Son of a Wing

I'm more so looking forward to see how individuals perform this season rather than the team as a whole. I'd just like to see a clear direction with management and better systems and player usage from coaching.
I think on paper we should be a slightly better team, which isn't necessarily a good thing. I'd like to see us trade off a couple bad contracts, give the kids ample playing time, finish around where we did last season, and get lucky in the draft lottery with a top 3 pick.

I agree to a certain extent. I think Holland is sometimes loyal to a fault, especially when it comes to mediocre bottom six forwards / bottom four defensemen. And he certainly looks after the Michigan boys. I like Abby, but there's no way he should have gotten the contract he did. Slightly overpaid in salary, and massively overpaid in term. Glendening is probably the worst contract on the team. Massively overpaid in both salary and term. DeKeyser is a solid middle six defenseman, but again, probably a little overpaid. I get that you sometimes have overpay to keep players, but these were three players that played their entire careers in Michigan, from college to Grand Rapids to Detroit, and likely would have taken a bit of a discount to continue playing in their home state. 
But moreso than the loyalty, my frustration with the organization is their desire for every single player to be a defensive stalwart, and value hard work over high skill. They want to turn every pure goal scorer into a defensive specialist, because defense wins championships... just ask Pittsburgh. Sure, we need players to be defensively responsible, but not every player needs to be a Selke candidate. I'd rather have a 30+ goal, 60+ point producer that is decent defensively, than a 15 goal, 30 point producer that is an ace defensively. Management seems to prefer the latter though, and have the former improve his defense at the expense of his offense...

I bet...

I strongly believe Poile is one of, if not the best GM in the league and has been for quite some time. He has made some of the best trades in recent years, great at drafting, great at negotiating contracts. Nashville should be in great shape under him for a long time.

I see zero reason to buy out E this year...we do that and all we have to show for it in the short term is an extra 4 mil in cap space that will remain unused.
If next off season we cant move him AND we need the money, then I am open to it. Plus it saves us a year against the cap.

Ok pretend we have an extra 11 mil. Who you gonna sign? 

I really like you but you seem to ***** about everything this team does.   Do you have anything positive to say about this team lately? 

To be honest I'm not really to concerned about cap space for this year, its next year I am more concerned about. Cap Space is only valuable when you are looking to add to your roster, or to re-sign players. Next year with Mantha and Larkin being RFA's and JT being a UFA (maybe) that is when I want Holland to possibly trade players or consider buyouts. With that being said, I am open to trades now for certain players (ie. E or Nielsen).

Always has to be one of two extremes with you with everything.  
There's many ways to see and interpret this. And neither of your suggested outcomes are at all likely.

Not to mention centers are in higher demand and thus have more value.
 

And here come the Bertuzzi haters lol...
Just because CSS or whoever had Bertuzzi projected as a 5th, doesn't mean the Wings or 29 other teams didn't have him a lot higher.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Fasching and Hayden haven't done much at all at the NHL level. Bertuzzi just carried his AHL team to a Calder Cup championship, won the Butterfield trophy as the leagues MVP, set a franchise record for playoff scoring, and is a much more rounded player than former AHL standouts like Pulkkinen.
Keep up that 2013 narrative while you have it though, you don't have much time until Bertuzzi makes the team full-time.

I understand what you are trying to say, this is the world I work in every day, but it doesn't work that way in the NHL. The salary cap is not linked to net profit, it is linked to overall revenue or gross sales.
IF what you are trying to say, is that by McDavid taking a pay cut, IF the Oilers do not spend to the cap ceiling, then McDavid is basically leaving money on the table so his owner can get richer, then yes that is a valid point. If the Oilers spend to the cap ceiling, nobody is making more money because of it as the Oilers would then be capped. It would just likely mean that their 3rd and 4th liners are making a bit more as the money is simply being distributed differently.
Not to mention, the PA cannot force McDavid to sign or not to sign a contract.
As far as #2 goes:
"Decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners generating more revenue to maintain/increase profit."
My interpretation of this statement is that you are saying that if the owners are making less money, they will then in turn generate more revenue. (I'm guessing you are implying they will be more motivated).
I'm pretty sure that NHL ownership has motivation to increase their revenue's with or without their net profit being above or below a certain point. They may struggle in certain aspects of it, but I just can't see the NHL NOT exploring new revenue streams, or NOT increasing existing revenue's based on their net profit. These teams ALWAYS want to increase their net profit. And in the case of a cap world where salary cap is linked to revenue, it is advantageous to both the player and the league to increase revenue's, not just one side.

Trouba plays for Winnipeg. I guess my point is...if theyre dealing from a position of strength, why would they want Nyquist? Undersized perimeter wingers have little value compared to core younger defencemen. Especially ones with his contract. If I'm a GM and I'm dealing a young defenceman because of a surplus, I'm at least going to ask for a forward of similar pedigree and age. 

Trouba plays for Winnipeg. I guess my point is...if theyre dealing from a position of strength, why would they want Nyquist? Undersized perimeter wingers have little value compared to core younger defencemen. Especially ones with his contract. If I'm a GM and I'm dealing a young defenceman because of a surplus, I'm at least going to ask for a forward of similar pedigree and age. 

I see a lot of people making this argument. Frankly, I don't think it's much of an argument.
Hicketts, 21, could use another year in the AHL. Saarijarvi, 20, is at least two years away. Cholowski, 19, is at least two years away. Hronek, 19, is at least two years away. Sambrook, 19, is at least two years away.  Mcllrath, 25, is not a high-end defenseman. Sulak, 23, was a no-risk signing who may or may not have what it takes to play in the NHL.
Ouellet and Jensen haven't been hugely impressive; at this point, they're serviceable middle-pairing defensemen, and that's probably all they'll ever be. Russo didn't really impress me in his stint with the Wings; I don't think he fits into our long-term plans. If we're being honest about Sproul, he's not likely to become much more than what he appears to be at this stage, which is a bottom-pairing power play specialist whose natural gifts don't outweigh his shortcomings. At this point, we could lose Sproul and Russo and Ouellet/Jensen for free and replace them with veterans and I honestly wouldn't care all that much. I don't see any of these players as true building blocks.
And, to me, that's what this comes down to. Basically, our D group is bad. Daley makes it a little more competent (at least until Green's gone) -- and a slightly deeper, slightly more capable D group is a good thing for everyone.
People say we need to develop our youth. Well, the NHL isn't really a development league -- but even if that weren't the case, "development" means more than just having a player on the roster and giving him ice time "because we have no one else to give these minutes to." Daley will be eating some minutes that could otherwise be going to Ouellet or Jensen, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The benefits of Daley's presence will outweigh it. A top three of Green, Daley, DeKeyser is better than a top three of Green, DeKeyser, Ouellet/Jensen/Ericsson. Having Daley run our first/second power play unit is better than having Kronwall run it. Having someone who can move the puck like Daley is a good thing.
I think a lot of people are unfamiliar with Daley and are looking at his age and assuming the worst. But he's actually a perfectly competent top-four defenseman who can 1) play big minutes without getting caved-the-f***-in (see: DeKeyser), 2) outskate all of our defensemen not named Jensen (and possibly even Jensen), and 3) manufacture offense more expertly and reliably than all of our defensemen not named Green.
He's our second-best defenseman. He's a solid stopgap for a team that otherwise has exactly one proven high-end NHL defenseman on its organizational depth chart (Green) and is years away from being a contender. Personally, I'm happy to have him on board. I don't think adding him hurts our youth. If anything, I think it'll help our youth.

Ownership/management want the playoffs, it is what it is. We're not tanking, we are clearly doing a re-build on the fly.
Best to hope for is that our kids develop as our vets slowly but surely become UFA's and eventually we have a new crop of stars. I get the Mike Valenti school of thought on tanking, but it's just not going to happen.
Personally I would like something in the middle, but you have to be a realist. 

Disagree. The problem is because people are upset with Holland in general, they nitpick every little thing he does. A move like this should have no reaction because every team makes moves like this. SJ added Antoine Bibeau, you think their fans even care. This isnt me defending Holland, its just trying to put things in perspective. 

Takes a big man to keep calling 17 and 18 year olds derogatory names.

Takes a big man to keep calling 17 and 18 year olds derogatory names.

Gonna be a long offseason having to listen to who we should have taken...

I honestly think some of you hate Holland more than you like the Red Wings. You would rather see these guys fail, and be right about Holland, than have these guys excel and have a successful team built by Holland. 
 

I honestly think some of you hate Holland more than you like the Red Wings. You would rather see these guys fail, and be right about Holland, than have these guys excel and have a successful team built by Holland. 
 

I honestly think some of you hate Holland more than you like the Red Wings. You would rather see these guys fail, and be right about Holland, than have these guys excel and have a successful team built by Holland. 
 

I honestly think some of you hate Holland more than you like the Red Wings. You would rather see these guys fail, and be right about Holland, than have these guys excel and have a successful team built by Holland. 
 

I honestly think some of you hate Holland more than you like the Red Wings. You would rather see these guys fail, and be right about Holland, than have these guys excel and have a successful team built by Holland.