Buppy

To clarify, I don't mean I think he's going to blow up the team. I just mean I think now it's going to take longer before we start making moves to improve the current team rather than the future. That the kids we have now coming in will mean we'll get better, but only enough to make our draft position worse. That "figuring things out" will mean not doing anything to augment what we have, and that will mean wasting time with our older crop of kids, and trading Mantha and Cholowski could be a thing. That instead of seeing a team built around Larkin, Mantha, AA, etc., we're going to see a team built around Seider, and whoever we draft next year, and the year after. Maybe none of that will prove true. Maybe he'll make a bunch of moves as soon as training camp. Maybe some kids will blow up and he won't even have to. Even if I am right I'm not saying it's the end of the world. But I had concerns about Yzerman prior to his hiring, and I think the timing is just about as bad as it could get, and nothing about his offseason so far has done anything to alleviate those concerns. All the good PR just makes it worse. Bad enough that we even have a 2020 offseason thread started in the 2019 offseason, but some people seem genuinely enthusiastic about yet another throw-away year.

Signing stopgap vets for two years, while stating that he needs to take some time to figure out what we have. Presumably once he figures it out, he's not going to have the same philosophy and opinions as Holland. The players and prospects we have now may very well not for that philosophy. Again, I'm not criticizing Yzerman so much as the timing of the switch.

In case you missed it the streak ended 3 years ago. Even if you want to say that's when the rebuild started (which means ignoring that the final years of the streak produced AA, Larkin, Mantha, Bert, Cholowski, and Hronek), we should still be at the point where we're hoping to turn the corner. Those horrible contracts are not hurting us, and it could be argued that they never have. We have ~$15M in cap space right now, even after giving $6M to Flip and Nemeth. We could have afforded Trouba and Panarin. We could have afforded Tavares last year. Could have afforded Stamkos had he hit UFA a few years back. Even if those contracts really were untradeable, it wouldn't matter. Now, I'm not criticizing Yzerman for not signing Panarin. Not really criticizing him at all for that matter. More just saying that changing horses mid-stream is generally a bad thing. It would be more palatable if I thought the rebuild was going poorly, but it wasn't. Would have been better if it had happened three years ago even. It wasn't long ago that Devellano said we wanted to do something to accelerate the rebuild. It seems what he really meant was just hiring Yzerman to make the fans shut up. Seems we set the rebuild back, or paused it at least, for the sake of fan appeasement, while also replacing our GM with someone who's probably not as good.

That's mostly what I'm afraid of, to be honest. That he plans to take a couple years to get up to speed, and then start to work on his vision for what he wants to build. That we've gone from being 3+ years into a rebuild to multiple years away from starting one.

No, but typically RFAs would prefer to wait unless they think they can get a big payday already. They have no leverage now. Mantha and Bert in particular are probably optimistic about their ability to increase their value this season. I could see AA going for a deal this summer though, but in his case it may be Yzerman would want to see more before making a big commitment to him. There's no particular reason to rush anything anyway.

Some people didn't want him in the first place. Some of us had doubts before he got here. Yes, he's only been here a few months. And in that time he reached with our two highest draft picks, then made two UFA signings of the exact variety people said Holland was so awful for making. You can tell yourself that this was the start of the Yzerman Era you've always dreamed of, but we all know it's not. And he was a GM in Tampa for 9 years, with the luxury of starting with Stamkos, Hedman, St.Louis, the 6th overall pick, and more. Enough to make it to the conference finals in year one. Regressed after that but added 3rd, 10th, and 19th overall picks from those years for the trouble. Had Johnson and Palat emerge 6 years ago, and Kucherov the year after, plus more draft finds after that.... And all he has to show for it is one loss in the Finals, one President's Trophy paired with an embarrassing first round sweep, and even missed the palyoffs one year because Stamkos got hurt. He's had as much success drafting as you could reasonably hope for, somehow even without any of his high picks being very good, yet hasn't won anything. Maybe he just hasn't had the luck you need in the playoffs. Or maybe he's just not that good at tweaking a team.

You misunderstood me. We could have taken that contract and still signed Flip and Nemo. We could still take a bad contract now if anyone still wants to get rid of one. The reason we haven't has nothing to do with bad contracts, our cap situation, or our recent UFA signings. Most likely the reason is simply the fact that we don't have any control over what other teams do. We may have tried to take Marleau. May have tried to do a lot of other things. I don't know why we didn't do different things, but I do know it wasn't because of limited cap space.

Obviously not how much cap space the Wings currently have. We could have taken Marleau's contract, plus just about any other bad deal from around the league. It's a somewhat interesting partial evaluation of cap usage, but ultimately meaningless. Acquiring talent is the hard part of building a team. Figuring out how to pay for it is relatively easy. We could have afforded Panarin and Trouba (contract-wise, maybe not the trade cost). Instead we got Flip and Nemo and $15M in potential cap space we won't use. But at least now we'll get to listen to a new round of idiots telling us how bad contracts ruined our dynasty. Glad this kind of bulls*** was legitimized on a paywall site instead of remaining the tripe of fan blogs. Thanks Dom Lucyzipzamzergyzym.

It's easy to watch two cars and see which is moving faster. Little harder to watch a highway 82 times in a year and glean any useful information from your memory. And again, it's not just that we don't have a good measure of QoC, but that we also don't have a good idea of the impact. Same goes for QoT which you want to dismiss. The analytics crowd generally says QoC is mostly irrelevant. From here: I'm debating this with the same intensity you are. You think Mantha is a better goal scorer, I think AA is. My argument is based on the data. Yours is based on fallacies, assumptions, and a love affair with Mantha over a thing he did a million years ago in JRs. Mantha is a better player overall, mostly because he's a better playmaker but also better defensively, on the cycle, in the corners,, etc. I'd say Bert is probably better overall as well. But AA is currently our best goal scorer. It's close enough that Mantha (or Larkin) could move ahead of him, but as of now AA is on top.

I'm not saying QoC is a worthless stat. I'm saying it's not a stat at all, because we don't have any data for it. It's like trying to judge players based on goals scored without actually knowing how many goals they scored. What was Mantha's QoC? Specifically, not just some vague and unsubstantiated "1st line" nonsense. Like how many minutes did he play against Victor Hedman? And everyone else in the league? Then provide the same data for AA. Then explain exactly how we should expect that QoC to impact their scoring rates, including your methodology and proofs. Again, be specific, and not just some "it makes AA worse" nonsense. Yes, goals scored is a pretty useful stat for determining how well a player scores goals. G/60 is useful for comparisons, since it is a constant unit of time. As opposed to games played, where obviously 1 GP is not the same in every situation. Technically we should take special teams play into account, but doing so would just shift the data a little further in AA's favor so I didn't bother. And finally I looked at all three full seasons. That's the 1.19 > 1.13 I gave you earlier. AA has been better over all, in two of three seasons, and in the most recent. That's why I say he's the better scorer. Because that's what the data says. Maybe next year will be different, maybe not. What I am sure of is that if AA does outscore Mantha next year you will be doing your best to come up with some excuse for it. We're not far from you blaming the organization for ruining him.

No, still doesn't work. They just match it and make up the extra million somewhere else. Even if you can find the perfect storm of a situation where a team will let a player go without you grossly over-paying that player, you would still be better off negotiating a trade. If Toronto was going to let Kapanen go for a 2nd, maybe they'd let him go for Glendening and a 4th or something like that which would be better for both sides. Offer sheets don't work. Sure, we could try to brainstorm hypotheticals like "what if Ottawa was actually good, and expected to make the playoffs for the next four years, but still had all the cap space, and offered Marner 16x7?", but if you have to think that hard it's better to just simplify it to "offer sheets don't work".

Pretty sure they said she's done with school and starting her residency, not that that makes much difference. Also, what if she gets a job in Montana or Louisiana? Is he just going to retire? Pretty sure they're going to make a decision together, taking the desires and best interests of both into consideration. Similar in many respects to the way real-life people do.

So predictable, lol. I didn't use those 10 games because they happened a year after AA had stopped playing at that level. Again, we all know what you'd say if someone tried to use something like that against Mantha. Considering they scored around the same in the NHL, it could be argued that AA could just as easily have done the same thing, had he gone to the AHL that year. But if it will really make you feel better then fine. Even though he started out worse, with the benefit of a almost a full extra year of maturity and 40-odd extra games of practice, Mantha did eventually surpass what AA did in his more limited time in the AHL. Since we can only speculate at AA's performance at that stage of development, it's plausible Mantha might have retained a slight statistical edge even in a fair comparison, even though in the actual fair comparison we can make, it was AA with the edge. Happy? I dismiss QoC because it's a speculative non-argument due to the fact that we lack even enough information to quantify the extent that it exists in this case, much less what impact it has. Do you have the data showing the amount of ice-time each player has played against each other player in the league over their career? Can you cite an study which would then allow us to make even a roughly accurate adjustment to their scoring rates? And then the same for quality of teammates? Don't have any of that? Good, then we can dismiss it. For all we know it could be the exact opposite of what you think anyway. With the loss of Z, his production, his increased ice-time...it's probably safe to assume AAs level of competition this year was higher than his first two years, yet it was his most productive. You're just assuming it would support your Mantha opinion because that's what you want to believe. But it's probably about time for you start hiding under your opinion blanket anyway. So I'll save you the trouble: It's your opinion that Mantha is better than the data says he is. Guess I can't argue with that. Scoreboard can though: 30 > 25. Or if you prefer: 32.4 > 30.6. Or the simplified version: AA > Mantha.

Of course you didn't mention linemates. You'd only do that if it supported your argument. 24/81 = .2963 - 36/122 = .2951. I don't have icetime data for the AHL, but I assume it would be similar. Last 3 years NHL: AA = 1.19 g/60, Mantha = 1.13. While AA has played more games, Mantha has played more minutes. So no, you're wrong. Statistically the slight edge, at least in the NHL, clearly goes to AA. AHL as well using the data we have.

I like how now you want to say that playing with Helm and Glendening makes it easier to score. When they both played in GR, AA scored 24g in 81gp, Mantha 36g in 122gp. Virtually identical rate. I suppose you'll use the 8 in 10 he scored the year after AA had already graduated to say Mantha was better, but I'm sure you'd also scream bloody murder if that situation was reversed. In the NHL, overall rates are very similar, though Mantha had been given better opportunities. I would say AA has been better in two of three seasons. To say AA is not a legit top-6 forward after a 30 goal season is just absurd.

AA has been a better goal scorer than Mantha. Mantha is better suited to the PP, but AA kills him at ES. AA has probably the best one-timer on the team, so it's possible he could become a focal point of our PP strategy now, and change that first part. It's possible Mantha will show that his end to the season was more than just a hot streak, but it's more likely that he just is what he is: A decent top-6 secondary scorer. He'll probably have better seasons statistically as the team improves, but probably won't actually get any better in terms of ability. That said, Risto is not good enough to be worth giving up important assets. While it might be enticing to dismiss his negatives as just being on a bad team, remember that a team is just a collection of individuals. If Buffalo is "bad", it's stands to reason that the guy playing 40% of the game is at least not that good himself. His relative numbers are generally poor as well. You might want to chalk it up to bad coaching, but his coach for two of last three seasons is our current assistant. This article is a bit old, but I don't think much has changed. Mantha, AA and Bert are going to be 25 this year. We have maybe four seasons of them at their peak, and maybe as many as four more before they decline too much. Larkin is not that much younger. We also want as much time as possible to allow for tweaks to the roster. Remember it was five years ago that TB went to the finals and everyone started saying they were on the cusp. They haven't been back since, and one year didn't even make the playoffs. A lot can go wrong in a season. We need to add as much as possible, as soon as possible, while losing as little as possible. Yes, it kind of sucks that we don't have good defensemen at their peak now that we have some forwards who are. But we don't have enough of those forwards to make trading one for a defenseman a net improvement. It's just trading one hole for another. If we want a scoring defenseman who isn't good defensively, Gardiner is still out there, or we could aim for Barrie (who's both better defensively and an actual elite scorer) next summer. Otherwise aim for cheap targets while hoping our kids develop quickly.

Offer sheets don't work. I know I say it every year, and I know no one will ever accept it, but I have to say it anyway: Offer sheets don't work. If a team would be willing to let a player go for the compensation, they'd also be willing to trade said player, and that would be much better for both teams.

GDI, you see what you did? Are you happy now? Proud of yourself? We had this idiocy dragon slain years ago, now you just saunter in and resurrect it like it's nothing. I doubt any of us will survive now. You're an agent of chaos, and I hope your ancestors are weeping in the hereafter.

Oh god, don't start that whole thing again. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that anything like this happened. In regards to Wright/Draper... Wright came from a position in player development in Columbus, so I don't think he had any more actual scouting experience/expertise than Draper. Even though Draper's title made it sound like he got coffee and hookers and s***, I'm pretty sure scouting was one of his duties.

Have fun un-banging all your old ones.

Well, obviously I'm going to keep doing it until I get bored. Is "Hey! Don't make fun of me, it's mean!" going to be the go-to defense?

So are we now going to pretend we think "compete level" is a good thing, and not a thing fans have been deriding since Babcock was here and blaming for the existence of Abby, Helm, and Glendening? I'm not quite up to speed on the New Covenant of Stevus yet. It would only surprise me in the sense that it would mean everyone is healthy. I expect all the forwards (plus Svech) to be in the running. There are 5 spots up for grabs I'd say, so barring any new additions, I wouldn't be surprised if any of them make it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we'd rather have them down playing a big role in GR either. As much as everyone wants to think Yzerman is so different, he's the same guy who assigned Drouin to the AHL after a 32-point rookie season so he'd have room for Eric Condra.

Without rehashing the entirety of our debate with Joosh, the hype is that he's been a dominant player in the KHL for 3 1/2 years, the reason he hasn't played in the NHL is because he's been committed to the KHL until now, historical precedent and analysis of the available data suggest there is a good chance he would be a very good NHL player and possibly even a star, and the cost to get his rights should not be all that high.

No, you're talking about "players coming from the KHL to try and make it later in their careers". The rest of us are talking about the much more relevant "players who are really good". But even if we want to play by your rules... You should include Radulov. He did start in the NHL early, like Dadonov, but also like Dadonov left at 22 for the KHL, then came back to the NHL later and much better than when he left. Also, Datsyuk was only a year younger than Panarin when he joined the Wings, and didn't match Panarin's production until he was 25. Didn't become a point/game player until he was Gusev's age for that matter. Also you'd need to exclude almost everyone else from my list, as only a few attempted to come to NHL later in their 20s. Most either never tried or washed out in their early 20s then went on to become good players in the KHL after. So while there are only a few players comparable to Gusev that have succeeded, there are also only a few who have tried. Going by your criteria it's more like a 50/50 chance. 10x better than the chance of your 2nd round pick being the next O'Reilly.

My theory is Yzerman is taking a Hippocratic approach to the team this season. Do no harm, take a year to really evaluate what he's working with, see what happens with the CBA next summer, maybe Seattle expansion if that's still a possibility for next summer. Free agency doesn't seem to be Yzerman's thing; Stralman being the closest thing to a big signing as he's made; and there probably won't be much of any worth on the market. I wouldn't expect anything exciting, but better than this summer at least, plus maybe a trade.