Neomaxizoomdweebie

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    6,997

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

Posts posted by Neomaxizoomdweebie

  1. Posted · Report reply

    5 minutes ago, Dabura said:

    I just keep coming back to the term question. If Nyquist is cool with two years? Cool, bring him back. Three years? Doesn't excite me, but I could maybe live with it. Anything longer than three years? Hard pass. He's going to be 30 soon and he's having a career year in a contract year, so 1) I don't trust that he isn't going to immediately revert to a 48-point player, and 2) he ought to be looking to get paid.

    I don't know that signing him necessarily sets us up for a cap crunch in the near future, but it's ~$5M that we don't really need to be giving him (imo) and ~$5M that we wouldn't be able to give to a younger player and/or a UFA target. I'd like to think we're entering that stage of the rebuild where every cap-related decision the GM makes is extremely important, and I'd like to think that with the younger forwards taking over, Holland understands that Nyquist (at ~$5M) is more a luxury than he is a necessity.

    Yes. Nyquist would be a luxury. But every contender has those, and trades for those at the TDL. Dont have to give up anything to get a Nyquist when u already have one. These are exactly the kinds of players you need to compete.

    Doesn't make sense to me for teams to trade away guys like that during a rebuild only to have to give up assets later on to acquire them again. If you know ur going to need them, and you have them now, why not just keep them if you can?

  2. Posted · Report reply

    5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

    Helm a healthy scratch? Not going to happen. I don't even think de la Rose would be a healthy scratch or Ehn would play in Grand Rapids in favor of the waiver exempt players, even if they do outplay them. Looking at that lineup, either Svechnikov will be a healthy scratch, or Zadina, Veleno or Rasmussen will be in Grand Rapids... I have no issue with young players having to "earn their ice time", I have an issue with veteran players NOT having to earn their ice time...

    Again, I have no issue with signing Nyquist. I have an issue signing Nyquist long-term to a big money contract. He's not going to accept anything short-term, and long-term doesn't work for us... in my opinion.

    My roster was temporary. Like I said, I look to make a trade with my F depth. That opens up at least one spot to move Svech off the 4th and Helm into the lineup.

    Would rather have the problem of too many guys at F, than have the issue of not having enough.

  3. Posted · Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie · Report reply

    16 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

    This I agree with. The problem is, like I've mentioned, this may be Nyquist's last opportunity to get paid, and I think he realizes this. I don't think he's accept anything shorter than 5-6 years, or below $5-5.5M.

    If I am Holland, I remind Nyquist how generous his last contract is and how he didnt really live up to it until this year. And you want to sign him to a shorter deal to prove this year wasnt a fluke. And remind him how loyal and how well you pay veterans when the contract is up. Maybe you get a more reasonable deal.

    12 minutes ago, Dabura said:

    We already knew this, but...

    Wings will call up Zadina after NHL trade deadline [Detroit Free Press]

     

    IT HAS BEGUN. What? Idk. I just wanna be the first to say it.

    Dabura reacted to this

  5. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

    Khan on trading Nyquist

    "The Red Wings have three young forwards up for contracts in 2021 (Anthony Mantha, Andreas Athanasiou, Tyler Bertuzzi) and need to make room for a few more in the next couple of seasons (Filip Zadina, Evgeny Svechnikov, Joe Veleno). They're not likely to have the roster spot or money to keep Nyquist."

    Money issue may prevent re-signing him. Mantha, AA, Bert are already on the roster. Subtract Vanek, Frk, and Witkowski. That leaves room for all of Zadina, Svech, and Veleno even with Goose on the roster. Ehn, Turgeon as depth call ups in GR. I don't see a roster issue. Even if that were the case, it would give us the ability to acquire, thru trades, players to fill other areas of need.

    Bert-Larkin-Zadina

    Nyquist-Veleno-Mantha

    Moose-Nielsen-AA

    Abby-Glenny-Svech

    Helm, DLR 

    Now we can trade an AA, Mantha, or Moose for D help.

  6. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

    This I agree with. The problem is, like I've mentioned, this may be Nyquist's last opportunity to get paid, and I think he realizes this. I don't think he's accept anything shorter than 5-6 years, or below $5-5.5M.

    I think he would take a shorter deal to stay here. 6 mil sounds about right

    2 hours ago, marcaractac said:

    No. 30+ == (age >= 30)

     Not according to my calculator. It also spells boobs when you type in 59009 and turn it upside down.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    20 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

    No. 30+ is exactly that, 30 and up... Besides I was referring to his next contract. You want to sign him for 5 years? He will be 30+ through the entirety of that contract...

    Maybe he is hitting his prime a little later than most (I doubt it). That doesn't necessarily mean that he will hit his decline later than most though. Maybe the career year has more to do with it being a contract year and less to do with age. Maybe...

    I'm not even completely opposed to bringing Nyquist back. I'd prefer if we didn't, but I wouldn't be too upset if we did (depending on the contract). Speaking of which, you didn't answer my previous question... What contract would you be comfortable giving Nyquist entering his 30's?

    What I would be upset with, is if we didn't trade Nyquist at this year's deadline and cash in on a good player having a great season. If we can get a 1st, or a 2nd, plus, you have to take that deal (assuming he would waive his NTC). If you want to circle back this summer, sure, why not...

    Considering his current production and age, I would prefer a 3 year deal, but would do a max of 4. I would even consider 5 if the cap hit is LOW and there arent any NMCs.

    If someone offers me an overpayment for him, I take it. I would never turn down a good deal. If he wants to test free agency, I trade him. But if he wants to re-sign at a reasonable contract and not be traded, I do it.

     

    And why does everyone keep calling me Ding Dong? I am neither a doorbell nor a Hostess pastry.

     

    krsmith17 reacted to this

  9. Posted · Report reply

    39 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

    2. Average prime for a forward is closer to around 23-27. Not 29-30+.

    Except Goose didn't even crack the NHL full time until he was like 24? Usually takes a couple years to hit ur prime after that. And he is now having at 29 what seems to be his best season. I would argue that he's a late bloomer at that he will still be a good player for most of his new contract.

    43 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

    4. There is nothing wrong with having too many good players, but when you're a rebuilding team, your main focus should be on the youth. I'd personally rather see Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Bertuzzi, Rasmussen, Zadina, Veleno, who ever we draft in the first round of the upcoming two drafts, etc be given top 9 minutes over Nyquist. I get it. You want to keep Nyquist. I'd prefer to move on. No big deal...

    What I like about bringing Goose back is that he is the right age for a rebuild. As he gets older and his diminishing skills push him down the lineup, there will be kids down the roster who are improving who can be moved up at the same time. Proper transitioning is a very good thing for a successful rebuild.

    48 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

    1. Nyquist will be 30 before next season, which is 30+. Is it not?

    No. 30 is 30. 31 is 30+.

  10. Posted · Report reply

    3 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

    Spot on.  Helm, Glendening, Abdelkader, Ehn, and De La Rose can't play a possession game due to a low skill level.  The problem is these guys aren't all that good at the dump and chase game either.  We turn the puck over constantly when our third and 4th lines are on the ice.  

     

    Stone-Larkin-Zadina

    Kakko-Veleno-Athanasiou

    Bertuzzi-Rasmussen-Mantha

    Glendening - De La Rose - Svechnikov

     

    One big right handed UFA and one good right handed draft pick away from a very formidable forward group.

     

    But ditching Nielsen and Abdelkader is going to be a challenge.  10 million a year tied up in those 2 hurts so bad.

    Being a Hoosier like John Mellencamp, I can tell you that it hurts so good.

  12. Posted · Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie · Report reply

    4 hours ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

    Oh you mean like signing guys like abdelkader and worrying about them later on?

    If you are seriously comparing Abby to Nyquist then I already know I've won the argument.

    4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

    Nyquist is in his prime? Really? 30+ would only be considered prime by one man, Ken Holland... Is that you Kenny?

    Nyquist is way past his prime, and in fact is due for a pretty significant drop off over the next few seasons. Which is why we should probably move on from him.

    I'm curious, what would you be willing to pay Nyquist for his "prime" years?

    You disappoint me KRS. 

    1. Nyquist is 29, not 30+.

    2. 29 is a "prime" age.

    3. If he signs a 4 yr deal, he would be 33/34 when it's up. Past his prime? Yes. A veteran? Yes. But hardly "over the hill".

    4. Again I ask...What is wrong with having too many good players?

    14 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

    I would in a second.  Can you GM and coach?

    I post on LGW.com, so I am clearly a better GM than Holland and a better coach than Blashill.

    The 91 of Ryans reacted to this

  13. Posted · Report reply

    Letting a guy go who is in his prime and having a great year because we MIGhT have a player down the road who needs a roster spot? Sorry. Makes zero sense. How about we keep guys like this and worry about roster problems that MIGHT happen later on. Having too many top 6 F is a problem? OK.

  16. Posted · Report reply

    41 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

    18% chance at best but if we lock up Nyquist prior for 5 years then what happens if we actually win? What happens in 2 years when veleno is ready?3 if Berggren? Ufa’s? I wouldn’t be shocked at all if there were 6 forwards who were better than Nyquist within 3 years, the guys having his best season in a contract year and is turning 30 thats not someone we’d want to lock down for 5 years 

    Then you waive guys like Ehn, de la Rose, etc. No biggie. I have never thought that being so deep at F, you have to put middle 6 guys on ur 4th line a "bad" thing.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Yzerman19 said:

    omg DDK!!!! such a s***ty D!!!! hello hockey 1 o 1..... look where are other players before rushing to the puck carrier behind your goal line!!!!

    such a retard player.... and yet he is playing in the NHL!!! my god!!! i'd do better

    R u upset? U seem like ur upset.

    1 hour ago, MabusIncarnate said:

    Great comeback, same result. We didn't need 2 points anyway, but the game was exciting.

    Kane can go f*** himself, excuse my French.

    Its ok. The filter shouldnt be allowing 4 letter words like "Kane" to be displayed.

    AtlantaHotWings reacted to this

  18. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Dabura said:

    Brandon Saab

    Appropriate since neither are worth their price tags

    13 hours ago, F.Michael said:

    Even though it's by Hawk fans - it's still amusing oldie...

     

    Bandwagon Hawks fans. Are there any other kind?

    1 hour ago, TLGTrico said:

    Can we please stop waiting until the 3rd to show up?

    Doing in 20 minutes what everyone else does in 60. That's super efficient.

  19. Posted · Report reply

    23 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

    Frk is already gone and barely even played so he wasn’t blocking a spot. Resigning Nyquist will force us to carry a rasmussen again probably on the 4th line again and considering he was drafted 9th what’s the point? We get really lucky and land hughes/kakko that adds another top pick in the top 6 along with zadina .

    why we bring back Nyquist? To play 3rd line at 5 per x4-5? Cause he had a career year at 30? Has great chemistry with Larkin? Larkin will find chemistry with other players cause he’s good

    mantha bertuzzi Larkin zadina Rasmussen nielsen athanasiou svechnikov that’s 8 players already in the 3 lines , we get hughes/kakko with Nyquist signed what happens? None of those mentioned above should be on a 4th line and not to mention helm,glendening,abdelkader and other parts ... time to move on from Nyquist, we’ll reregret it in 2-3 years 

    Bert - Larkin - Mantha

    Nyquist - Nielsen - Zadina

    Moose - AA - Svech

    Helm - Glenny - Abby

    Moose has not proven himself to be in the top 6 yet. He might even be better off playing on a scoring line in GR next year. Svech has not proven to be more than a middle 6 winger, so the 3rd line seems just about right. The only F that we would draft that MIGHT be ready to go next season would be Hughes, and there's at best only an 18% chance that happens. Anyone else would be at least a year or 2 away from making the roster. Veleno is at least another year away, Berggren isn't even on the radar yet. I would be shocked if there are 6 forwards on the roster within 3 years who are better than Nyquist. Otherwise he should be re-signed.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    3 hours ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

    Man I had totally forgot about svechnikov and the fact that he would have to go through waivers next year add to that the fact that zadina might make the club next season where are we suppose to fit Nyquist ? Unless we deal some deadweight in glendening,helm,abdelkader I can’t see how we can bring back Gus on another 4-5 year deal with all these kids coming 

    we can’t be blinded by him having his good season on a contract year, I was always on the side of trading Gus and if the team wanted to retain him then bring him back July 1 but I think it might just be time to move on , Larkin will get chemistry with other players

    Really wouldnt be hard at all to re-sign Nyquist.

    The roster this year at F was Larkin, Bertuzzi, Mantha, Nielsen, Nyquist, AA, Abby, Helm, Glenny, Vanek, Moose, Frk, de la Rose, Ehn. That's 14 forwards. Vanek and Frk won't be back. That frees up 2 roster spots even with Goose. IF Svech is healthy and Zadina is ready to go, there's your 2 spots. I don't think Veleno will be ready next year yet. If we draft someone this summer who is good enough to make the team right away, then you send down Ehn or de la Rose to make room. Re-signing Nyquist doesn't create any roster issues.

     

  22. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

    Would anyone take a chance on Ronnie attard? He’s a late bloomer and Gonna be 20 this year but he’s having a great season and we all know dmen take longer to develop , would he be worth the risk with a 3rd rounder or is he more a later pick like 5-7?

    His name is literally R. Attard. Too many of those already. I'd pass.

    krsmith17 and Wheelchairsuperhero reacted to this

  24. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, Z and D for the C said:

    Well, what's the consequence? Losing games and being at the bottom of the standings?

    ....

    If the team was having at least some success at dump and chase that's one thing. But whether our players play with a little more patience in our zone and fail to make a play up the ice or just dump it to the neutral zone, the result is the same. I'd rather have our players that will be here years from now to attempt to play in a successful strategy and lose than play in a bad one and still also lose. If we were in a playoff spot right now, then I would agree. But we're a failing team right now, so if you're saying we'd fail if we tried to play a more puck possession game, then...?

     

     

    Agreed, so failing at puck possession and losing is better than failing at dump and chase and losing. But Blashill is having them constantly dumping the puck into the neutral zone. That will never be winning hockey.

    The difference is that they are learning how to play a style that suits their skill set while losing so that they can learn how to win eventually as opposed to trying to play a style that is beyond their skill set while losing and NEVER being able to win.