Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

[kickazz 5,459]

Would rather us try to get Ladd over Lucic.

[VM1138 1,921]

Lucic is already on the decline, isn't he? I remember reading some stuff from Boston when he left that he wasn't very good. I think this is another case of us wanting the 5-year-ago version of a player.

[amato 3,210]

Hard pass on lucic.

As far as physical forwards go, Ladd or Backes would be good if they'd sign around a 2-3 year deal.

Edited June 23, 2016 by amato

[chicagooverrated 65]

Yandle is gone lol

[joesuffP 1,746]

Keith Yandle signs with Florida 7 years @ 6.35M

[Aethernum 276]

So you don't care if the state is poorly defined and not applied consistently, it backs up your opinion so it's valid. Got it.

The thing about saying "even if" is that you're not arguing it is that way, you're saying the other person's argument is invalid even if it were true. Come on now, you can do better than that.

And for the record, I'm not saying anything about Tatar as a player. My only point here is that people shouldn't make statements about players' statistics that aren't true as far as we can tell. And as far as we can tell, Tatar was actually one of the more responsible guys with the puck this year for our team. So slam his goal-scoring this year all you want, but stop digging for reasons to arrive at the conclusions you already want to reach.

3 years at under $4.5 per or it's too much

So Holland is supposed to make ballsy signings and compete for a Cup every year, but he's supposed to only sign players for 75% of what they'd get anywhere else? Okay...

(I don't want Lucic, but saying you can sign him at that number is just troll-level absurdity.)

Edited June 23, 2016 by Aethernum

[DickieDunn 2,571]

The thing about saying "even if" is that you're not arguing it is that way, you're saying the other person's argument is invalid even if it were true. Come on now, you can do better than that.

And for the record, I'm not saying anything about Tatar as a player. My only point here is that people shouldn't make statements about players' statistics that aren't true as far as we can tell. And as far as we can tell, Tatar was actually one of the more responsible guys with the puck this year for our team. So slam his goal-scoring this year all you want, but stop digging for reasons to arrive at the conclusions you already want to reach.

So Holland is supposed to make ballsy signings and compete for a Cup every year, but he's supposed to only sign players for 75% of what they'd get anywhere else? Okay...

(I don't want Lucic, but saying you can sign him at that number is just troll-level absurdity.)

I'm not saying he can be signed for that, I'm saying any more would be a stupid contract.

As far as Tatar goes, I showed how the value of the give away Stat is iffy at best, and anyone who watched him last year can see how he ignored open linemates and tried to do everything himself instead, leading to the other team getting the puck. Just because they stay guy didn't give him give aways for that doesn't mean he's a good possession player, and your argument that the stats say he is and you can't prove otherwise is just plain asinine. You remind me of a guy on the old rwc board who complained that Miller was overused a few years ago because his total TOI led the team when he was the only one who played close to 82 games and his average TOI was something like 13th among the forwards. But the numbers proved he was right.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Yandle to Florida, there's one off the list.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Put Lucic in the winged wheel and he's still a piece of s***

Did you say the same thing about Dino and Chelios?

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Ekblad Yandle that's a great pairing

[Dabura 12,206]

As far as Tatar goes, I showed how the value of the give away Stat is iffy at best, and anyone who watched him last year can see how he ignored open linemates and tried to do everything himself instead, leading to the other team getting the puck. Just because they stay guy didn't give him give aways for that doesn't mean he's a good possession player, and your argument that the stats say he is and you can't prove otherwise is just plain asinine.

So your argument for Tatar being a poor possession player is that "anyone who watched him last year can see how he ignored open linemates and tried to do everything else himself instead, leading to the other team getting the puck." Yes, anyone and everyone who watched Tatar's 2015-16 season 1) saw that he is a bad possession player because he totally gave the puck away all the time and 2) understands that one season in an NHLer's career (or parts of one season, or parts of parts of one season, or parts of parts of parts of one season, or some people's shared perspective on parts of parts of parts of one season...) is definitely the unequivocal measure of an NHLer's possession prowess. That's some rock-solid analysis, full of evidence and all that good convincing stuff. I'm sure it's not at all subjective or anecdotal or possibly even mistaken. The eye simply doesn't lie, especially when it's Your Eye doing the eyeing.

Not that I hate the eye test. I just find it amusing that so many people think they need to resist stats like they're the Borg or something. If we're talking about a player's worth, the eye test isn't necessarily going to tell you as much as you'd probably like to think it will, unless you're paying damn close attention every night and and taking notes and keeping a record of at least some form of meaningful statistic (hopefully beyond the basic stats, because, otherwise, what's the point?) Of course, then it wouldn't be the eye test. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[sjr2012 439]

id rather have Ladd over Lucic i believe he would bring more in scoring vet leadership and dedicatation than Lucic and wouldnt be a dick

Edited June 23, 2016 by sjr2012

[Dabura 12,206]

A slow piece of s***. But who cares, speed doesn't matter in hockey anyway.

Can Lucic play without the puck? You've got to be able to play without the puck if you want to have any success in this league. The best offense is never having the puck and always defending. Can Lucic never have the puck and always defend? Can he block shots? Can he kill penalties? Can he take faceoffs? Can he Luke Glendening? Can he Drew Miller? Can he fourth line? Is he a proven winner? Is he a guy you win with? Is he elite, elite? Is he real good? Is he heavy on the puck? Is he real responsible defensively? Is he real good defensively? Is he grit? Is he leadership? Is he veteran? Is he leadership veteran? Is he experience? Is he big? Is he physics??? Is he from the Michigans?????

Edited June 23, 2016 by Dabura

[poel 28]

The thing about saying "even if" is that you're not arguing it is that way, you're saying the other person's argument is invalid even if it were true. Come on now, you can do better than that.

And for the record, I'm not saying anything about Tatar as a player. My only point here is that people shouldn't make statements about players' statistics that aren't true as far as we can tell. And as far as we can tell, Tatar was actually one of the more responsible guys with the puck this year for our team. So slam his goal-scoring this year all you want, but stop digging for reasons to arrive at the conclusions you already want to reach.

We can tell? Who is we? You and your ego? You seem to be a bit bipolar...

Just because they tell you what you dream about in your fantasyworld, take- and giveaway statistics are 100% true and waterproof and you ignore every fact that tells you the opposite.

You keep telling people that what they see with their own eyes is completely wrong but at the same time have no proof for your weird fantasies other than stats who obviously couldn't be more wrong.

I'm also still waiting for some other user with similar problems theory why Stone is such a takeaway monster, dominated the league in that regard over two years and is, together with Datsyuk, by far the best takeaway player ever in NHL history. You, Echolalia, indicated that my theory of those stats being randomly counted is absolutely wrong so I suspect that it should be easy for you to explain me why Stone isn't a superstar already. Cannot wait for you to tell me.

Edited June 23, 2016 by poel

[Echolalia 2,961]

We can tell? Who is we? You and your ego? You seem to be a bit bipolar...

Just because they tell you what you dream about in your fantasyworld, take- and giveaway statistics are 100% true and waterproof and you ignore every fact that tells you the opposite.

You keep telling people that what they see with their own eyes is completely wrong but at the same time have no proof for your weird fantasies other than stats who obviously couldn't be more wrong.

I'm also still waiting for some other user with similar problems theory why Stone is such a takeaway monster, dominated the league in that regard over two years and is, together with Datsyuk, by far the best takeaway player ever in NHL history. You, Echolalia, indicated that my theory of those stats being randomly counted is absolutely wrong so I suspect that it should be easy for you to explain me why Stone isn't a superstar already. Cannot wait for you to tell me.

The onus isn't on me to prove why Stone isn't a superstar based on takeaways/giveaways. Doing so has nothing to do with my argument, so you even suggesting it, and then ignoring all other aspects of what I say and doubling down on it gives me the impression you aren't even fully aware of specifically what we are even taking about right now. I'm not the one passing judgement about players I cannot back up with support. That would be you.

But because you're so desperately clinging onto this Stone thing I do want to mention one point that makes me chuckle. Its yet another example of you allowing yourself to be swayed by emotion and make a conclusion based 100% off emotion (and the good ol infallible eyeball test), and anything that isn't consistent with your preconceived conclusion you automatically reject: on the grounds of emotion and eyeballs. You have no actual evidence that he isn't the best takeaway player. I doubt you've even seen him play ten games this year, let alone his whole season. And further to the point I doubt you've been specifically logging his takeaways and giveaways on the occasion that you did see him. But your emotion tells you that it's wrong and therefore everything that suggests otherwise must be wrong. I have no idea where Stone stands. But the difference between you and me is that I have the self insight to know the limitations of my views and opinions and you do not.

[poel 28]

The onus isn't on me to prove why Stone isn't a superstar based on takeaways/giveaways. Doing so has nothing to do with my argument, so you even suggesting it, and then ignoring all other aspects of what I say and doubling down on it gives me the impression you aren't even fully aware of specifically what we are even taking about right now. I'm not the one passing judgement about players I cannot back up with support. That would be you.

But because you're so desperately clinging onto this Stone thing I do want to mention one point that makes me chuckle. Its yet another example of you allowing yourself to be swayed by emotion and make a conclusion based 100% off emotion (and the good ol infallible eyeball test), and anything that isn't consistent with your preconceived conclusion you automatically reject: on the grounds of emotion and eyeballs. You have no actual evidence that he isn't the best takeaway player. I doubt you've even seen him play ten games this year, let alone his whole season. And further to the point I doubt you've been specifically logging his takeaways and giveaways on the occasion that you did see him. But your emotion tells you that it's wrong and therefore everything that suggests otherwise must be wrong. I have no idea where Stone stands. But the difference between you and me is that I have the self insight to know the limitations of my views and opinions and you do not.

Common sense should normally tell you that these numbers must be wrong. If you're, despite ridiculous numbers, several links provided by another user and and my explanations still convinced that they're right then it's on you to explain why a player has good numbers and why another one doesn't. First you criticize me for not knowing how they track it even though I clearly wrote that and why those numbers are wrong. After it came out that there really is no definition for a take- or giveaway you make it very easy for yourself by just saying that it's not on you to prove that the numbers are right. So you criticize me for saying that they're wrong but refuse to tell me why they're right? You're a joke. Really ridiculous. But good on you for not abusing those numbers to spread lies like others about Tatar or Helm being that good, never losing pucks and so on...I'm sick of it.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Common sense should normally tell you that these numbers must be wrong. If you're, despite ridiculous numbers, several links provided by another user and and my explanations still convinced that they're right then it's on you to explain why a player has good numbers and why another one doesn't. First you criticize me for not knowing how they track it even though I clearly wrote that and why those numbers are wrong. After it came out that there really is no definition for a take- or giveaway you make it very easy for yourself by just saying that it's not on you to prove that the numbers are right. So you criticize me for saying that they're wrong but refuse to tell me why they're right? You're a joke. Really ridiculous. But good on you for not abusing those numbers to spread lies like others about Tatar or Helm being that good, never losing pucks and so on...I'm sick of it.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong. That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all and confirms my suspicion you don't know what I'm talking about. My problem is that you make definitive statements based on nothing and pass them off as fact. You're the one who said Tatar is a turnover machine, and when people questioned you on it your defense was exclusively and repeatedly eyeball test, which means absolutely nothing.

[Dominator2005 558]

So Lucic is piece of s*** and there is no need for him but Radulov, Hudler are better options....

🙈🙉🙊

[krsmith17 7,191]

My eyeball test shows me that Helm is not a turnover machine, and that he creates more opposition turnovers with his forechecking ability than he commits... Who's opinion is right? If only we had stats to back it up... Oh right, we do have the stats but apparently they're inaccurate because someone on a message board says so...

All of this nonsense aside, my biggest beef with this entire debate is that you continuously say "take- and giveaway"... Seriously, WHY? If you're willing to go the extra mile to type out the word giveaway, why the hell can't you take the time to type the word takeAWAY?...

[BottleOfSmoke 5,965]

Did you say the same thing about Dino and Chelios?

You betcha!

[Bannedforlife 403]

Can Lucic play without the puck? You've got to be able to play without the puck if you want to have any success in this league. The best offense is never having the puck and always defending. Can Lucic never have the puck and always defend? Can he block shots? Can he kill penalties? Can he take faceoffs? Can he Luke Glendening? Can he Drew Miller? Can he fourth line? Is he a proven winner? Is he a guy you win with? Is he elite, elite? Is he real good? Is he heavy on the puck? Is he real responsible defensively? Is he real good defensively? Is he grit? Is he leadership? Is he veteran? Is he leadership veteran? Is he experience? Is he big? Is he physics??? Is he from the Michigans?????

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!!!

[Internet.Unknown 422]

Put Lucic in the winged wheel and he's still a piece of s***

But he would be OUR piece of s***. We could love him and hug him and kiss him and ...

[kickazz 5,459]

Piece of s*** or not he would a be a bad acquisition for his production and market value.

$6 mill cap hit with 20 goals on Kopitars line..? We had a rookie score 23 this year on a declining 35 year olds line.

Edited June 23, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,492]

1. You measure possession using corsi and Fenwick, not giveaways and takeaways.

And here's why...

2. Most really good possession players have lots of giveaways. Why? Because they have the puck a lot. Hard to turn the puck over when you're chasing it all over your own zone. Subban, Burns, Thornton, Karlsson, and Doughty led the league in giveaways this year. Are they bad possession players too? Obviously not.

[krsmith17 7,191]

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/06/analyzing_red_wings_defensemen.html#incart_river_mobile_index

Smith sucks...