martyrme19

Yes, this would be the correct, logical and rational way to respond to the situation.

Do you even understand hyperbole? Because you're continuing with it. It's an extremely low mark of intelligence.

The fact that you think using hyperbole is an effective argument is embarrassing for you.

Strange theory. Doesn't seem to check out.

I don't enjoy Mike Milbury, but he's 100% right here. What he said ISN'T bad. You're naive if you claim otherwise. There's no way you can operate in this world and truly be offended by what he said. If you acted that way in your own day to day lives, you wouldn't last. No one would take you seriously. We all know what he meant by it. And hell, it's literally the damn truth! You all realize that, right? These athletes are, by in large, having an immense amount of interaction with women before, and after their games. There's literally nothing wrong with that. No one is saying there's anything wrong with that. He's bringing to light that in the bubble - that's all changed and by consequence, some of that time will now be focused on hockey. Since they're broadcasting a damn hockey game... anything that brings attention away from hockey, in this context, would be a distraction. And no emotionally intelligent woman would feel as if it was an insult. Because it's literally not. Right now, I'm distracting you from doing something productive with your time. And you ass clowns have distracted me from doing something productive with my time. The ass clown is the insult. A distraction is just describing the situation. It isn't inherently good or bad. The thing that sucks is, when we all turn the TV off - literally no one's lives were changed by what he said. NO ONES. But we get to rant online about being "offended" so we can all sit here and smell each other's altruistic farts. Then when we're bored with it, we literally move on with our days and no one gives it a thought because again, no one was effected by it. We get to leave it behind. Meanwhile, we've just upended a human beings livelihood. A livelihood that has effected not just him, but his entire families. And we have the luxury of not having to care about that. Convenient for us, isn't it? I guaran-*******-tee you, if you had to witness the actual emotions and feelings that a family had to endure when their lives are upended like this, you wouldn't be so quick to call for someone's head. You wouldn't have this false sense of accomplishment and pride for yourselves. You'd realize that s***....maybe this wasn't an equitable punishment. But no, we are all able to turn are heads away from that reality. They got their just desserts, let's move on to the next one. It's absolutely sickening and appalling that we've created a culture that can do so much damage with a clear conscious. And that's the most dangerous part of all.

Tatar + a 3rd rounder for Joe Veleno, Robert Mastrosimone, and Alex Nedelijkovic, Yes.

Minnesota just bought out Parise AND Suter. Parise was obvious, but I'm pretty surprised about Suter. He was usually 1st or 2nd TOI in the playoffs has been pretty consistent. Their contracts were identical so their buyouts look like this: 21-22: $2,371,794 22-23: $6,371,794 23-24: $7,371,794 24-25: $7,371,794 25-26: $833,333 26-27: $833,333 27-28: $833,333 28-27: $833,333 Man - I remember when these guys were the number #1 and #2 FA's that season. We had just lost Lidstrom and Stuart. I felt like it was a lock to get Suter and a chance at Parise too since we were still lacking some firepower. I thought it was a certainty one of these guys would've come to Detroit because I still thought of us as hockey royalty and we had the cap space..... Then it comes out that Minnesota signs BOTH. I remember thinking.....who the f*** signs with Minnesota!?? How the hell could Holland be so inept to not be able to sway one of these guys to sign here over Minnesota?? They began touting how Minnesota was now a force to be reckoned with from here on forward. Then the contracts come out and I remember thinking even back then......these contracts are going to age so terribly. I completely understood why we lost the bidding war and I was happy for it. However, I STILL thought Minnesota was going to be a great team for awhile. How did that turn out? a total of 2 first round victories 5 first round exits 2 postseason misses. Man....things did not turn out well.

Don't forget about the conversions from US dollars to Canadian! How did I straw man? I don't think you understand the word you just used. In addition to the front office, I mentioned the owner specifically. I'll try to reword what I said. If you still don't get it, I'll type in caps lock for you to see if it helps. The NHL, like all major sports, is a competitive sport. Meaning teams will always look to create and exploit advantages they have. If we happen to have an owner who has a better cash flow than another owner, that's an advantage. People accept that in sports. Any owner in the NHL, NFL, NBA etc is well aware of these advantages or disadvantages when buying a team. No one questions it. In any case, there are already measures that help hedge this. The salary cap serves two purposes. One is to save the owners money, the other is to narrow the gap between what a heavy spender can pay, and what a low spender can't to create parity. Nobody except for you for some sad reason cares or thinks it should be completely even. If something drastic happened to the Illitch family's empire tomorrow - would you expect the NHL to stop and say, "hey guys, we all have to spend 25mil less so that the Illitch family can catch up and it's all fair." I sure hope not. Teams have inherent advantages and disadvantages. That is all a part of pro sports. Key word, pro. Not commy. There's nothing you can do about that. Some players might only want to play in warm weather year round. How can Detroit compete with that? Florida doesn't have a State income tax, how do we compete with that? Some players love the spot light and media attention like New York, Toronto, Montreal. How do we compete with that? Some players like anonymity and don't want to be recognized when they go out to eat. So how do we compete with Arizona? Some players want to play in big thriving cities. How do we compete with NY, Chicago and LA? The point is, you can't go around life worrying about every little thing trying to make it fair because whatever you try to correct today, someone will just move the goal post tomorrow and say something else isn't fair. Professional sports was never made to be fair. There's youth hockey for a reason. go cheer on some peewees.

Are you kidding me? Absolutely. Why is it fair? Because the team isn't just the players. A team also includes coaches, scouts, executives and owners. All of them have to perform to get the best product on the ice. In Detroit, we've loved the Illitch family because they've performed. All of the other owners have an equally fair opportunity to be as successful as our owner. What a dumb question.

Lol - are you implying that the other owners aren't capitalists? The NHL is literally a capitalist business. What a strange, strange take. If you can't refute the narrative that the Wings bought their cups, then you haven't done your research. In 96', We had an amazing amount of drafted talent (14) (Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, McCarty, Kozlov, Konstantinov, Lapointe, Dandenault, Holmstrom, Pushor, Eriksson, Kocur, Osgood, Knuble) 1 guy off waivers (Doug Brown) 1 salary dump (Larry Murphy - which we likely only took on because of Ramsey's sudden retirement) 1 player dump (Draper) And some bold and shrewd trades: (7) Shanny - Paul Coffee, Primeau and a 1st Larionov - for Ray Sheppard Maltby - Dan Mcgillis Fetisov - 3rd round Vernon - Steve Chiasson Aaron Ward - Paul Ysabaert Tomas Sandstrom - Greg Johnson We signed a grand total of 1 free agent - Bob Rouse. The next year was much of the same with the obvious subtraction of Konstantinov and Vernon (We drafted Kevin Hodson and Norm Maracle) Traded for: Mironov - for Jamie Pushor Macoun - 4th rounder Only UFA we signed in the offseason: Brent Gilchrist The narrative only holds in 02 - but that roster was a spectacle so I'm completely fine with it. 07-08 A lot of the same characters plus guys we drafted that we're familiar with so I wont get too into it but: Traded for Chelios, Stuart, Hasek Signed: Samuelsson - he was a nobody before he signed with us, not a big signing Cleary - he got a contract with us only after he was invited to camp when he received no other offers Rafalski - This was a big signing. We're still allowed a signing like this and not have it count as "buying a cup" Dallas Drake - This was his swan song. He was previously put on waivers and we signed him for 550k so not a big signing (plus technically we did draft him!) So ya, the buying the cup narrative is just flat out wrong. We were able to retain a lot of our talent that we drafted, but that's not "buying" a cup. Not to mention, many teams every year try to buy the cup. They spend money and the roster never comes together. So it isn't all about money. I remember in the 90's and early 2000's the Rangers were spending money like crazy but they could never put together a winning formula.

Oh hey guys. I'll jump in this fight if ya'll don't mind. Two things that I want to clarify before doing so: 1) First would be my anecdotal life experience with the black community. My long time significant other is black, I'm white. I'm very well entrenched in her family/community that reside, for the greater part, in South Chicago. She is also the co-founder of the business we own together. The business is a financial service that disproportionately benefits from our services. I don't want to get into too much detail because I don't want to dox myself. I should say that we also employ a good number of black people as well. 2) I've learned that when entering topics of debate like this, it is crucial to define certain vocabulary and agree upon it. Clear cut, I define racism as the belief that someone of another race is intrinsically inferior to you or other races. If you two want to define it in any other way, please let me know. CRL - If I can summarize, you asked SP if the past atrocities by white people is the reason for the issues they face today. I believe the answer is yes and no. Obviously you cannot deny that many black people wouldn't be here if it weren't for slavery. And those that would be, would have done so of their own accord and likely more successful than average. The continued oppression that black people faced certainly kept many of them from reaching their potential in life and caused their communities to be more prone to toxic However, I do not believe that those past hardships are experienced by today's black society. I believe your point is that because of the past, you surely cannot expect Black America to be any better off than they are now. I would agree, but to a much less degree than you, I am sure. With all of my life experiences and knowledge, what I believe is this. Though it's obviously true that the black community has suffered in the past, those hardships have little to no bearing on a black person's day to day life right now. I believe, however, that during those hardships, there are a lot of voices in those communities that speak up about many different ideals, cultural norms and mores. It is up to that community to decide which voices to listen to and follow. Unfortunately for the black community, they have made a lot of critical mistakes by choosing to listen to the wrong voices. Now, this could literally happen to any other group of people put in the same situation. I don't believe they are predispositioned to make these bad choices. Hindsight is 20/20. But these choices that are made over decades have created a disproportionately toxic culture that has now turned on itself so much that it is the number one thing impeding black advancement. I know this because the people who abide to and succumb to today's black culture do not thrive. Rather, they parish in terrible ways. The one's who often reject those ideals and norms (such as my significant other) very often thrive and become successes. Then, they are excommunicated from black society and culture. You keep calling CP racist. But I bet you that he's never insulted a black person to their face (or online or whatever have you). I bet he's never told a black youth that 76% of this country hates him and wants to keep him from succeeding. I bet you he's never made a black youth feel discouraged about how successful he can be in life. But, I bet YOU have. You make asinine assumptions about the majority of American's and project yourself as a neutral voice for White America. You lift yourself up in life by beating other white people down. You're different than everyone else, right? Special. Everyone is racist except you. You belong to a small elite class that isn't racist. How convenient that the standard you've built in your head to measure your success and worth as a human is completely based on something that you and you alone can arbitrarily and ambiguously measure. People like you tell a young black boy how much White America hates him, how they want to see him addicted to drugs and thrown in jail before he's even 18. He believes that 76% of people hate him before he's ever met any of them. You spout your agenda as if it's gospel. It's easy to do since your fight is so selfless, right? There's no accountability for you whatsoever because if your intentions are right, what harm could you be doing? Human nature is to hate those that we believe hate us. If it's your life duty to spout off to black people how much they're hated, that will only create animosity. Blacks will believe they have to fight back, not live amongst. White people see them fighting back....trying to bring their way of life down (a life where they never wished harm on anyone). They now believe that black people must assuredly hate them. You've now created your self-fulfilling prophecy. You've created hate. With your message, black people can never self-reflect and come to the realization that only they can change the toxic parts of their culture. That more than what any other white person can do for them, they can make the most change in their live's by their actions and their actions alone. I believe people like you are the ones who create the biggest divide between races. But there is no way to convince you of that. The scariest thing is a person who causes harm with a good conscience.

Dude banged my buddies gf. So......

Jesus Christ dude...... Ya, reading the rest of your posts.....you are flat out insufferable. Fans have negative opinions on signings all of the time. No one agrees on every contract or signing. To think there won't be some fans who don't like the Daley signing is insane. Which you are. Daley has played in 69% of the games here in Detroit. Performance aside, that stat alone will get people bitter on the signing. And considering the fact that Daley played in only 56% of the games the last 2 seasons......comparing him to Nemeth is shortsighted and clearly agenda driven. You're insufferable. Reflect on your personality and become a better person.

I agree. I loved our first two but that last one was waaay off reservation.

Yzerman will fire Blashill and name himself coach. Genius move. He will then fire Chris Illitch and become owner of the Red Wings. Genius move. He will then become majority owner of Little Caesars Pizza. Genius, Genius.

I like the Dallas ones. I understand that the main focus of winter class jerseys are to be retro. For more historic teams, that's easy because they build on nostalgia. For newer teams, they don't have that to build off of. Truth be told, if all these old vintage looks weren't vintage and passed along as a new fresh look, we'd probably hate a majority of them.

It's the offseason so I typically spend some time getting sucked down a black hole of hockey history online. I always enjoy finding interesting little tidbits here and there. For example - did you know this year two former Red Wings were inducted into the Hall of Fame (albeit not as Red Wings themselves)? Vaclav Nedomansky led the Red Wings in scoring in 78-79. The backup goalie on that team? The other HOF inductee, Jim Rutherford. Anyway, I was reading up on Igor Larionov when I saw that after his stretch with the Red Wings, in 00-01 he signed as an UFA with Florida Panthers to help set up star, Pavel Bure. He was traded back to us after only 26 games because he wasn't getting along with the coaches and their system. (We traded a first round pick who turned out to be nothing in Yan Golubovsky.) I knew that initially we had traded Ray Sheppard to SJ to get Larionov, but then I saw something rather peculiar. Ray Sheppard was drafted by the Buffalo Sabres where he scored 114 points in 159 games for them. 18 games into the 3rd season, the Sabres traded him to the Rangers for a total of 1 dollar! The very next season is when we signed him as an UFA. I couldn't find any details on the internet so I was just wondering if there are any hockey historians here that could share some details as to what the heck happened for the Sabres to trade a .72/game young star for a single dollar to an in state rival. I know most of us are aware of Kris Draper being traded to us for a dollar, but the Jets were sending him back and forth to the AHL and OHL so it's a bit different.

I'm sure there are some glaring problems with this model I haven't thought of, so feel free to point them out. But no system is perfect so maybe the positives outweigh the negatives and I'm on to something?..... So, one thing I completely dread being a sports fan is my team stuck in purgatory. Not good enough to ever truly contend for a championship, but not bad enough to get the draft picks needed to reshape your franchise. The Blues were the poster child of this problem until just this year when they were the beneficiaries of a perfect storm. But I also hate tanking. I can't help but root for the Wings to tank again this year because I believe we still need that key player to give us that championship edge. So I was thinking of the current process, and it's relatively the same with each major franchise. The worst team gets the best pick, or at least a weighted lottery system in order to hedge the guaranteed best pick as to *hopefully* discourage tanking. All I think this does is reframe the narrative to shooting for your best *chance* at a top pick. So I thought, any real change to that system would have to be drastic. So what does drastic look like? I came up with this idea: Teams that don't make the playoffs play in their own, best of 3 playoff series. The better you finish, the closer to the #1 overall pick you get. Winner of the playoff gets the #1 pick, runner-up gets #2, etc. *With this exercise, Seattle is in existence to give us 16 teams who miss the playoffs. How would it bet set up? I'm thinking no conferences, but the best team who misses the playoffs is #1, through the worst team ranked #16. 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15 and so on. As teams lose in each round, their seeding on how they finish the regular season determines who drafts before who. Why would players want to play in this tournament? Monetary compensation per round Contractually obligated Pride They care about the future of their franchise They may genuinely enjoy it They can showcase "clutch" traits to consider in contractual considerations down the road. I believe in the long run - it will result in higher paydays for more players. (further explanation provided a little later) What are some immediate problems with this model? Teams that are on the playoff bubble may choose to be the best team to miss the playoffs than the worst team to make it - I don't think this would be an issue. I'm sure there are real pressures from the owner to make the playoffs as oppose to miss them. Look at how "all-in" Columbus went even when they knew they would lose 3 stars for nothing. The NHL also has a "Just get in" playoff mentality where anything can happen. If its likely the #32nd worst team loses to the #17th worst team, won't their woes continue for years and years? -I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The idea is that if you're the worst team, you need to make other moves in the offseason to ensure you aren't as bad next season. If it's determined some things need to be tweaked, you tweak it. It's too many games for too many players. - That's why I suggested a best of 3 series. Far fewer games than a best of 7. If you really want to make that argument, we can explore shortening the regular season by a little. It will detract from the normal playoffs - I doubt it. Plenty of fans stop watching hockey after their local teams are out of the playoffs. Hence, when small market teams play each other, ratings suck and vice versa. This will give those other fans another reason to keep watching. The diehard fans like myself will watch these games plus the normal playoffs. Plus, it'll be much shorter and over far before the best series in the playoffs begin. You can also explore delaying this playoffs a week/10 days which I think is a good idea It will most likely make the trade deadline less exciting - I could make an argument that this is a plus. (and I will a little later) But if teams that miss the playoffs want to do well in the tournament, they won't want to ship off all of their talent to make their team worse. I think it will still happen, but the value of those players will increase even more! What are some positives to this model: Additional revenue and publicity - Maybe the games aren't televised nationally but just locally, but as a Wings fan I would probably watch the tournament with only slightly less enthusiasm than the normal playoffs. Whether it's for the cup or a draft pick, "best of" whatever games are just flat out exciting! They should still rake in better television dollars than a regular season game. The NHL has s*** national television agreements anyways. Prevents tanking - You can't be the worst team and win this tournament. Therefore, you can't just rely on selling off every good player for draft picks. Likely, the best GM's will find a combination of trading assets and preparing for this tournament. Awards being better - Every team's goal is now to finish as high as possible in the standings no matter what. If you aren't a playoff team this year like the Red Wings, us fans don't have to argue what's better for us - to win or to tank. We can cheer for the same thing - to be the best we possibly can. If we miss the playoffs, we can be excited to do well in the tournament for a high draft pick. Should increase players market value - Each year is different, but obviously there are some teams every season who just aren't in the market for certain players because they aren't ready to make a push yet. Look at us - our signings this offseason were purposefully "meh" because we aren't making that push yet. If the market for players widens, there will be more teams bidding for your services and more demand. That will result in more money for players. You'll have even less teams close to the salary floor. The trade deadline will help create even more parity -As I mentioned before, this will obviously alter trades throughout the season. Less trades will happen, I'm sure. But, the players that do get traded will now require an even greater bounty. The increase in assets for the good teams to acquire these players will affect them adversely down the road, causing more parity in the league. The smartest GM's will show their worth - There are simply more variables to consider now. How do you balance trading players for assets vs keeping them to do well in the tournament? If you're in the playoffs, how do you decide what to spend on rentals? Rentals are s*** anyways - Seriously, as excited as I was on trade deadline day to get guys like Larry Murphy, Jamie Macoun, Chris Chelios, Wendel Clark, Bill Ranford, Mathieu Schneider etc. etc...... I think the concept is kind of bulls***. The Stanley Cup winner should win the championship because of the team they acquired, not rented for a few months. That's just a personal opinion but I'm sure some people have to agree with me. The best players won't have to suffer years of a completely s***ty team where their talents will be wasted or ruined. -Nail Yakupov, Taylor Hall and Connor McDavid will thank you! The #1 pick will now go towards a team deserving instead of awarded with pity. - In sports, shouldn't we strive to make every aspect of the game about competition? Why should s*** teams like Edmonton be rewarded year after year just because they can't stop sucking? Why do the Blackhawks get to suck for years and years before striking gold with Toews and Kane? Similarly with Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin. Why does New Jersey just get to flat out get lucky with Hischier and Hughes this year. (granted, they probably would've done well in the tournament anyways) But what I'm saying is, make a team EARN everything. From the Stanley Cup to the best draft picks. OK -- I've wasted enough of my time and yours if anyone actually took the time to read all of this. I'd appreciate any thought, criticisms or feedback on the idea. I won't be too surprised if it just sinks to the bottom of the forum floor though!

You didn't need to say you didn't read it, it was quite obvious.

I think I remember him being known for a lack of speed. When he played for the Wings, I was old enough to be a Red Wings "fan" because my dad was, but would rather watch cartoons than an actual hockey game. All I know is, I begged my parents to buy a German Shepherd so that I could name him Ray.

You're only hoping so because you want to bash America with him next time you're in Europe! *the tone of this post is jovial, not mean spirited!*

I've noticed people who don't travel get this idea from internet comment sections. If you actually went out into the world yourself, you'd find that the world loves America. Our soft power is incredibly powerful.

Not sure if this is well known or not, but I find these NTC terms interesting. Here is Abbys: CLAUSE DETAILS: NTC in 2016-17 to 2019-20; Modified NTC in 2020-21 to 2022-23 (If Detroit misses playoffs or Abdelkader is not among the Top 9 F in TOI, he can be traded to any team - clause resets in each of the last 3 years) Here is Helm's CLAUSE DETAILS: Full NTC throughout (2018-19: NTC may be voided between June 15, 2019 & 2019-20 NHL Trade deadline, if player is not in the Top 9 F in TOI, or if team does not qualify for the playoffs | 2019-20: NTC may be voided between June 15, 2020 & final day of the contract, if player is not in the Top 9 F in TOI, or if team does not qualify for the playoffs) Nielsen has a modified 10 team no trade list starting this season Ericsson has a M-NTC starting this season that allows him to submit a 19 no trade list! DeKeyser has a NTC until the season after next where he has a 10 team no trade clause like Nielsen. Daley has a NTC until next season. It is modified 10 days before the trade deadline where he can supply a 15 team no trade list (Wow! he could put damn near every playoff team making it impossible for us to trade him next season if he wanted to!) Source: CapFriendly.com I have a question if anyone knows the answer to it: Can we trade Abby whilst retaining part of his cap hit on our books for the remainder of his contract? For example, this year when we traded Nyquist we retained something like 1.25mil so his salary would fit in SJ's cap. Can we do that, but for multiple seasons if we can find a trade partner to take him for say, half his salary?

Jesus dude - haven't heard it put this way before, but it made a lot of sense.