PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Looks like we'll win the cup - we've clearly got some illuminati on our side.

All true, but I'm not really arguing that he'd put up as many points as he did in TB or that he'd have been great here. The bar is lower when you're comparing with a guy that put up 29 points here over 2 years. I think people forget Weiss' injury woes and how little he actually played. Just based on health, I can't see any comparison between their situations. Buying out the guy who missed more than half the games for his 2 years is quite different than than someone who's underproducing for their contract. We have those guys and they've not been bought out.

Weiss: 13-14: 24gp, 2g, 4pts 14-15: 52gp. 9g, 25pts =29pts Filppula:13-14: 75gp, 25g, 58pts 14-15: 82gp, 12g, 48pts =106pts Filppula has never been an amazing player, but I think he would unquestionably have been a better option than Weiss. Much of Weiss' struggles and his eventual buyout were due to his extensive injury problems. It looks like Filppula has only missed 16 games in his 4 years away from the Wings. Some might be cursing his 5 mill caphit, but it wouldn't have been an unmoveable piece like Weiss. Just look at how the lightning traded him to the Flyers in anticipation of the expansion draft. They got Streit, and 4th + 7th round picks. I don't see any reason why he would have been bought out if we had re-signed him. His last year in Detroit was pretty bad, but he had injured his medial collateral ligament in his right knee (had to look it up to remember the injury) during the lockout that year and never really got on track due to the injury.

Yeah, He just wanted to check out free agency and talk to other teams to see what options are out there. This is why it's so good that there's now that period before free agency when players get to talk to all teams before committing. If that was around then, we'd have Filppula, we wouldn't have signed Weiss - therefor we wouldn't have that buyout penalty for the next few years. And we probably wouldn't have signed Neilson, so we'd be in a better position with the cap.

Yeah, with all the comparison deals, it would be yet another slight overpayment. But I think it would an okay deal, though, and I think the consequences of not signing would be bad - If he's traded off a 1 year deal, I think he'll get a lower return with everyone now knowing he wouldn't return. I guess best case scenario is we play a game of chicken until next Thursday and hope he accepts. Don't think guys usually accept deals they've already turned down. Maybe Holland throws in some performance bonuses? Or a shorter 3X5+ deal? With this contract drama, part of me wants him to go to arbitration so he can see the impartial guy award him a 4.75.

Yeah, 6 Mill is a no go - especially for 6-7. Next Thursday is arbitration hearing so they have 7 days to see the light. If Holland went 5.25X6 I'd be fine with it.

But you could say that's due to signing Daley rather than the Abby, Helm, Glen, contracts.

Definitely above average for goal scoring. Even If you only consider top 6 forwards as potential scorers, that's 180 guys in the league (6X30). That 31st ranking in goals for the past 3 years puts him solidly in the top quarter as a top 6 scorer.

Nobody's arguing that he's elite. That would be the top 10 guys

This is not currently a problem. We haven't been forced to let anyone go. In fact, we signed free agents with our extra cap space. As Dabura has pointed out and some of the articles on Tatar's contract, on 30 NHL players have scored more than him in the past 3 years. Don't get why you consider that "average, mediocre talent." Tatar's contract wouldn't be part of the problem.

It was other past articles said they were asking 6 mill - St. James just says 7 years with no mention of amount. Maybe the previous article was referring to a shorter deal. In the Slovakian interview, Tatar mentioned he was offered 3 deals of differing lengths - they wouldn't be at the same caphit amount and Tat's counter wouldn't be the same yearly amount for the differing deal lengths.

I agree that Johnson is the better player and more versatile, etc. I'm more saying that players take less per year if it's a really long deal like 7 years. And if Holland says "hey, this guy get 5" then the agent says "fine, if we get a 7 year deal." If it's a 4 year deal (just a guess) it's a different beast and the comparison will be skewed a bit. Maybe Johnson would be at 5.5 if it were a 4-5 year deal? But, yeah, Tatar shouldn't be near 6. P.S. Tatar's actually has higher goal and point totals the last 2 years. This is due to the fact Johnson's had some injury problems and missed 13,15 games in these years. That won't help. A good comparable for a shorter deal is the one Galchenyuk signed a few days ago (3 years, 4.9). In their careers Tatar has 99g,194 pts in 345 games, while Galchenyuk has 89g, 202 pts in 336 games - pretty close.

While agree with you, kickazz and others that this helps Holland's side of negotiations, the Johnson deal 5 X 7 years. They're almost definitely not talking about a deal that long so you can't make a straight comparison for cap-hits. A long deal like that is equivalent to offers of less years and a higher cap hit. Hopefully that gets his agent away from that supposed 6 mill mark, though.

I'm guessing it's the same reason that Holmstrom's wearing dress shoes with workout shorts and Z's not wearing any shoes: Gits and/or Shiggles.

He went to College. I guess even hockey players get the freshman 15.

I don't see that Tatar statement as all that bad. who would want to end with only a 1 year deal after all the negotiations? He's been a consistent, solid goal scorer who deserves the stability of a long term deal somewhere, if not here. The rumoured 6+ mill asking price is definitely high, though, so he won't get any sympathy from me if that's the roadblock in negotiations. I understand the considerations for the cap as arguments for doing a sign and trade - and I'd be fine with that if it brought a 1 round pick or a #1D. One big problem with that is that he's just had shoulder surgery and who knows how his season goes after that - coud hurt his trade value. So I'd much rather sign him long term than just get some middling return. He's our best scorer right now and still young. Hope they end up at 5-5.25 for 4 years. To me that would still be a moveable contract if we wanted to go that way. I'd prefer moving Nyquist in a deal, though.

Well, they were just making a joke about how convoluted the drills with the Power Edge Pros were. Don't know why that's worth criticism. But, yeah, they do always give glowing reviews. It's someone who does it for fun. The articles may accentuate the positives, but they don't tell you the sky is red. Anyway, there's videos included, if you don't trust their perspective. You can see others struggling in that specific drill. Here's another arguing that skating is actually a strength for him. https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2017/7/8/15942224/meeting-michael-skating-not-a-worry-for-detroit-red-wings-rasmussen Also, not just about Rasmussen, but a comment from Horcoff and Nelson on all the new big draft picks: "Horcoff and Nelson both said they liked seeing not only some of the size out on the ice, but how well that size could move, too." http://mihockeynow.com/2017/07/red-wings-kick-off-educational-development-camp-in-traverse-city/ Anyway, you can't really tell until we see him in a full game situation. He sat out from the scrimmage since he's still recovering from his broken wrist last year.

(Rasmussen) "He uses long, graceful, smooth strides to fly down the ice (often having to wait up for his line mates). Several of the other players on the ice looked choppy in comparison, but Rasmussen was smooth and fluid. His skating style and stride were beautiful to watch. I wasn’t able to see a lot from this big kid yet, but what I did see was good. He also looks like he has a bomb of a shot!" A graceful skater leaving teammates behind with a bomb of a shot...This description should be encouraging to those who were wary of this pick - and latched on to the Holmstrom comparison in the draft discussion. This guy does seem to have a lot more to offer than just size and skill as a net-front presence.

It really tied the room together. I thought Cholo was going to College and, as such, we wouldn't see him for quite a while. Has he decided to play for Grand Rapids instead?

Sproul is referred to as an offensive defensman pretty much everywhere: Kultan: "Ryan Sproul has been an exciting offensive defenseman in junior hockey and for the last three seasons in Grand Rapids." http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2016/10/21/red-wings-defenseman-sproul-gets-shot-vs-predators/92517238/ St. James: "Sproul has tried to shore up his defensive game, but being an offensive defenseman always has held appeal..." http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2016/09/23/detroit-red-wings-ryan-sproul/90943562/ Himself: "That's me as a hockey player, an offensive defenseman," Sproul said. "You'll see me on the power play and you'll see me shooting the puck and seeing the puck." http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2013/09/prospect_ryan_sproul_likes_tho.html http://forecaster.ca/sportsnet/hockey/player.php?9068 dobberprospects: "...as one of the OHL's top offensive defensemen." http://www.dobberprospects.com/ryan-sproul/ He hasn't been able to make a mark offensively in the NHL, but with only 28 NHL games to his name, these labels would be based mostly on his play in the lower leagues and his potential. He does have NHL stats that show his style of play. For instance, he has 49 shots in his 28 NHL games. You wouldn't get that from a stay-at-home defenseman.

It seems to me, in this post and other previous ones, you've conflated revenue with the owners' profits. Revenue is the total amount collected before salaries and other expenses are subtracted. Revenue isn't effected by salaries. It's the full pie before the CBA dictates how it is cut up. You get revenue to go up by selling more tickets, making more lucrative TV deals, merchandise, successful expansion, etc. And, If those things happen, profits go up for both players and owners since the pie is bigger. If you wanted Owner's profits to go up by lowering salaries, you'd have to renegotiate the CBA so that they keep a larger portion of the pie. As it stands, McDavid eating a big piece or not doesn't effect profits because they have to hand over a set percentage of the overused metaphor anyway.

I'm not bothered by the NTC/MTC. In a 3 year deal, the most likely situation for us trading him is in the 3rd year at the deadline. That's when the MTC kicks in and I'm sure the conditions are for him to okay the team and he would be going to a contender so I wouldn't see any problems. The NTCs on longterm deals are more of a problem.

Well, that "pizza pizza" guy is going to have an extra topping of bird s*** on that slice. And I have to ask: Why he got no legs?

Good deal for the Avs. I fear that Yakupov going to another struggling team might not be the best for him, but who knows - maybe it's a low pressure situation where he can figure things out.

If you listen to that hour long interview, when he talks about Vanek probably not coming back, he specifically says it's because doesn't want to take icetime away from young players like AA, Mantha, etc. So he is thinking about the consideration of blocking young players and that reflects what I think is the right mindset. With this deal, he must not think it's blocking the future defensemen. One way to read this difference is that we don't have anyone on D in the same situation as AA/Mantha. He might just not be optimistic about Sproul either for injuries concerns or maybe due to his rough patches in GR when he a was healthy scratch. Though I really like Sproul, he definitely isn't a sure thing as a player and has had some setbacks, so I would understand not being all in on him. Sproul really is the only one who might get short changed by the addition in my view. The other way to read the difference is considering the questionable status of Kronwall, E, Sproul due to injury. When asked about whether Kronwall would be ready and playing a lot this year, he said he didn't think even Kronwall knew that. Regardless of whether he's ready at the beginning of the year, I think it's pretty certain that he will miss a fair amount of time. And I'm sure other will be as well. If people remember, we started last year with 8 Dmen just like this year, and yet all of the new Dmen, Sproul, Jensen, Russo did get a good chunk of games. Jensen grabbed his opportunity and now seems a part of the regulars - this will have to be case for young guys. And even with the 9 D getting significant games, we still saw Renouf and Lashoff on call ups. So I'm not really concerned about Sproul getting a chunk of games. He was already the 7th dman so it's not like he was going to get every game before this signing. So I'm on board. The biggest reason I'm on board is because I think having a better d corps - and specifically a 2 way puck moving guy - will help the team and help developing the offensive games of young players as well. How often did we hear complaining about offensive guys forced to play defensive style. I think to a certain extent, that's just the way you have to play in the NHL, but I also think we were forcing forwards to compensate for the weak D a lot. If we have D who can get the transition game working as it should I think it'd be huge for us and would allow these guys to focus on offence more. If Sproul or Oulette are somehow pushed out due to this signing, I might change my mind, but that my thinking on it now.