Red Wings sign D Trevor Daley to 3 year, 3.166m/yr contract, includes NTC/Modified NTC.

[Barrie 900]

It's an alright deal. It'll probably be good to have him around, and he'll probably enjoy the increased ice time here.

[kliq 3,755]

18 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

You think Daley is gong to help do anything other than make it more likely to miss the draft lottery and get blown out in the first round?

With the shift in the odds for the lottery pick, tanking has become less important when it comes to acquiring a top pick. Just look at Colorado and Phily this season. Colorado had one of the worst seasons in years and got the 4th pick, Philly just missed the playoffs and got the 2nd pick.

To answer your question though, you're probably not wrong. It's definitely a move that was made to get the team into the playoffs. Not even going to say once you get in you have a chance, I know that's a trigger for you lol.

[ShanahanMan 473]

Agreed. Would way rather have had a few 1 year sign and trade deals. This only sets us back. 

[brett 1,029]

its not a bad deal i just do not think he is a great defensemen and will not help at all

[kliq 3,755]

1 minute ago, brett said:

its not a bad deal i just do not think he is a great defensemen and will not help at all

I havent watched too much of Daley. What about his game do you not like?

[kliq 3,755]

Looking into Daley some more, he seems like a good player but he has a pretty bad injury history. Since 2014 he hasn't stayed healthy

Here are his GP over the past few years:

2016-17 - 56 games (had an upper body injury, knee surgery, and missed games in playoffs with a lower body injury)

2016-16 - 82 games (broke ankle in the playoffs)

2014-15 - 68 games (knee injuries, and ankle injuries)

2013-14- 67 games (ankle injury)

Didnt realize this initially, another injury prone D-man is not what we need. Hopefully he is back to 100%.

 

[kickazz 5,459]

2 minutes ago, kliq said:

Looking into Daley some more, he seems like a good player but he has a pretty bad injury history. Since 2014 he hasn't stayed healthy

Here are his GP over the past few years:

2016-17 - 56 games (had an upper body injury, knee surgery, and missed games in playoffs with a lower body injury)

2016-16 - 82 games (broke ankle in the playoffs)

2014-15 - 68 games (knee injuries, and ankle injuries)

2013-14- 67 games (ankle injury)

Didnt realize this initially, another injury prone D-man is not what we need. Hopefully he is back to 100%.

 

That's precisely why he's a good pickup. He'll be part of the injury cycle with Kronwall, Ericsson. Sproul and XO won't have issues playing

[kliq 3,755]

1 minute ago, kickazz said:

That's precisely why he's a good pickup. He'll be part of the injury cycle with Kronwall, Ericsson. Sproul and XO won't have issues playing

That actually made me laugh out loud 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

With the shift in the odds for the lottery pick, tanking has become less important when it comes to acquiring a top pick. Just look at Colorado and Phily this season. Colorado had one of the worst seasons in years and got the 4th pick, Philly just missed the playoffs and got the 2nd pick.
To answer your question though, you're probably not wrong. It's definitely a move that was made to get the team into the playoffs. Not even going to say once you get in you have a chance, I know that's a trigger for you lol.

Worst record still gaurantees a top 4 pick, losing 4-0 in the 1st round keeps you mediocre

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kliq 3,755]

20 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Worst record still gaurantees a top 4 pick, losing 4-0 in the 1st round keeps you mediocre

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

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. 

Edited July 2, 2017 by kliq

[kickazz 5,459]

26 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Worst record still gaurantees a top 4 pick, losing 4-0 in the 1st round keeps you mediocre

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

And which of the worst record teams in the last 6 or 7 years have won the Stanley cup? Tell us oh wise one. 

Ah yes that time Arizona won in game 7 of the finals. No wait that time Roy led the Avs to the Cup. Or was it the time the thug on Buffalo won the Conn Smythe after they overcame a 3-1 deficit in the 2014 playoffs. Wait, I've got it, it was when Carolina set a record for going 16-0 in the playoffs bringing the Stanley cup glory back to their home state.  

Edited July 2, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

How did Chicago and Pittsburgh build their teams?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

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. 

And so we're doomed to years of mediocrity, just like the Lions

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kliq 3,755]

14 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

And so we're doomed to years of mediocrity, just like the Lions

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Funny thing is, the Lions did exactly what you want. They got top pick after top pick after top pick with nothing to show for it. If the Lions taught me anything, it's that tanking for a high draft picks guarantees s***. It's about draft the right players, and developing them the right way.

[kickazz 5,459]

Trevor Daley post signing interview and highlights:

 

[SwedeLundin77 460]

45 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Trevor Daley post signing interview and highlights:

 

He's got pretty quick hands when he gets in close, never realized that.  Sounds like he'll play a ton of minutes here.  Breakout year as a 34 year old?  Haha

[kickazz 5,459]

32 minutes ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

He's got pretty quick hands when he gets in close, never realized that.  Sounds like he'll play a ton of minutes here.  Breakout year as a 34 year old?  Haha

I said this earlier but 33 years old is not old for a defenseman. Lidstrom only had 3 of his 7 Norris Trophies at that age. Brett Burns just won his Norris Trophy as age 31. 

Not saying Daley is at that level or anything but just making a point that defenseman longevity is incomparable to offensive players. 

Another example is Niklas Kronwall who scored 49 points at age 33 in 2014. That was his second highest point total in his career (highest was 51 points in 2009)

Kronwall then went on to score 44 points the following year (good for 3rd highest in his career) at the age of 34. 

Edited July 2, 2017 by kickazz

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

8 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

You think Daley is gong to help do anything other than make it more likely to miss the draft lottery and get blown out in the first round?

Not really. He's a 4th - 5th defender on most teams and could be a top pairing on this one. I think that about sums up the state of our defense post-Lidstrom/Rafalski era. I'm not a big fan of the guy to begin with, and stated elsewhere that we really need to just stay put and develop youth and not make signings like this one. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

I personally just see Daley as another stop-gap player. He's going to fill a hole while the younger half of the team transitions forward. In some respects we owe it to Zetterberg to not just stop trying completely, unless he wants to move on. 

[kliq 3,755]

Out of curiosity, what pairing did Daley play on with the Pens?

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

Out of curiosity, what pairing did Daley play on with the Pens?

I believe mostly with Olli Maata. According to ice time amongst the defensemen he spent (about) the most ice time on penalty kill, third most on the PP (second to Letang and Schultz) and about the same total ice time as the other defenseman besides Letang (who plays 25 minutes a game). The others play abput 20-21 minutes a game. 

Edited July 2, 2017 by kickazz

[Dabura 12,206]

1 hour ago, MabusIncarnate said:

I'm not a big fan of the guy to begin with, and stated elsewhere that we really need to just stay put and develop youth and not make signings like this one. 

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.

[Andy Pred 48 337]

I believe that the Sulak pick up be a very shrewd move and will be a good 5/6 guy within a year. I can see a lot of positives in our future upcoming D Corp and the addition of Daley is another helping hand in bringing along the youngsters. A lot will depend on how GRs use the youngsters next year and the confidence that brings when one or two of them get the chance 

[derblaueClaus 1,668]

2 hours ago, Dabura said:

I see a lot of people making this argument. Frankly, I don't think it's much of an argument.

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.

I mostly agree with your post, but not with this paragraph. As was already mentioned here defenseman have a different life cycle than forwards.For example Sproul is only 24, in two or three years he might be as serviceable as Daley, if not more. We just need to be a little bit more patient.

[kliq 3,755]

6 hours ago, kickazz said:

I believe mostly with Olli Maata. According to ice time amongst the defensemen he spent (about) the most ice time on penalty kill, third most on the PP (second to Letang and Schultz) and about the same total ice time as the other defenseman besides Letang (who plays 25 minutes a game). The others play abput 20-21 minutes a game. 

So in the finals with Letang out, that would be their first pairing....right?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

15 minutes ago, kliq said:

So in the finals with Letang out, that would be their first pairing....right?

....we just got a 1st pairing Dman?