kliq

I posted this in another thread as well, but I think you are making their situation out to be much worse then it is. They will definitely be top heavy, but once you take into consideration the cap rising, and the entry level contracts that will replace the likes of Gardinar, Hainsley, and their 4th liners, they should be fine. Worst case they buy out Marleau. Leafs need a big time D-man, and I'm guessing at some point they try to use a Nyander/Marner type player to get him. As far as Reilly goes, he's under contract until 2023, I dont think that's an issue right now.

Did you subtract Horton's cap? They have around 29 mil to spend if the cap stays the same, so even if AM gets 11mil and Marner gets 9 mil, they still have around 9mil to sign a bunch or 4th liners, Kapanen, and Johnsson. They will likely loose Gardiner, and Hainsley, but other then that I think they should be fine. Look for a lot of kids to play on entry level deals next year on the 3rd and 4th lines. If they get really tight, Marleau being bought out would be the way to go.

I was reading the Leafs message boards, and the word going around is that there are two reasons. 1) Inflation 2) They got an extra UFA year from Nylander

Nice! Great to see AA finally playing to his potential.

Jonas a mod......*gulp*

The freep is reporting that Helm will be out for "some time" https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2018/11/17/detroit-red-wings-lose-darren-helm-upper-body-injury/2038881002/ Ive read nothing about Ras which tell me hes likely fine.

You said option 3 was going to happen, and option 3 was: "Big UFA signing (Karlsson/Panarin)".

If you have it in your head that we are 100% signing karlsson or Panarin, you are likely setting yourself up to be pissed.

A week ago, I never would have thought that today I'd be saying the Wings just won 6 of their last 7. Good job boys!

Damn! Darling totally saved the game there for the Canes.

With that D, there is a very good chance.

If he outplays him, you are probably right. I dont mind a higher $ though if its a short term deal. 1x4 would be fine with me.

I'd much rather have Howard as our backup then say Chad Johnson, Michal Neuvirth, or Brian Elliot etc. As long as he signs for backup money, I'd bring him back. As far as I know none of the kids are close to ready for the NHL so I can't see how it hurts.

I'd be shocked if the Wings didnt re-sign Howard. They may trade him at the TDL, but I think he'll be back July 1st.

Nothing you have said here disproves my point, in fact IF those stats are correct and we drafted below the league average and had that level of success, I would argue that you are strengthening it. My original point, and my exact words that you took exception to were the following: "Its not that our scouting has gotten bad, the issue is that the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees, now we are just 1/31 teams doing the same thing." I never said anything about other teams not being there, this is where I will call you out for a straw-man argument. I said we had an advantage which we clearly did given our results in drafting talent oversees. Clearly other teams were not at our level in the 80's/90's which is a result of what the Wings put into that department. It didn't "just happen cause". I think what you did here was you jumped the gun and assumed I was saying something that I was not (which is reflected in your "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good" comment) I don't know why I even going back and forth with you, it doesn't matter what I say because once you are on a quest to prove someone wrong, nothing the other person says matters regardless of the strength of their argument.

Exactly.....saying "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998" is not the same thing as saying "the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees" To main answer your question, see what @ChristopherReevesLegs said, no point just repeating what he said. Not sure why this irks you so much, it has been well documented via articles, interviews, documentary's etc. that the Wings put more of a priority into foreign scouting then other teams in the 80's/90's. This doesn't mean that they were the ONLY team doing it, just that they put more into it, and in turn got more out of it. Now a days its just a different animal, and if one team does have an advantage, its likely minimal.

Nobody said "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998", strawman argument Buppy.

To the extent that it was back then, I dont think so. Though every game/system is ever evolving, and I'm sure in 2028 we will look back at 2018 and say "I wish that we did ______ first. I don't know what _____ is, hopefully the Wings fill in the blank before the rest of the league.

Its not that our scouting has gotten bad, the issue is that the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees, now we are just 1/31 teams doing the same thing.

Link? I havent been able to find anything.

The Aurie thing was pretty crappy. I get that Illitch wanted the HHOF to be the bar, but you don't remove someone who's already been put up because he doesnt meet your standard after the fact.

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post. To be honest, in the Original 6 era, my top 3 after really looking at it were Harvey, Shore and Kelly. We are in agreement there. In my last post I said to say something tangible, and when it comes to Orr the evidence is there. No argument from me, I also ranking him #1 all time, though I put Lidstrom as a close second (feel free to excuse me of bias there lol) That lack of a magical formula is why I choose to rank based on era. At the end of the day, to each their own. What I am saying is my opinion, I realize its not fact. I just have a hard time ranking someone like Kelly top 10 all time, but I do have an incredible amount of respect for him and am happy he is getting his due. Out of curiosity, what other Wings from back then do think they should retire the jersey for?

Are you under the impression that I personally made up this Original 6/Modern era narrative? You make it sound with your "phantom cutoff" comment as if I arbitrarily came up with it. If so, I will clarify that I did not, though I do agree with the historians on this one. To answer your question, not based on personal opinion, but rather the opinion of historians from books etc. I have read, the line is typically drawn is 1967 which was the beginning of the expansion era. (I assume they base it off of when a player started their careers, as there will always be crossover). I don't think its fair to compare players of Kelly's era to modern players. How do you even do it? Its a completely different game. The game back then lacked today's skill, had different rules, had a much stronger emphasis on toughness (not strength to be clear, but I mean guys doing what it took to win), they used different equipment, goalies were barely wearing anything, hell, guys back were able to get a away with smoking and drinking between periods, a player could NEVER keep up with the pace in today's NHL doing that. Then you want to talk about the fact that there was only 6 teams, no Europeans (ie. not playing against the best of the best), it was just IMO way too different. Not to mention, none of us watched the guys back then even play. Most of what we know is based on stories. How can we rationally rank players from back then, to players of today, when all we are going off of is what we have been told my our grandparents, or is based on video's like the one below. Come on man, how can you compare this what we see in 2018. Its not even close to what we see now a days. Its a different game. The emotion in your posts show that you clearly have a strong admiration for the players of the Original 6 era, and that is not a criticism, that is a complement to you. I wish more people had that respect. I hate it when people say things like "guys back then sucked, they would never make it today" as that is a BS thing to say, those guys never had the opportunity to train and learn the game like the kids now a days, and for that reason I dont want to put them low on a list, but at the same time, I dont want to put them high on a list simply out of respect, because IMO that is just not being honest in both situations. The ONLY ways you could rank these guys IMO, is if your list is ranking players based on their separation from the rest at their position in their respective era, or adjusting stats using inflation. But even doing that, good luck getting people to agree on a standard. Perfect example of that is my Coffey/Kelly post earlier in the thread. The numbers show Coffey was a better player, but then you ironically counter it was a different era. What can I provide you to show you Coffey was a better player then Kelly? I'm guessing there is nothing. You have created a system where you can't rank modern players higher then players of that generation. I have even heard you use this logic before when people bash old players, I'm not pulling this out of my ass here. I will say this, for me to change my mind, I need you to provide me some kind of tangible proof. Use fact, use a stat, use something that has substance behind it. If you can do that, I will listen. If I ask you the same question, my guess is that you will answer that nothing will change your mind. If that is true, then you are arguing with emotion and if that is the case then there is no reason to even have a debate.

First Bold: When did I say Kelly wasn't good offensively? Please share the quote. You brought up Paul Coffey as a player Kelly was better then, and said that I didnt understand the stats from back then. I simply used facts to prove otherwise. I think Kelly was very good for his time, you can quote me as calling him "top 5 D-man of the original 6 era" multiple times in this thread. Second Bold: That doesn't hold any weight, all I did was adjust for inflation. No "fancy stats" were needed. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that the whole point I was trying to make was that you can't compare players of that era to players of the modern era. I literally said that multiple times. The game has evolved, and just as its not fair to say that players now are better then Kelly, its equally not fair to say Kelly is better then players today. It applies both ways. You seem to use that as a point to argue people calling modern day players better, but when the narrative shifts to older players being better, saying "you can't compare" seems to disappear from your points. The only thing I said that you could interpret as a negative (which IMO is a stretch) is I did say that if you took D-men from each generation and compare their stats using inflation, I dont think Kelly will end up on the high end of that list. As far as Harvey goes, I never said his name once, not sure why you think I am diminishing him. Harvey is hands down the best D-man of the original 6 era. He dominated his era, that is the one tool you can use when trying to compare players from different era's, though even that still has flaws. Third Bold: Never once did I say otherwise. Saying you can't call someone top 10 all time because they played in the original 6 era, and saying they don't deserve their number retired are two different things. I am not even sure what you are arguing at this point? Everything you are saying makes it seem like I am saying Kelly was mediocre or something. My main point was that you can't compare players from an older era to players of the modern era. I'm sorry I keep repeating this, but you keep ignoring it. Kelly may have been a trailblazer, but being a trailblazer doesn't give you immunity and a permanent spot as a top player all time forever. Again, Kelly is a top 5 D-man all time in the original 6 era, I would never take that away from him, and I am happy he is getting his jersey raised, that is not a criticism, not sure why you are taking it as one. If you have a soft spot for older players, that is cool. Some fans diminish what the older generation did, and I think that is sad. But at the same time, we can't put older players on a pedestal acting as if the new generation is so far beneath them, as anytime you rank players using bias/nostalgia, it is just that, a biased and nostalgic list.

I edited my post, stats are now accurate.