But whatever. Semantics. Are you seriously trying to spin this now, despite not saying a word about it before and even already accepting the possibility that he could play in GR, to be all about what he would demand? Sophistry. Irrelevant at best, considering that my entire argument has clearly focused around the idea that he would only take a spot if he was better. Obviously I wouldn't blindly acquiesce to whatever he might demand. I wouldn't guarantee an NHL spot any more than I would guarantee to move the franchise to Milwaukee if he "expected" to play in Wisconsin. But there's a big difference between, "don't pursue that guy, I don't even want him to play in GR" and "we probably couldn't offer him the opportunity he wants". I'm saying we would keep him in the minors for 3 years, just that he doesn't have to start in the NHL immediately. He could start in the NHL right away, if he's good enough...or if he isn't he doesn't. Maybe never makes the NHL at all. No one is going to unconditionally guarantee him an NHL spot. A few teams might have less competition than the Wings, but not many and not by much. Neither our NHL roster nor our prospect pool are that strong. I don't need to be "in the know" to know that "too much depth" is a stupid reason that didn't stop us from signing Daley or Sulak, and wouldn't stop us from going after anyone else we thought was good.