• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

HockeytownRules19

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

Rate this topic

282 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

No, I want them to use the high picks intelligently like Chicago and Pittsburgh did, and Edmonton did once they got a competent GM. I don't want the #9 overall to be used on a guy who might be a good 2nd line winger, and I don't want to draft in the middle of the round year after year and end up with a roster full of 2nd line forwards and 2nd pair D.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

ShanahanMan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


No, I want them to use the high picks intelligently like Chicago and Pittsburgh did, and Edmonton did once they got a competent GM. I don't want the #9 overall to be used on a guy who might be a good 2nd line winger, and I don't want to draft in the middle of the round year after year and end up with a roster full of 2nd line forwards and 2nd pair D.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I'm with you.  People talking about "developing" need to realize we stink at that too.  We have a great scout in Andersson, and he's pulled us some picks that turned out A LOT better than expected.  But over the last 10 years, we have failed on draft day, and we've failed in development.  Kindl, Jurco, Ferraro, Jarnkrok, Sheahan, Smith, etc etc etc.  Too many of our top picks are not working out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

I'm with you.  People talking about "developing" need to realize we stink at that too.  We have a great scout in Andersson, and he's pulled us some picks that turned out A LOT better than expected.  But over the last 10 years, we have failed on draft day, and we've failed in development.  Kindl, Jurco, Ferraro, Jarnkrok, Sheahan, Smith, etc etc etc.  Too many of our top picks are not working out.

Of those Smith & Jarnkrok have developed fine from where they were drafted. Until last year, you could say the same about Sheahan in all honesty.

Either way, using those picks to criticise the organisation's current operations is sort of invalid as all were drafted and largely developed by people no-longer part of the organisation.

krsmith17 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:


No, I want them to use the high picks intelligently like Chicago and Pittsburgh did, and Edmonton did once they got a competent GM. I don't want the #9 overall to be used on a guy who might be a good 2nd line winger, and I don't want to draft in the middle of the round year after year and end up with a roster full of 2nd line forwards and 2nd pair D.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I'm not even going to touch on Rasmussen, because as much as we like to think we are draft experts, I don't consider reading a few paragraphs on the internet qualifications for evaluating talent we have never seen play before.

Pittsburgh and Chicago, I knew you were going there. Unfortunately due to the dominance of these two teams a false narrative has been created among fans, that narrative being that to win a cup you HAVE TO tank and get lottery picks.

Here is the question I ask, and I ask you to please not look at this in a simplistic black and white way. Do you really believe that to win 16 games in the playoffs, you need to tank, but to win 14 or 15 games in the playoffs, you don't need to tank? Plenty of good teams have had deep playoff runs without having to tank to get there, but unfortunately those who think in a very black or white way always just use the argument of "you don't win the cup, doesn't matter" which is only the case because of the domination of 2 teams winning 6 cups since 2009. I'm sorry, but if you are capable of winning 14 or 15 games, you very well could have won 16 if a few bounces go in a different direction as it has been proven that hockey has the largest amount of luck of all major sports. 

Additionally, if we actually analyze those two teams, I think it goes a lot deeper then simply saying they tanked. I'll start with Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh was very lucky to get Crosby and Malkin down the middle, and the fact that they did is pure luck, no strategy. The Crosby lottery pick was after the locked out season, every team had  a 1/30 chance in winning the draft lottery, the fact that Pittsburgh won it is as skill-full as winning a game of BINGO. After that draft pick, there future was pretty much laid out for them. Sure tanking (or just being bad) played into it, but the ultimate difference maker was the right ball coming out.

Chicago is a team built by being very bad, very hard to argue this one. Kane was a lottery pick, and Toews was a 3rd overall pick but IMO the biggest move they made was drafting Duncan Keith with the 54th pick in the 2002 draft. IMO, if they dont make that move, they don't win 3 cups. Either way, my point is that tanking is not the sole reason why Chicago won, they won because of drafting smart, having the best coach in the world, and making very good roster moves despite having their roster stripped multiple times.

What is being ignored are the Philadelphia Flyers, Vancouver Canucks, New Jersey Devils, Boston Bruins (who also won a cup), New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning, San Jose Sharks and Nashville Predators, teams that went the distance sans one or 2 games (well lets exclude NJ, they got killed). The majority of these teams built their teams through the draft, but not necessarily by getting #1 overall picks like the ALWAYS mentioned Chicago and Pittsburgh. Now like I said before, if you want to make the simplistic argument of "2nd place in just the first loser" "they didn't win, so it doesn't count" or any of the other cliche's out there, go ahead, but in reality what this shows is that to build a contender in the NHL, you don't need to tank and have lottery picks. Maybe to build a dynasty you do, with with the new draft odds, even that is unlikely to happen.

I am NOT saying that I think Holland is doing everything right, there have been a lot of mistakes made, but my point is can we please stop using Chicago and Pittsbugh as the ONLY examples of how to build a team. I have said many times, if I were Holland I would dump about half of the contracts, make a trade for a #1 d-man, play the kids, and continue building through the draft, but I'm just sick of the constant referencing of Chicago/Pittsburgh. I realize you never used the word "tank" Dickie, but you do seem to imply the only way to become good is to draft at the top of the draft.  

Bottom line, the key to winning in the NHL is drafting smart, not drafting high.

Edited by kliq
derblaueClaus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that in order to win you need two high end forwards and a D-man who at least gets int he Norris conversation.  High end D-men are drafted all over the place, but by far the most likely way of getting an elite level forward is one of the top few picks of the draft.  Can you get lucky and find a Zetterberg late, or a Kopitar in the middle of the round?  Sure.  But it's not very likely.

I also believe that in a cap world, every dollar counts, and continuing to overpay mid level players and signing older vets to free agent deals longer than a year or two does nothing but clog up cap space and delay the obvious and inevitable rebuild, and that Holland's insistence that they need to do it the same way they did last time around because it worked then is doing nothing but locking the team into mediocrity for the foreseeable future.  Every team has a guy or two making more than they should.  Detroit has several.  Some of them declined because of injury, but others were questionable at best from day 1.  Abdelkader wasn't likely to get a better deal than he got.  Ditto for Helm, Glendening, and Dekeyser.  The Wings used to be able to retain their players for reasonable contracts, now they can't.  With Dekeyser they were kind of stuck, with the other 3 they could have easily let them walk away, especially Helm and Glendening, both of whom are fairly easy to replace.

krsmith17 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

I believe that in order to win you need two high end forwards and a D-man who at least gets int he Norris conversation.  High end D-men are drafted all over the place, but by far the most likely way of getting an elite level forward is one of the top few picks of the draft.  Can you get lucky and find a Zetterberg late, or a Kopitar in the middle of the round?  Sure.  But it's not very likely.

I also believe that in a cap world, every dollar counts, and continuing to overpay mid level players and signing older vets to free agent deals longer than a year or two does nothing but clog up cap space and delay the obvious and inevitable rebuild, and that Holland's insistence that they need to do it the same way they did last time around because it worked then is doing nothing but locking the team into mediocrity for the foreseeable future.  Every team has a guy or two making more than they should.  Detroit has several.  Some of them declined because of injury, but others were questionable at best from day 1.  Abdelkader wasn't likely to get a better deal than he got.  Ditto for Helm, Glendening, and Dekeyser.  The Wings used to be able to retain their players for reasonable contracts, now they can't.  With Dekeyser they were kind of stuck, with the other 3 they could have easily let them walk away, especially Helm and Glendening, both of whom are fairly easy to replace.

I agree with most of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, kliq said:

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

Want to know what's scary? All of Pittsburghs D-lines can act as first lines. That's why their TOI is spread dead even. With Letang in it's not as grey but with him out, I couldn't tell you who was the true "1st pair". On paper though, If I had to guess I'd say Daley/Maata was acting as their 2nd pair. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Want to know what's scary? All of Pittsburghs D-lines can act as first lines. That's why their TOI is spread dead even. With Letang in it's not as grey but with him out, I couldn't tell you who was the true "1st pair". On paper though, If I had to guess I'd say Daley/Maata was acting as their 2nd pair. 

The only reason why I ask this is because some people are making Daley sound like another low end d-man (ie a 5th or 6th on any other team) when the reality is he just played big minutes for the defending cup champs. Not saying he is elite or even close to it, but I think he is a legit top 4 guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

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

According to the amount of minutes and the type of minutes he plays, yes. Trevor Daley is a 1st/2nd pairing defenseman depending on what part of his career you look at. 1st pairing with Dallas, 2nd with Chicago, both 1st/2nd with Pittsburgh.

 

6 minutes ago, kliq said:

The only reason why I ask this is because some people are making Daley sound like another low end d-man (ie a 5th or 6th on any other team) when the reality is he just played big minutes for the defending cup champs. Not saying he is elite or even close to it, but I think he is a legit top 4 guy.

Well no, then they have no idea what they're saying. Daley is definitely going to be our 1st pairing defenseman. MAYBE 2nd pairing to spread the pairs out and compliment each other.

If Blashill is racist, Daley ends up on the 3rd pair. :scared:

People should watch the video I linked to see what Daley does. He had a down year last year and has battled some injuries but when he's healthy, he can be very good.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Dabura said:

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.

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.

2. Daley is easily our second best defenseman after Green.

3. He can play on all ends of the ice, and can play big minutes, including PK, PP (has a hell of a shot). 

4. Great puck moving defenseman

5. He's better than all of our young defenseman

6. Our "young" defenseman aren't that good, nor will they be. Sproul, XO are plugs (sorry guys I know some of ya'll are in denial but they aren't that good). Jensen is the only one with true potential without having major shortcomings on defense (which is the recipe for being an NHL defender). 

7. The young defenseman that COULD be good are still 2 years (probably more)  away (Saarijarvi, Cholowski, Hronek). Hicketts maybe 1-2 years. 

And the best point of all.

8. NHL is NOT a development league. If you're not already developed into an NHL ready player, then spend some more time in the minors. 

Edited by kickazz
Dabura and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of the last 4 years he's played over 68 games once.  Injuries eventually reduce a player's effectiveness, especially once they're in their 30's.  And this "well, defensemen don't age as fast" stuff is nonsense.  It's about a player's overall injury history, genetics, how hard they work, and what PEDs they take, if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

of the last 4 years he's played over 68 games once.  Injuries eventually reduce a player's effectiveness, especially once they're in their 30's.  And this "well, defensemen don't age as fast" stuff is nonsense.  It's about a player's overall injury history, genetics, how hard they work, and what PEDs they take, if any.

Yes lets ignore the trend in defenseman having better longevity and make up superficial arguments about "genetics, injury history, PEDS" etc. 

Anything to play down the signing and make management look like s***. Superficial arguments will do at this point. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Yes lets ignore the trend in defenseman having better longevity and make up superficial arguments about "genetics, injury history, PEDS" etc. 

Anything to play down the signing and make management look like s***. Superficial arguments will do at this point. 

Strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's awesome that everyone thinks of our young D that Jensen is the best. After all the slack I took a few years ago for putting him on my roster all the time.

And yes, Daley will make this D better. Plus he makes less than half the guys  back there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

2. Daley is easily our second best defenseman after Green.

3. He can play on all ends of the ice, and can play big minutes, including PK, PP (has a hell of a shot). 

4. Great puck moving defenseman

5. He's better than all of our young defenseman

6. Our "young" defenseman aren't that good, nor will they be. Sproul, XO are plugs (sorry guys I know some of ya'll are in denial but they aren't that good). Jensen is the only one with true potential without having major shortcomings on defense (which is the recipe for being an NHL defender). 

7. The young defenseman that COULD be good are still 2 years (probably more)  away (Saarijarvi, Cholowski, Hronek). Hicketts maybe 1-2 years. 

And the best point of all.

8. NHL is NOT a development league. If you're not already developed into an NHL ready player, then spend some more time in the minors. 

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.

derblaueClaus and LeftWinger like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we're trading one in a package for a legit top pair guy, I say we keep all three of them and let Kronner and E rot in the basement.

Daley - Green

Dekeyser - Jensen

XO - Sproul

krsmith17 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes lets ignore the trend in defenseman having better longevity and make up superficial arguments about "genetics, injury history, PEDS" etc. 
Anything to play down the signing and make management look like s***. Superficial arguments will do at this point. 

Except they really don't

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Unless we're trading one in a package for a legit top pair guy, I say we keep all three of them and let Kronner and E rot in the basement.

Daley - Green

Dekeyser - Jensen

XO - Sproul

Why do you have so much disdain for a player like Kronwall? Guy gave everything he had to this team, and his body is breaking down. I get why you may be upset with Holland for contracts, but why do you want the guy "to rot" you make it sound like he did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kliq said:

Why do you have so much disdain for a player like Kronwall? Guy gave everything he had to this team, and his body is breaking down. I get why you may be upset with Holland for contracts, but why do you want the guy "to rot" you make it sound like he did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

I just mean with his knees. He's given a lot and I respect him, but it's time to give up his spot. E can rot, Kronner can fade away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, kliq said:

Why do you have so much disdain for a player like Kronwall? Guy gave everything he had to this team, and his body is breaking down. I get why you may be upset with Holland for contracts, but why do you want the guy "to rot" you make it sound like he did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

Because they're Swedish. This is the same guy that wants to give Tatar a long term deal even though Tatar has been pathetic overall on ice the last two years were it not for playing with Z who fed him most of his 25 goals. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I just mean with his knees. He's given a lot and I respect him, but it's time to give up his spot. E can rot, Kronner can fade away.

Ok cool, if that is what you mean, that's fair.

E I am not going to defend lol, I dont have disdain for him like you, but I dont want him here anymore. If it was up to me, the second we NEED to rid of his caphit, I trade a pick with him to a team like Vegas.

By need I mean if getting rid of him allows us to re-sign Larkin and Mantha, or sign a guy like JT.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

....and it starts.

Btw, Tatar has always been better than Nyquist.

7 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Because they're Swedish. This is the same guy that wants to give Tatar a long term deal even though Tatar has been pathetic on ice the last two years were it not for playing with Z. 

Pathetic is paying a player $4.75M to score 17 and 12 goals the last two seasons. Tatar had 46 goals the last two.

But this is not a thread about Nyquist and Tatar, it's about Daley and our D. 

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

49 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


Except they really don't

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Except they do. You have a knack for talking out your ass and not giving sources so here. 

http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php 

Number of Games Played during an NHL Player Career 

Average games played for Forwards: 259.77

Average games played for Defensemen: 271.32 

 

Number of Seasons during an NHL Player Career

Average seasons played by Forwards: 5.66

Average seasons played by Defensemen: 5.96

 

The age difference is slight but it's there for the ENTIRE NHL history (since the 1920s). This includes the fact that defenseman actually had it worse back then.  

Between 2000-2010, 19% of the NHL defenseman were retiring after the age of 35 while 14% of the forwards were retiring after 35. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, DickieDunn said:


No, I want them to use the high picks intelligently like Chicago and Pittsburgh did, and Edmonton did once they got a competent GM. I don't want the #9 overall to be used on a guy who might be a good 2nd line winger, and I don't want to draft in the middle of the round year after year and end up with a roster full of 2nd line forwards and 2nd pair D.

You can disagree with the #9 pick, but let's not set these other teams as a pinnacle of intelligent drafting. I'm sure all have made picks that would earn your ire:

For example I'll just look at some of Chicago's picks near the #9 position that would get similar or harsher criticisms:

Chicago picked Kyle Beach with #11 in 08 - he's never played a game in the NHL. He had known injury and concussion issues and on-ice discipline issues when drafted. In 2000, they picked Yukubov and Yurobyev with the #10 and #11 picks both only played about 50 NHL games. In doing so, they passed on Orpik who was higher ranked and fell to 18.

P.S. before someone cries foul for hindsight being 20/20, I made sure to judge choices on the basis of the criticisms/problems these picks would have had at the time.

As for the Daley pickup, I'm warming to it. Hadn't seen a whole lot of him except this playoffs and in a few Wing games. The highlight video that Kickazz posted was pretty impressive. I'll wait to hear our injury situation before I'm really sure about it.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk
kliq and derblaueClaus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now