Tatar, Athanasiou, and XO's new deals

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I would. Trade Athanasiou for Jake Bean. Carolina gets much needed help up front, and we get that potential number one defenseman that we so desperately need, while freeing up cap space. I love AA, but we have a few top line potential forwards. I'm not sure if we have a single top pair potential defenseman. Maybe Cholowski develops into one, but we'd still need another.

Agreed I would as well. I dont know much about Bean, but if he fits the part of top pairing/#1 d-man down the road, I say do it.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

21 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Teams are allowed to go as much as 10% over the cap in the offseason. That's 7.5 million this year so there's nothing stopping us from signing AA and there's no reason to believe that he'll miss training camp unless he's holding out for larger demands than what we're offering. The deadline to be cap compliant is the first game not training camp.

What's stopping him is he's not sure how he's going to be able to get under the cap for day 1 of the season.  Signing AA to more than $1.4 mil puts them over the cap with Franzen on LTIR.  Again, this is what Holland himself has said.  It's not me bitching, or speculation, or whatever else.

20 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

So we sign Butcher, and send him down to the AHL. Then what? He takes valuable minutes away from Hicketts, Hronek and Saarijarvi. No thanks. Again, we have more than enough depth at defense, we need high end talent, and that's not going to come from a college free agent signing or UFA signing. We need to acquire that coveted top end defenseman through the draft or via trade. What makes you think that Butcher is better than Ouellet or Sproul? He may be, but I doubt it and certainly wouldn't bank on it.

Do you have a link to that article on Trouba?

You know that they play more than 3 D each game, right?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

11 hours ago, kliq said:

Are you seriously trying to sell that Rasmussen was the "safe pick"? I think 99% of people would agree that the "safe pick" would have been Vilardi. Rasmussen is the epitome of a "risk" being that from all accounts he is no sure thing. I'm not even defending the pick, but it clearly was a risk.

I also don't see how signing Butcher to a minimum contract is a risk. I agree that Holland needs to take more risks, but these are horrible examples.

I think you are equating "risk" to Holland just doing what you want him to do. A risk would be trading AA for a potential top pairing D-man. Would you want this? I'm guessing no.

Rasmussen is similar to what Sheahan was.  A guy who is probably going to play in the NHL, but limited upside.  Vilardi has more upside, but is a bigger risk to bust.

Signing Butcher wouldn't prevent any good young D from getting ice time, there is zero risk in it.

AA alone isn't going to bring a potential top pair D.

4 hours ago, marcaractac said:

Holland didn't draft Tippett because a winger is not this team's pressing need. A high end dman and center is. 

Rasmussen hasn't shown very much play making ability and there's a good chance he ends up as a winger.  How did drafting him ahead of Vilardi make sense if you're looking for a position of need?

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

12 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Rasmussen is similar to what Sheahan was.  A guy who is probably going to play in the NHL, but limited upside.  Vilardi has more upside, but is a bigger risk to bust.

Signing Butcher wouldn't prevent any good young D from getting ice time, there is zero risk in it.

AA alone isn't going to bring a potential top pair D.

Rasmussen hasn't shown very much play making ability and there's a good chance he ends up as a winger.  How did drafting him ahead of Vilardi make sense if you're looking for a position of need?

You just defined him as being a risk but said vilardi was a bigger risk, even though everyone has stated rasmusson was the bigger risk of being a bust 

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

...I'm not "threatened by Butcher", I just don't think he will be anything more than a depth defenseman at the NHL level. Regarding the bolded, that's exactly what will happen if we sign Butcher. So why would a team that is up against the cap, can't afford to sign one of their better young forwards, attempt to sign a mediocre, more expensive defenseman, just so they can waive one of their own? I'd be shocked if Butcher is much, if at all better than Sproul, and I'd rather keep the 6'4", 210lbs defenseman that we have developed for the past 5 years and still has a ton of upside, over the 5'10", 190lbs defenseman from the outside that might be as good as a Russo or Hicketts....

If we signed Butcher and traded a Russo, Renouf, McIlrath or Hicketts, whatever, mediocre in, mediocre out. But I do believe that too much depth at one position can be a bad thing, and I also don't agree with developing high end prospects in Toledo. For the most part, players (not goalies) that are developed in the ECHL, never develop into anything more than lower end players. Do you think Hronek and Saarijarvi are lower end prospects?

Detroit - Guaranteed a spot - Daley, Green, DeKeyser, Jensen, Kronwall, Ericsson (6) Fighting for a spot - Ouellet, Sproul (2)

Grand Rapids - Guaranteed a spot - Lashoff, Russo, Renouf, McIlrath, Hicketts (5) / Fighting for a spot - Hronek, Saarijarvi, Sulak (3)

So I ask again, where does Butcher fit in? Detroit? We lose at least one, possibly two of Ouellet and Sproul. Grand Rapids? Both Hronek and Saarijarvi start in Toledo.

None of this makes any sense.

I could see if we were arguing about making a trade for him. Might as well argue that we should stop drafting players until we use up all the prospects we currently have. 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

41 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

What's stopping him is he's not sure how he's going to be able to get under the cap for day 1 of the season.  Signing AA to more than $1.4 mil puts them over the cap with Franzen on LTIR.  Again, this is what Holland himself has said.  It's not me bitching, or speculation, or whatever else.

You have to post the quote to so we can see what you're referring to.

We're all aware that signing AA puts us over the cap even with Franzen's LTIR relief. We all know we have to shed salary either through injury, waiving a player or trade. The jump in logic is you suggesting that AA will miss camp while Holland sees which route plays out/decides. That makes no sense. You can go into camp over the cap..

[DickieDunn 2,571]

The lone unsigned restricted free agent on the roster is forward Andreas Athanasiou. And it’s likely to stay that way for a little while, as the Red Wings deal with the salary cap issues.

General manager Ken Holland said he’s exchanged offers with Athanasiou’s representatives as talks continue.

The Red Wings will get $3.95 million of salary-cap relief with Johan Franzen gets placed on long-term injured reserve (LTIR), but that will only leave approximately $1.4 million for signing Athanasiou (likely not enough money) and recalling a player from Grand Rapids during the season if someone goes on short-term IR.

 

It's in the Butcher article from Kuflan

He also told Kahn he expects to go with a 22 man, possibly a 21 man, roster. 

Holland said they would like to carry 13 forwards, seven defensemen and two goaltenders but might be forced to go with a 21-man roster due to the cap.

[marcaractac 3,960]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Rasmussen is similar to what Sheahan was.  A guy who is probably going to play in the NHL, but limited upside.  Vilardi has more upside, but is a bigger risk to bust.

Signing Butcher wouldn't prevent any good young D from getting ice time, there is zero risk in it.

AA alone isn't going to bring a potential top pair D.

Rasmussen hasn't shown very much play making ability and there's a good chance he ends up as a winger.  How did drafting him ahead of Vilardi make sense if you're looking for a position of need?

My opinions of Rasmussen have nothing to do with the obvious reason Tippett wasn't drafted by Detroit. 

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

All the arguing about Butcher can stop now, from Craig Custance: Red Wings haven't called on Will Butcher. Not considered serious contenders for the college UFA defenseman.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

It's not me bitching, or speculation, or whatever else.

Denial is the first step

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

The lone unsigned restricted free agent on the roster is forward Andreas Athanasiou. And it’s likely to stay that way for a little while, as the Red Wings deal with the salary cap issues.

General manager Ken Holland said he’s exchanged offers with Athanasiou’s representatives as talks continue.

The Red Wings will get $3.95 million of salary-cap relief with Johan Franzen gets placed on long-term injured reserve (LTIR), but that will only leave approximately $1.4 million for signing Athanasiou (likely not enough money) and recalling a player from Grand Rapids during the season if someone goes on short-term IR.

 

It's in the Butcher article from Kuflan

He also told Kahn he expects to go with a 22 man, possibly a 21 man, roster. 

Holland said they would like to carry 13 forwards, seven defensemen and two goaltenders but might be forced to go with a 21-man roster due to the cap.

Ok but do you understand that you are wrong about AA not beng able to go to camp? Or not? That you're purely speculating that they will somehow purposely not bring AA to camp when they have every ability to do so. (unless they are trading him and don't care to bring him to camp)

Edited August 17, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

You know that they play more than 3 D each game, right?

Umm yeah... What's your point? You must have missed the post where I mentioned all the players that are guaranteed a spot in both Detroit and Grand Rapids...

7 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Detroit - Guaranteed a spot - Daley, Green, DeKeyser, Jensen, Kronwall, Ericsson (6) Fighting for a spot - Ouellet, Sproul (2)

Grand Rapids - Guaranteed a spot - Lashoff, Russo, Renouf, McIlrath, Hicketts (5) / Fighting for a spot - Hronek, Saarijarvi, Sulak (3)

 

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

None of this makes any sense.

I could see if we were arguing about making a trade for him. Might as well argue that we should stop drafting players until we use up all the prospects we currently have. 

Yeah, I'm the one not making any sense...

How is drafting players to hopefully play for your team 2-3 years from now even remotely similar to signing a free agent to play for your team immediately? Maybe if you compared signing Butcher to an NHL UFA, which if you remember I was against the Daley signing as well. And that didn't even have anything to do with Daley as a player, as I think he is and will be a very good player for us for the next three seasons, but I just want to make room for the players we have been developing over the past several seasons.

We don't need Butcher. We shouldn't be looking to add anymore depth defensemen when we already have a surplus. You disagree? Cool...

43 minutes ago, Detroit # 1 Fan said:

All the arguing about Butcher can stop now, from Craig Custance: Red Wings haven't called on Will Butcher. Not considered serious contenders for the college UFA defenseman.

I wonder why?... Maybe because Holland realized how dumb it would be to go further over the cap to sign a depth defenseman when they already have 3+ players that can fill that spot, and desperately need cap space to sign one of their better young forwards...

[Buppy 1,720]

22 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

...How is drafting players to hopefully play for your team 2-3 years from now even remotely similar to signing a free agent to play for your team immediately? Maybe if you compared signing Butcher to an NHL UFA, which if you remember I was against the Daley signing as well. And that didn't even have anything to do with Daley as a player, as I think he is and will be a very good player for us for the next three seasons, but I just want to make room for the players we have been developing over the past several seasons.

We don't need Butcher. We shouldn't be looking to add anymore depth defensemen when we already have a surplus. You disagree? Cool...

I wonder why?... Maybe because Holland realized how dumb it would be to go further over the cap to sign a depth defenseman when they already have 3+ players that can fill that spot, and desperately need cap space to sign one of their better young forwards...

Why would you think Butcher would be signed to play for the Wings immediately? Butcher would have 3 years of waiver exemptions. He should be considered on a similar timetable as higher-end draft picks. The only way he would play for the Wings immediately is if he's already better than what you think he will ever be. 

What doesn't make any sense to me is you don't think he is, or ever will be, any good...but at the same time you think he's going to take a job from someone you think is good. 

If the Wings are indeed now out on Butcher, "too much depth" is not the reason. 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

The lone unsigned restricted free agent on the roster is forward Andreas Athanasiou. And it’s likely to stay that way for a little while, as the Red Wings deal with the salary cap issues.

General manager Ken Holland said he’s exchanged offers with Athanasiou’s representatives as talks continue.

The Red Wings will get $3.95 million of salary-cap relief with Johan Franzen gets placed on long-term injured reserve (LTIR), but that will only leave approximately $1.4 million for signing Athanasiou (likely not enough money) and recalling a player from Grand Rapids during the season if someone goes on short-term IR.

It's in the Butcher article from Kuflan

He also told Kahn he expects to go with a 22 man, possibly a 21 man, roster. 

Holland said they would like to carry 13 forwards, seven defensemen and two goaltenders but might be forced to go with a 21-man roster due to the cap.

Not that it really matters for what we're talking about, but that's not a quote of Holland saying that - it's the writer's speculation. No mention of AA not going to camp.

I'm glad you posted this part, though, since I think it reveals how they're going to deal with cap problem. I read that article when it came out, but I guess I didn't clue into the part about the 21 man roster. It seems, then if no one is injured, we'l just have 1 less player on the roster. I'm fine with that in theory, but we'll see who loses out. Taking out pretty much any player will provide enough space for AA. Our lowest salary is Sproul at 625,000 and even that with our current 1.4 million space would allow us to pay AA just over 2 million.

With Holland's comment on likely going with 7 Dmen, that would sadly suggest to me that Sproul could be waived if we're completely healthy. Can't really see who else would be waived from the D corps:

TT, Z,Manth, Goose, Lark, AA, Abby, Nielson, Helm, Shea, Glendening, Wit (12)

Daley, Green, DD, Jensen, E, K, XO, (7) 

Mraz, Howard (2) = 21 and cap compliant

Edited August 17, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[krsmith17 7,191]

13 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Why would you think Butcher would be signed to play for the Wings immediately? Butcher would have 3 years of waiver exemptions. He should be considered on a similar timetable as higher-end draft picks. The only way he would play for the Wings immediately is if he's already better than what you think he will ever be. 

What doesn't make any sense to me is you don't think he is, or ever will be, any good...but at the same time you think he's going to take a job from someone you think is good. 

If the Wings are indeed now out on Butcher, "too much depth" is not the reason. 

He is likely looking for a legit shot at cracking an NHL roster, if not immediately, in the not too distant future. Whichever NHL lineup he believes he has the best shot at cracking will likely be his landing spot. If Holland said he will be given a legit shot to make the team in camp (and we didn't already have 3-4 guys (Ouellet, Sproul, Russo, *Hicketts) vying for that spot), there's a chance he'd choose us. You really think he's going to go to a team that would keep him in the minors for 3 years? Not a chance. He would expect to be ahead of Saarijarvi, Hronek, Lindstrom, Kotkansalo, Cholowski, etc.

I didn't say he isn't or never will be any good. I said I don't expect him to be anything more than a bottom pair defenseman. There's a huge difference. I don't think he will be much, if at all better than any of the other glut of defensemen we have chomping at the bit. And yes, I do think he could have potentially taken a job from someone that was more deserving, because I believe in order to sign him, a team is going to have to have a spot available, or at least a high probability of him being able to take a spot. He wouldn't (shouldn't) have had that with the Wings.

"Too much depth is not the reason"? I'd love to hear what the reason is then, since you're obviously in the know...

[krsmith17 7,191]

19 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Not that it really matters for what we're talking about, but that's not a quote of Holland saying that - it's the writer's speculation. No mention of AA not going to camp.

I'm glad you posted this part, though, since I think it reveals how they're going to deal with cap problem. I read that article when it came out, but I guess I didn't clue into the part about the 21 man roster. It seems, then if no one is injured, we'l just have 1 less player on the roster. I'm fine with that, but we'll just see who loses out. Taking out pretty much any player will provide enough space for AA. Our lowest salary is Sproul at 625,000 and even that with our current 1.4 million space would allow us to pay AA just over 2 million.

With Holland's comment on likely going with 7 Dmen, that would sadly suggest to me that Sproul could be waived if we're completely healthy. Can't really see who else would be waived from the D corps:

TT, Z,Manth, Goose, Lark, AA, Abby, Nielson, Helm, Shea, Glendening, Wit (12)

Daley, Green, DD, Jensen, E, K, XO, (7) 

Mraz, Howard (2) = 21 and cap compliant

Man, if Holland waives Sproul, he really needs to go. His inability to manage the cap is getting out of hand. I know we haven't lost any players of much significance to waivers yet, but we did just waive Jensen last season (luckily he cleared). He went from being waived, to one of our 3 protected defensemen in the expansion draft, to a fixture in our top 4. It took Jensen that long to prove his worth and Sproul is two years younger. To give up on him now would be terrible asset management. But of course, best case scenario for him here would be our 7th defenseman and play sporadically anyway, so he'd be better off waived and claimed by a team that would actually give him a shot...

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

21 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Man, if Holland waives Sproul, he really needs to go. His inability to manage the cap is getting out of hand. I know we haven't lost any players of much significance to waivers yet, but we did just waive Jensen last season (luckily he cleared). He went from being waived, to one of our 3 protected defensemen in the expansion draft, to a fixture in our top 4. It took Jensen that long to prove his worth and Sproul is two years younger. To give up on him now would be terrible asset management. But of course, best case scenario for him here would be our 7th defenseman and play sporadically anyway, so he'd be better off waived and claimed by a team that would actually give him a shot...

If my scenario plays out and we lose Sproul due the cap crunch I will definitely turn against the Daley signing. He may be a good player, but I wouldn't want to lose Sproul for him since I still think he'll be a good un. 

I hope Holland knows that one of surgery guys: E, TT, Sproul or Kronwall won't be ready to go, though, and is planning around that. We'll see...

Edited August 17, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

If my scenario plays out and we lose Sproul due the cap crunch I will definitely turn against the Daley signing. He may be a good player, but I wouldn't want to lose Sproul for him since I still think he'll be a good un. 

I hope Holland knows that one of surgery guys: E, K, TT, or Sproul won't be ready to go, though, and is planning around that. We'll see...

Exactly my thoughts as well. I wasn't a fan of the Daley signing for that reason. Very good player, but not a good fit for where we're at in our "rebuild / retool". Unless, like you said, he knows that someone will start on LTIR, I have no idea what he's doing... I'm not sure he does anymore either...

[kliq 3,755]

I m pretty sure I read that Sproul will not be ready for the start of the season.

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, kliq said:

I m pretty sure I read that Sproul will not be ready for the start of the season.

I haven't seen anything definitive about Sproul not being ready, just that there is some uncertainty.

[LeftWinger 4,933]

10 hours ago, marcaractac said:

Holland didn't draft Tippett because a winger is not this team's pressing need. A high end dman and center is. 

I'm glad you said IS because he didn't get either.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I'm really sad about this because signing guys like this should be a pretty easy task yet here we are discussing all these things that need to fall into place to get AA signed and it's solely due to incompetence from the FO.

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

He is likely looking for a legit shot at cracking an NHL roster, if not immediately, in the not too distant future. Whichever NHL lineup he believes he has the best shot at cracking will likely be his landing spot. If Holland said he will be given a legit shot to make the team in camp (and we didn't already have 3-4 guys (Ouellet, Sproul, Russo, *Hicketts) vying for that spot), there's a chance he'd choose us. You really think he's going to go to a team that would keep him in the minors for 3 years? Not a chance. He would expect to be ahead of Saarijarvi, Hronek, Lindstrom, Kotkansalo, Cholowski, etc.

I didn't say he isn't or never will be any good. I said I don't expect him to be anything more than a bottom pair defenseman. There's a huge difference. I don't think he will be much, if at all better than any of the other glut of defensemen we have chomping at the bit. And yes, I do think he could have potentially taken a job from someone that was more deserving, because I believe in order to sign him, a team is going to have to have a spot available, or at least a high probability of him being able to take a spot. He wouldn't (shouldn't) have had that with the Wings.

"Too much depth is not the reason"? I'd love to hear what the reason is then, since you're obviously in the know...

Lol. I'd like to see your adjective hierarchy if "mediocre 3rd pair/depth defenseman" falls within the spectrum of 'good'. But whatever. Semantics.

Are you seriously trying to spin this now, despite not saying a word about it before and even already accepting the possibility that he could play in GR, to be all about what he would demand? Sophistry. Irrelevant at best, considering that my entire argument has clearly focused around the idea that he would only take a spot if he was better. Obviously I wouldn't blindly acquiesce to whatever he might demand. I wouldn't guarantee an NHL spot any more than I would guarantee to move the franchise to Milwaukee if he "expected" to play in Wisconsin. But there's a big difference between, "don't pursue that guy, I don't even want him to play in GR" and "we probably couldn't offer him the opportunity he wants".

I'm saying we would keep him in the minors for 3 years, just that he doesn't have to start in the NHL immediately. He could start in the NHL right away, if he's good enough...or if he isn't he doesn't. Maybe never makes the NHL at all. No one is going to unconditionally guarantee him an NHL spot. A few teams might have less competition than the Wings, but not many and not by much. Neither our NHL roster nor our prospect pool are that strong. 

I don't need to be "in the know" to know that "too much depth" is a stupid reason that didn't stop us from signing Daley or Sulak, and wouldn't stop us from going after anyone else we thought was good.

[kliq 3,755]

8 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Rasmussen is similar to what Sheahan was.  A guy who is probably going to play in the NHL, but limited upside.  Vilardi has more upside, but is a bigger risk to bust.

What are you basing this on?

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

Lol. I'd like to see your adjective hierarchy if "mediocre 3rd pair/depth defenseman" falls within the spectrum of 'good'. But whatever. Semantics.

Are you seriously trying to spin this now, despite not saying a word about it before and even already accepting the possibility that he could play in GR, to be all about what he would demand? Sophistry. Irrelevant at best, considering that my entire argument has clearly focused around the idea that he would only take a spot if he was better. Obviously I wouldn't blindly acquiesce to whatever he might demand. I wouldn't guarantee an NHL spot any more than I would guarantee to move the franchise to Milwaukee if he "expected" to play in Wisconsin. But there's a big difference between, "don't pursue that guy, I don't even want him to play in GR" and "we probably couldn't offer him the opportunity he wants".

I'm saying we would keep him in the minors for 3 years, just that he doesn't have to start in the NHL immediately. He could start in the NHL right away, if he's good enough...or if he isn't he doesn't. Maybe never makes the NHL at all. No one is going to unconditionally guarantee him an NHL spot. A few teams might have less competition than the Wings, but not many and not by much. Neither our NHL roster nor our prospect pool are that strong. 

I don't need to be "in the know" to know that "too much depth" is a stupid reason that didn't stop us from signing Daley or Sulak, and wouldn't stop us from going after anyone else we thought was good.

I'm not "spinning" anything. Sorry if I didn't articulate exactly what I meant from the beginning, but the point remains, regardless of the reason(s), that I didn't / don't think we should be in on Butcher for various reasons. So what makes you think he's better than our 7th, 8th or even 9th defenseman? He shouldn't be given a spot by any team immediately, but there are teams that could and likely will offer him just that. DeKeyser wasn't "given" a spot, but I'm sure during the interview process, Holland made it very clear that he would be given every opportunity to make the team, and he did. There's a reason he's not offering the same to Butcher, despite our defense being much weaker since then, he's just not that good.

Great job with the hyperbole...

We absolutely could offer him what he wants, and a team likely will, but we shouldn't, because we already have a log jam. It's not about having a strong defense or prospect pool, it's about having a surplus of mediocre defensemen. No one would argue that we are strong on D, but most would agree that we have a ton of D on the team and in the system that could fill in on the 3rd pair.

Daley wasn't a depth signing, and Sulak is going back to Europe so he won't effect anyone in the system.

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not "spinning" anything. Sorry if I didn't articulate exactly what I meant from the beginning, but the point remains, regardless of the reason(s), that I didn't / don't think we should be in on Butcher for various reasons. So what makes you think he's better than our 7th, 8th or even 9th defenseman? He shouldn't be given a spot by any team immediately, but there are teams that could and likely will offer him just that. DeKeyser wasn't "given" a spot, but I'm sure during the interview process, Holland made it very clear that he would be given every opportunity to make the team, and he did. There's a reason he's not offering the same to Butcher, despite our defense being much weaker since then, he's just not that good.

Great job with the hyperbole...

We absolutely could offer him what he wants, and a team likely will, but we shouldn't, because we already have a log jam. It's not about having a strong defense or prospect pool, it's about having a surplus of mediocre defensemen. No one would argue that we are strong on D, but most would agree that we have a ton of D on the team and in the system that could fill in on the 3rd pair.

Daley wasn't a depth signing, and Sulak is going back to Europe so he won't effect anyone in the system.

I guess all that stuff about him playing in GR was just your clever method of misdirection so I wouldn't see that "we'll have to guarantee him an NHL spot" bomb coming. But regardless, that isn't a reason for us to not pursue him, it's a reason for him to not choose us.

We don't know that we wouldn't offer him an opportunity. Don't know for sure that we aren't pursuing him, or if we aren't, exactly why. Could just as easily be because we have already been told he wouldn't come here. 

Daley may not have been a depth signing, but he pushes others down the depth chart, as you have said yourself when arguing that we shouldn't have signed him. And was Sulak signed to play the rest of his career in Europe, or are we now just going to say that the whole depth thing only counts this year?

Sure, we have a bunch of guys that could potentially play the 3rd pair. So why exactly should that mean we shouldn't want that group to be as good as possible? Why shouldn't someone get an opportunity to show that they're better than what we currently have?

Your reasoning seems to boil down to: 'Because he'd be worse than what we have but for some unfathomable reason he'd still take a spot away from someone better.'