Buppy

Why would you think Butcher would be signed to play for the Wings immediately? Butcher would have 3 years of waiver exemptions. He should be considered on a similar timetable as higher-end draft picks. The only way he would play for the Wings immediately is if he's already better than what you think he will ever be. What doesn't make any sense to me is you don't think he is, or ever will be, any good...but at the same time you think he's going to take a job from someone you think is good. If the Wings are indeed now out on Butcher, "too much depth" is not the reason.

None of this makes any sense. I could see if we were arguing about making a trade for him. Might as well argue that we should stop drafting players until we use up all the prospects we currently have.

But are you arguing that the better player usually doesn't win the job? If not, why are you so threatened by Butcher? You don't want to take the risk of losing Sproul and seeing him turn out better, but you're perfectly fine with the risk of not going after Butcher and seeing him turn out better. And why would there be any risk of losing Sproul at all, unless Butcher is not just better than Sproul, but also good enough to be a regular starter? We aren't going to waive Sproul just so we can have a likely more expensive and waiver-exempt 8th defenseman. And in your second scenario, I would argue that if Hronek or Saarijarvi (or Cholowski for that matter) can't take a spot from someone in GR, despite the "experience", then a year in junior or Toledo would likely benefit them. It's not like our defense sets that high a bar.

I don't understand the opposition to Butcher. Why would he take anything away from anyone, unless he's better? And by that same logic, wouldn't everyone else also have to better for one of the kids you mention to lose out? And if he is better than one of our current kids, how is that not a good thing? Even if it doesn't solve our defense problem, better is still better, and it's not like signing him would have any impact on our ability to acquire any high-end talent.

I very much doubt the Michigan thing being true. Just a coincidence. Helm was similarly well treated. I think it's obvious that Abby is seen as part of the leadership core. He can play in all situations, and anywhere in the lineup. And he's not even in the top 120 forwards in cap hit. He's paid like a solid secondary player, which is what he had been. Overpaid if he ends up playing 4th line scoring 20 points, sure, but not if he's scoring 40. The term I think is meaningless since I think he's a career Wing anyway. Dekeyser is paid like a low-end top-pair/good 2nd pair. Certainly didn't perform like one this last year, but I'd argue that he did over the previous three years. Glendening, yeah, might be the worst. But it's a fairly low-end contract, and similar to deals given to similar players in the past. Your second paragraph is just a laughable exaggeration. None of Nyquist, Tatar, Larkin, or Mantha are great defenseively, or expected to be, but were all in our top 7 forwards in ice time. Zetterberg and Nielsen are good defensively, but also two of our best scorers. The other guy in the top 7 was Abby, and he was also one of our top scorers the previous two seasons. Even if defense was the sole reason AA's ice time was so low, it'd still be a gross exaggeration. But I don't believe that's the case. Most of the players ahead of him in ice time are, have been, or could be expected to be, good offensively as well. I'm sure that, in a way, the fact that AA (and Vanek) produced well with limited ice time was a factor in keeping the ice time limited. In the "those guys are doing well, don't need to worry about them, let's try to get these other guys going" sense. (Yeah, didn't work, and some criticism is warranted for sticking to that too stubbornly, but would have looked brilliant had Abby and Sheahan had career years in the good sense rather than the bad.) Of course AA would get more time if he was better defensively...as a more versatile and well rounded player should...but I don't think you can conclude that he would get more if he were better defensively and proportionately worse offensively, nor even if it did would your depiction of our philosophy be anywhere close to accurate. People make way too big a deal of the cap. As you say we haven't lost anyone of note, and in fact have been able to add UFAs every year. We were in a good spot to got after Suter/Parise, Niskanen, Stamkos had he gone to free agency...wouldn't be at all surprised if we find a way to take a run at Tavares if he's available (though I hope not, but that's another discussion). Holland getting rid of Datsyuk's hit and his ability to leverage LTIR is nothing if not creative. And while I'm sure it would make a lot of people feel better if we were closer to the floor rather than fighting the ceiling, cap space isn't going to make the team better. Free agents just aren't that good, and all the money in the world isn't going to make better players available.

Sheahan signed a 2 year deal worth $950K a year after a season where he scored 9G and 24 points in 14:26 TOI a game at 22 years old in 42 games.

Did you? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or what part of the article/survey you think contradicts what CRL had said, but nothing about it suggests that many of the whole 1300-ish respondents are particularly knowledgeable or objective. I'd bet most people just wanted to ***** about their own team, don't even know anything about most other teams, and based ratings straight off the standings/playoffs.

What does that have to do with what he said? If anything it makes it more likely to be negative, since people are always more vocal with complaints than praise. That people think Holland is such garbage for being unable to again rebuild on the fly without missing a step, while excessively praising Poile...who in two decades as GM in Nashville has won exactly s***...says everything anyone would ever need to know about those people.

Really? Subban is the highest paid defenseman in the league. Johansen is 13th for forwards. decent if he can regularly put up 70+, but if anything overpaid for putting up 60-ish. Forsberg maybe a little under to balance...he and Johansen should probably both be around $6.5-7M. Arvidsson is too early to tell. Great deal if he really is a 30g/60p player, but that could also backfire. Ekholm is the only one I'd really consider a bargain, and even that depends on whether he's a 30p+ player he was two years ago, or the 20p player he was in his other two seasons. Josi and Ellis are the real underpaid guys, for another 3 and 2 years respectively. Examples of how giving a player a long-term deal early on can pay off, though in general I think that's a poor strategy.

The last comment in my post was directed more at the community in general. I should have specified that; didn't mean to single you out. Though as to your point, just looking at this year, the majority of the difference in spending is that we have one more expensive forward, plus Franzen.

That isn't really true. Last season they had Fisher, Smith, Wilson, and Ribiero all at $3.5+ and often playing 3rd line. Ribiero eventually got waived. They had 8 active forwards @ $2M+, averaging $4.136M. We also had 8, averaging $3.951. We spend more on our defense, but that's mostly due to being at different stages. Let's see where they are once Josi and Ellis are in their mid-30s. (I'm guessing it will be starting another rebuild, and most everyone on the current team will be gone.) What they have done well is sign several young players to long-term deals that have worked out well so far. Josi, Ellis, Ekholm, Jarnkrok, and even Forsberg. Good chance Arvidsson works out that way too. Johansen not so much I think. And is this Nashville love-fest going to be a thing now? They were a mediocre team that had a good playoff run. Great defense unit, and some good forwards, but hardly anything we should be thinking of as the new model for success.

Calling it a win :), Ovie did have the lowest goals per game of his career.

Maximum you can bury this year is $1.025M. Likely a moot point though.

This narrative is not supported by reality. Sheahan was a regular on the PP for the first 10 games or so, while AA had little PP time. AA then was a regular for a few games until he got injured. Sheahan went back for a couple games, then was taken off for 10, came back for a dozen of so (when Abby was injured), then was removed again for 20+, regular again for around a dozen (after Vanek was traded), then again mostly off the last few games. AA was used sporadically for 25 games or so after returning from injury, then became a regular (more or less, near the bottom of the regular list) for the rest of the season. There's no correlation between Sheahan's PP time and AA being removed. (Might be a correlation between SHGA and AA's PPTOI being reduced at times, but I don't know what specific games AA was on the ice for a SHGA.)

Correction: TB gave up the 4th and (conditional) 7th. They then sent Streit to Pit for a 4th. So basically they paid to get rid of him. That said, I agree we'd likely be better off if we had kept him and not signed Weiss/Richards/Nielsen.

Artist rendering. This is the actual cube:

While it's obvious the Wings are trying to add some size, I don't think it represents a philosophical change. It's just addressing a weakness that stems from most of our past big/gritty players not panning out. Things would be different if Ryno, Andersson, Ferraro, and Aubry had worked out better, or even if Sheahan and Abdelkader were better, and Franzen was still healthy. Rasmussen isn't just big. He was also one of the best players available and his skillset addresses a major weakness in our roster and prospect pool. And we have drafted bigger players pretty much every year even during our peak years...most of those players just didn't work out. Witkowski is certainly a nod to toughness, but no more so than Ott, or Tootoo, or May, or Downey... in other words it's not something out of the ordinary for the Wings, despite what people think. McIlrath is pretty irrelevant. It's a GR signing more than anything. He could see some games if we have a lot of injuries, but that's about it. Maybe still has a little potential to be better, and at one time was thought to be a potential shut-down defenseman. His play in GR showed he isn't just some goon at the AHL level, so it makes sense for them. He's better than many of our defense prospects right now, and fits in well considering most of our prospects lean more toward offense. Despite that one report, I don't believe McKee was signed by the Wings. None of the cap sites show him having an NHL contract, and I couldn't even find anything to suggest he even has a deal with GR. I'm fairly certain that the contract he signed is only with Toledo.

They lost 4 of their top 6 forwards. Owen Wilson probably has a decent shot at making the team.

One of us isn't keeping up, that's for sure.

NTCs aren't as big a deal as people think. I researched it a while back and found that players with NTCs are traded roughly as often as players without. They mostly seem to serve as a way for the player to have some level of control over where they play. Generally, if you have a player you want to get rid of, whatever it is about him that makes you want to get rid of him is likely to be more of a problem than a NTC. Unrelated musing, not directed toward you specifically: Am I the only one annoyed that CapFriendly often cites themselves as a source for their contract information? Probably, but sorry, that's just unprofessional. "Because we said so" is only a valid source for parents.

You're ignoring the opposite side of that; McDavid getting a bigger contract does nothing to help increase revenue, or raise the cap, or remove the cap. The league's best player taking a maximum contract does not help the half of the pie get bigger. It just assigns some of the current half to someone else.

When I first brought up the "don't call Sproul an offensive defenseman" thing, it was nothing more than an offhand comment made to point out that Sproul's offensive production this year was poor. And that was part of a larger point comparing him to Ouellet, in response to krsmith saying Sproul was better offensively. I accept part of the blame for sparking the debate, and for allowing myself to be distracted at times by the semantics. I'll try to get things back on track: Xavier Ouellet is better than Ryan Sproul. Better both offensively and defensively. For the majority of their junior/minor league careers, he has scored just as well as Sproul. He had a more positive impact on the offense this year in the NHL. I believe due to superior instincts and defensive play, he was and will continue to be a more effective possession player, which will lead to greater positive offensive impact. Sproul has potential, and with his shot can be a PP asset, which Ouellet will likely never be. That could skew the stats, but I don't believe that would actually make Sproul "better" offensively. I also believe Daley, Green, Dekeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, and Jensen are better than Sproul. I hope he's able to pass some of them this coming season, but I'm not too optimistic. I would expect his offense to at least pass Ericsson, and possibly Kronwall. None of Ouellet, Jensen, Dekeyser, or Daley should be out of reach offensively either (especially if the "real" Dekeyser is anything like we saw this year), though I wouldn't say I expect it next year. So there's my Sproul take, sans semantics.

Context. There is a world of difference between describing your hopes regarding a player and making a realistic and accurate assessment of a player right now. I have made it abundantly clear that I have not been talking about his potential, but you keep trying to spin in that way because that's all you have. Enjoy your fantasy I guess. Maybe you'll get lucky and some of it will come true. If not I'm sure you'll be able to think of someone else to blame. NHL stat guy, putting together the game report, comes to Sproul's name. Is he going to write, "Sproul is an offensive defensemen. Scored a bunch in juniors, and OK in the AHL. Maybe he'll be good in the NHL someday!" Yeah, probably not... maybe something along the lines of, "0".

You don't understand how it works. In the NHL, players are guaranteed a fixed percentage of revenue. Doesn't matter what any individual is payed. If McDavid signed a contract for $15M, or a contract for $1M, it wouldn't change the total amount payed to players by even a single penny. That's why the NHL has escrow; to make sure the players are paid exactly 50% of hockey-related revenue...not a penny more and not a penny less. If the contracts add up to more than that, the players lose some of the escrow. If it adds up to less, the owners pay players a bonus.

Actually what I did was make a somewhat snide joke about you using the term, in order to imply that Sproul's offense in the NHL has sucked thus far, and so he doesn't yet truly deserve the label in reference to him as an NHL player. What I would say he is at this point in the NHL is nothing. A prospect. Late stage one on the verge of washing out if he doesn't start taking better advantage of his opportunities. But the label isn't really the point. It's the implication behind the label. You can call him a Norris trophy winner if you want so long as you acknowledge that he hasn't actually won a Norris trophy. You call him an "offensive defenseman" it implies he's good at offense. Or at least better at offense than a "defensive defenseman". Implies that you believe Sproul is better offensively than Ouellet. That may have been true at some points in their development, and may again become true in the future, but it was not true this year. Really wasn't even true their last two seasons in GR. There's plenty of reason to doubt that it will be true this coming year. Ericsson scored just as well as Sproul in the AHL, and the NHL so far. So call him whatever you want, just recognize that it doesn't mean anything. Be willing to look past your preconceptions and judge players by how they play rather than the label you've attached to them and/or whatever potential peak you think they might someday reach.