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

[kliq 3,755]

 

10 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I never had a major issue with Jensen, I know the others gave you guys crap for it. Jensen doesn't and didn't have the defensive shortcomings that Sproul does. Sproul can be a liability. His offensive skills are good in that he would be a serviceable 5th or 6th defenseman. But if that's the case then that shouldn't be a reason to hang onto hope for him and simply not sign a better defenseman. I'd much rather have Daley take the minutes while Sproul plays on the third pair and *if* possible, improves his defensive game. But you don't just throw top 4 minutes at Sproul just because. Not unless we're actually tanking, only then would I get it. Clearly Holland wants to be a playoff contender and why he signed Daley.  

Found the Jensen thread, most people were not that down on him, it was just @DickieDunn and @Bill Berzeench for the most part, but mostly Dickie. Krsith17 and Dickie were definitely going back and forth. 

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by kliq

[LeftWinger 4,961]

27 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Do you know how to read? I can explain the following image to you.

Less games played, more points scored. One is obviously more of a set up guy. But regardless of that, still has more points overall. But yeah, you want to give the underachiever more money and ***** about the one that outproduces him.

Here's more - direct quote from Ansar.

Gustav Nyquist, who makes $4.75 million per season, has 56 goals and 145 points in 240 games the past three seasons. Tatar has 75 goals and 147 points in 245 games over the same time frame.

Yet you praise Tatar and want to give him more money. And whine about Nyquist 50 of the 82 GDTs during the year. Rock solid logic.But we all know the real reason why your overlook Tatar and give Nyquist crap. It's the Swedish Mafia thingamabob. 

Because of their similar production (Tatar actually slightly worse), they should be getting paid the exact same amount. Anything more is an overpayment. 

Wow, 19 more goals and 2 more points in only 5 more games. Yes, you proved my point. Tatar $5.5M. I hope it's less. But he's we'll worth it. Btw, you contradicted yourself, Nyquist has less points and way less goals. Complain about him because he has yet to earn his contract. Maybe Tatar will be the same way, We'll see. I like how Tatar has more points in only 5 more games and he seem him an underachiever.

Now that its settled good on ya for going back to topic.

Edited July 2, 2017 by LeftWinger

[kickazz 5,459]

1 minute ago, LeftWinger said:

Wow, 19 more goals and 2 more points in only 5 more games. Yes, you proved my point. Tatar $5.5M. I hope it's less. But he's we'll worth it. Btw, you contradicted yourself, Nyquist has less points and way less goals.

Now that its settled good on ya for going back to topic.

Oh boy, I thought reading comprehension was an issue, but so is mathematics now.  

 

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

Might be one of your best posts I've seen. Solid points here.

1. People don't know Daley, are looking at his age (forgetting defenseman age is not equivalent to offense players) and judging....

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I'm indifferent about Daley mostly. Decent deal if Kronwall and Ericsson again struggle with injuries (and Daley doesn't). But I think some of your points are off base. This one in particular, while a fairly common belief, is I think often exaggerated. This article (and part 1, which is linked at the beginning of that piece) show a similar trend in age effects for forwards and defensemen. ES offense holds up a bit better for defenders, but ES defense is worse. Overall a little better for defensemen in Daley's age range, but still declining.

Curiously, some of the data also shows defensemen developing/peaking earlier than forwards. Selection bias probably explains part of that, but I think it also suggests that defensemen do not develop as slowly as is commonly believed.

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Defensemen age is not equivalent to forwards. Meaning it takes longer for defensemen to develop. Correct? But Ouellet and Sproul aren't good and never will be at the age of 24?

Virtually every single person on here was ready to give up on Jensen until he got a legit shot with the Wings this past season, and proved the naysayers wrong. Myself, LeftWinger and one other person (I think it was Jesusberg), felt that Jensen could become a legit NHLer if given the opportunity. Almost everyone else thought we were crazy because he was already 25 years old. Now Sproul is 24 and you've already determined that he is a plug. We should give up on him too right? But yet Sproul has been better than Jensen at every level prior to the NHL, and has a measly 0.02 points per game less in their small sample sizes with the Wings. Jensen - legit top 4. Sproul, Ouellet - plugs... Got it.

For the record, I still don't think Jensen is particularly good. 

[LeftWinger 4,961]

3 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Oh boy, I thought reading comprehension was an issue, but so is mathematics now.  

 

What's the problem? 75 goals is 19 more than 56, 147 points is 2 more than 145. 245 games is 5 more than 240. If we're talking average ppg, they're both .6 ppg. Move along.

[krsmith17 7,191]

14 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I never had a major issue with Jensen, I know the others gave you guys crap for it. Jensen doesn't and didn't have the defensive shortcomings that Sproul does. Sproul can be a liability. His offensive skills are good in that he would be a serviceable 5th or 6th defenseman. But if that's the case then that shouldn't be a reason to hang onto hope for him and simply not sign a better defenseman. I'd much rather have Daley take the minutes while Sproul plays on the third pair and *if* possible, improves his defensive game. But you don't just throw top 4 minutes at Sproul just because. Not unless we're actually tanking, only then would I get it. Clearly Holland wants to be a playoff contender and why he signed Daley.  

I disagree. Sproul is a better hockey player than Jensen in my opinion. The offence that he can generate far outweighs any defensive shortcomings. But then again, the same reason Smith wasn't a great fit here, and is proving his worth with the Rangers, Sproul may never pan out here either. This organization clearly values defense far more than offense, and unless a kid is a stud defensively, they won't get the minutes he probably should. And that goes for forwards and defensemen. I still think Sproul has top 4 potential, and can be a major asset on the power-play.

I think for a team that should be rebuilding, that's exactly what you do. Give the guys with a ton of upside and potential an opportunity with big minutes to see what the got. Do you really think Daley vs Sproul in the lineup is the difference between squeaking into the playoffs and "tanking"? Not at all. The last part is the scariest part about all of this. Holland wants to take shortcuts to get this team back in the playoffs. What's the point? We need to build this team back up, and that doesn't happen through free agency, and squeaking into the playoffs every year, picking outside of the top 15...

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, Buppy said:

For the record, I still don't think Jensen is particularly good. 

Fair enough. How do you feel about Sproul and Ouellet. I would think you probably fall somewhere in between my opinion (still young, top 4 potential if given a legitimate opportunity) and kickazz' opinion (plugs)... You also said you're okay with the Daley signing if he's taking the spot of Kronwall / Ericsson, and I agree. What about the more likely scenario, taking the spot of Sproul or Ouellet? Just curious. Although, I think I know the answer...

[LeftWinger 4,961]

I hope he doesn't bump XO or Sproul. I still like the signing, but I certainly hope it's because they're betting on Kronner being out more than he's in.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

47 minutes ago, kliq said:

 

Found the Jensen thread, most people were not that down on him, it was just @DickieDunn and @Bill Berzeench for the most part, but mostly Dickie. Krsith17 and Dickie were definitely going back and forth. 

 

I still don't see anything special about him

[Wingnut1989 165]

16 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

I still don't see anything special about him

seemed like another lashoff to me

[DickieDunn 2,571]

33 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I hope he doesn't bump XO or Sproul. I still like the signing, but I certainly hope it's because they're betting on Kronner being out more than he's in.

That would be the only way this was acceptable, if they knew Kronwall is done, and not just for a couple months.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, Wingnut1989 said:

seemed like another lashoff to me

Seriously? I don't get that comparison at all. To me, they couldn't be further from comparable style players...

[Wingnut1989 165]

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

Seriously? I don't get that comparison at all. To me, they couldn't be further from comparable style players...

i meant as far as he seemed more like a 7th dman to me. Not to comparing their playstyle, i should of been more clear.

[LeftWinger 4,961]

Well, management seems to think he is more than a #7. They protected him over Sproul and XO.

[Wingnut1989 165]

Well they have every Dman playing a pair up higher they they should...but who am i to question management 

[Buppy 1,720]

43 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Fair enough. How do you feel about Sproul and Ouellet. I would think you probably fall somewhere in between my opinion (still young, top 4 potential if given a legitimate opportunity) and kickazz' opinion (plugs)... You also said you're okay with the Daley signing if he's taking the spot of Kronwall / Ericsson, and I agree. What about the more likely scenario, taking the spot of Sproul or Ouellet? Just curious. Although, I think I know the answer...

I think Ouellet is better than Jensen, but that's not saying much. Neither are that good, and unlikely to ever be that good. Filler, more or less.

Sproul most likely will never be anything. Wasn't all that good in GR and didn't really show any improvement from his first year to his last. In his limited time with the Wings, he has been pretty awful in every measurable way. Much like Smith in being a supposed offensive guy but not providing any offense. Unlike Smith, he has terrible possession metrics despite a heavily sheltered role. I don't mind giving him further opportunities because you never know, but if he ends up a healthy scratch more often than not I won't lose any sleep about it. Ironically enough, I think Daley could be a good partner for Sproul.

I would guess there will be enough injuries that everyone (and probably Russo again too) will get an opportunity.

[krsmith17 7,191]

31 minutes ago, Buppy said:

I think Ouellet is better than Jensen, but that's not saying much. Neither are that good, and unlikely to ever be that good. Filler, more or less.

Sproul most likely will never be anything. Wasn't all that good in GR and didn't really show any improvement from his first year to his last. In his limited time with the Wings, he has been pretty awful in every measurable way. Much like Smith in being a supposed offensive guy but not providing any offense. Unlike Smith, he has terrible possession metrics despite a heavily sheltered role. I don't mind giving him further opportunities because you never know, but if he ends up a healthy scratch more often than not I won't lose any sleep about it. Ironically enough, I think Daley could be a good partner for Sproul.

I would guess there will be enough injuries that everyone (and probably Russo again too) will get an opportunity.

More or less what I was expecting, but I disagree on your Sproul assessment. I still think he could be a serviceable top 4, similar to a Johnny Boychuk. I'd just like to see him given a legit shot once he becomes healthy, and hopefully that ACL tear doesn't effect his game too much.

I think Ouellet is a serviceable bottom pairing defenseman, and same goes for Russo.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

What's the problem? 75 goals is 19 more than 56, 147 points is 2 more than 145. 245 games is 5 more than 240. If we're talking average ppg, they're both .6 ppg. Move along.

Same ppg. Yup and that's exactly why Tatar should make a minimum 1 million dollars MORE than Nyquist. Mathematics is sooooooo good.  

Thanks for proving my point, the point that you make absolutely no sense. For the record if you want to look at the full stats, Tatar has a PPG of 0.56 and Nyquist is 0.61. But you know. ONE MILLION more dollars to the inferior producer.  But ok since your want to look at goals. Nyquist is .26 goals per game and Tatar is .28 goals per game. Congrats Tatar you are 0.02 goals per game better than Nyquist. And for that you get 1 million more per year. Courtesy of Rightwinger. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

48 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

More or less what I was expecting, but I disagree on your Sproul assessment. I still think he could be a serviceable top 4, similar to a Johnny Boychuk. I'd just like to see him given a legit shot once he becomes healthy, and hopefully that ACL tear doesn't effect his game too much.

I think Ouellet is a serviceable bottom pairing defenseman, and same goes for Russo.

So basically plugs... Like Lebda or Lilja, or Lashoff, or Marchenko or any of the other 3rd pairing defenseman out there. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

13 minutes ago, kickazz said:

So basically plugs... Like Lebda or Lilja, or Lashoff, or Marchenko or any of the other 3rd pairing defenseman out there. 

Those are all guys that had / will likely have a short NHL career. That's not the case of all bottom pair defensemen though. I think Ouellet could potentially have a long NHL career as a solid 3rd pairing defensive defenseman. I do think Russo could go the way of Lashoff and company though. I'm just not that high on him. My biggest beef was calling Sproul a plug. Maybe he never does materialize into a top 4 defenseman, but I still think it's a good possibility, especially if he ever gets out of Detroit. He's still young enough that he could develop further, the same way Jensen did this past season.

[puckbags 863]

Not much has changed. We definitely upgraded a bit by getting Daley. Him and Green are our best D men and after that it's a bunch of " C" graded guys. I can't wait to see how Jensen plays in a full season. Guy actually has a brain on his shoulders. Kronwall and Ericcson are garbage and Sproul wasn't even protection worthy so that sums up where he is on the depth chart. DK will get less minutes and I think it will help him a bit because he really needs to bounce back with that albatross of a contract. 

[kickazz 5,459]

I mean I like Sproul but I just don't see what the big deal is. Your whole premise is he "may be a top 4" with time. But if there is no guarantee then is it really worth it to sit here and invest in him and not make this team better with Daley? We obviously have bigger fish to fry. We need a long term 1D, two well developed Centers, we need our scoring wingers to put out more consistently. We need to be better on special teams and we need consistent goaltending. I don't see how Daley coming and and somehow taking some minutes away from Sproul (a guy who might not even be a top 4 or might be) is a bad thing. Sproul is such a small part of our issues; of this team. Daley is here to be an actual top 4 may be a top 2. Maybe we get into playoffs with his help, with Mike Greens help, with Dekeyser actually playing what his contract is worth, with Mantha, Larkin, AA having one more year under their belt, with Nyquist and Tatar being the 30 goals/60 point scorers they're supposed to be, with Blashill having more experience and actually getting more out of his players. 

Most of the pieces of our puzzle are there. The problem is we haven't been able to execute and put it all together. Our players aren't very good because they don't play at their ceiling. But if they did, we COULD be a good team. That's probably what Holland is thinking and the reason why he's not giving up on playoffs, on making a run. Maybe he thinks this team has the pieces and needs to execute fully. 

I'm not sure what the right answer is, I'm trying to think this through Hollands eyes. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by kickazz

[puckbags 863]

1 minute ago, kickazz said:

I mean I like Sproul but I just don't see what the big deal is. Your whole premise is he "may be a top 4" with time. But if there is no guarantee then is it really worth it to sit here and invest in him and not make this team better with Daley? We obviously have bigger fish to fry. We need a long term 1D, two well developed Centers, a we need our scoring wingers to put out more consistently. We need to be better on special teams and we need consistent goaltending. I don't see how Daley coming and and somehow taking some minutes away from Sproul (a guy who might not even be a top 4 or might be) is a bad thing. Sproul is such a small part of our issues, of this team. Daley is here to be an actual top 4 may be a top 2. Maybe we get into playoffs with his help, with Mike Greens help, with Dekeyser actually playing what his contract is worth, with Mantha, Larkin, AA having one more year under their belt, with Nyquist and Tatar being the 30 goals/60 point scorers they're supposed to be, with Blashill having more experience and actually getting more out of his players. 

All the pieces of our puzzle are there. The problem is we haven't been able to execute and put it all together. Our players aren't very good because they don't play at their ceiling. But if they did, we COULD be a good team. That's probably what Holland is thinking and the reason why he's not giving up on playoffs, on making a run. Maybe he thinks this team has the pieces and needs some more and needs the team to execute fully. 

Sproul is never going to be a top 4, he will be a fringe 3rd pair/AHL'er. If they thought he had any top 4 potential they would've protected him. Daley isn't taking " minutes" from Sproul. Daley is good enough to play his own minutes. Sproul will have to play better and earn his 3rd pair minutes. 

[LeftWinger 4,961]

6 hours ago, kickazz said:

Same ppg. Yup and that's exactly why Tatar should make a minimum 1 million dollars MORE than Nyquist. Mathematics is sooooooo good.  

Thanks for proving my point, the point that you make absolutely no sense. For the record if you want to look at the full stats, Tatar has a PPG of 0.56 and Nyquist is 0.61. But you know. ONE MILLION more dollars to the inferior producer.  But ok since your want to look at goals. Nyquist is .26 goals per game and Tatar is .28 goals per game. Congrats Tatar you are 0.02 goals per game better than Nyquist. And for that you get 1 million more per year. Courtesy of Rightwinger. 

I do hope you're right about the cap hit. The less the better. I hope he gets as little as possible plus if we could take about $1.5M away from Nyquist that would be great. These salary are getting out of hand again.

[Dabura 12,207]

21 hours ago, derblaueClaus said:

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.

I mean, I'm not arguing in favor of trading Sproul or keeping him stapled to the bench. I just find the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing to be a bit much. Our young roster defensemen are mostly expendable, IMO. I'm glad to have them around, but I won't lose any sleep if they're traded or even claimed on waivers.

Honestly, I'd like for the whole logjam to be blown up (figuratively, of course). No more Kronwall, no more Ericsson, no more DeKeyser, no more 500 young defensemen that don't appear to be anything more than unremarkable bottom-four NHL defensemen. I might take an expansion draft group over what we have.