Our draft position

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

8 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

After the Daley signing I decided I wouldn't post all season, 

Why? TD has been our best defenseman over the course of the season.

[WingedWheel91 271]

12 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Why? TD has been our best defenseman over the course of the season.

I didn't understand signing a 34 year old Defenseman to a 3 year contract in the middle of a rebuild...

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, WingedWheel91 said:

I didn't understand signing a 34 year old Defenseman to a 3 year contract in the middle of a rebuild...

I agree. Signing Daley, who is at the tail end of his career, for three years with a NTC made no sense for a rebuilding team. Sure, he's a solid top 4 defenseman, but it was just an unnecessary signing in my opinion. Luckily it was a very fair contract, so it was never going to cripple the team. The NTC however, makes him difficult to move if and when we need to make room for one of the kids. It becomes a modified NTC (15 team no-trade list) 10 days prior to next year's trade deadline, but he can still determine whether or not he gets traded by carefully selecting those 15 teams.

We're going to need to make room for some of the kids (Hicketts, Cholowski, Hronek, maybe someone else) over the next season or two. Ouellet is likely gone, Jensen could easily be moved (although I like him as a bottom pairing guy). Kronwall is on his last year, and Ericsson could be moved (although I doubt he will be). Depending on Green's health, he may be back. DeKeyser isn't going anywhere.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

I didn't understand signing a 34 year old Defenseman to a 3 year contract in the middle of a rebuild...

And that caused you to stop posting entirely...? I get where your logic is coming from, but Daley was just a depth signing for the blue-line. He's on probably the best veteran contract this team has as well.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

5 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

I didn't understand signing a 34 year old Defenseman to a 3 year contract in the middle of a rebuild...

Fair enough. But even rebuilding teams have to sign free agents. Bringing in someone like Daley was a good move IMO.

[WingedWheel91 271]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

And that caused you to stop posting entirely...? I get where your logic is coming from, but Daley was just a depth signing for the blue-line. He's on probably the best veteran contract this team has as well.

lol when you aren't good enough to make the playoffs, the emphasis should be placed on developing your younger players. When we signed Daley, I questioned if Holland really looked at this team and said "we have a shot" - because that's what a 34 year old depth signing for 3 years tells me.

[barabbas16 499]

4 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

lol when you aren't good enough to make the playoffs, the emphasis should be placed on developing your younger players. When we signed Daley, I questioned if Holland really looked at this team and said "we have a shot" - because that's what a 34 year old depth signing for 3 years tells me.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[WingedWheel91 271]

37 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Fair enough. But even rebuilding teams have to sign free agents. Bringing in someone like Daley was a good move IMO.

He isn't a terrible player, nor does he have a terrible contract.

I just thought it was a terrible fit for a team that has more than enough long term, NMC contracts attached to players that aren't producing at much higher than replacement... with little shot at winning.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by WingedWheel91

[RightWeiner 17]

8 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

lol when you aren't good enough to make the playoffs, the emphasis should be placed on developing your younger players. When we signed Daley, I questioned if Holland really looked at this team and said "we have a shot" - because that's what a 34 year old depth signing for 3 years tells me.

I think you're missing the point. Ericsson and Daley play the hard minutes. We don't have any defenceman who are anywhere near ready to take on those responsibilities. You don't just throw prospects into the deep end and hope they swim. That's how you ruin a prospect's confidence and development.

[WingedWheel91 271]

35 minutes ago, RightWeiner said:

I think you're missing the point. Ericsson and Daley play the hard minutes. We don't have any defenceman who are anywhere near ready to take on those responsibilities. You don't just throw prospects into the deep end and hope they swim. That's how you ruin a prospect's confidence and development.

I have no idea what this has to do with my argument that generally disagrees with giving older players long term contracts, in the middle of a re-build. Ericsson's contract (as bad as it is) is unrelated to my point as his current deal was signed in 2013.

Your statement "You don't just throw prospects into the deep end and hope they swim" is also hard to understand, considering I didn't mention any of our prospects? Without Trevor Daley, we still would have rostered 6 defenceman per night and probably finish very close to 5th worst in the league - without ruining anyone's confidence.

Edited April 10, 2018 by WingedWheel91

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

55 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

I have no idea what this has to do with my argument that generally disagrees with giving older players long term contracts, in the middle of a re-build. Ericsson's contract (as bad as it is) is unrelated to my point as his current deal was signed in 2013.

Your statement "You don't just throw prospects into the deep end and hope they swim" is also hard to understand, considering I didn't mention any of our prospects? Without Trevor Daley, we still would have rostered 6 defenceman per night and probably finish very close to 5th worst in the league - without ruining anyone's confidence.

First bold: 3 years is a long-term contract? Daley will be 36 when the contract ends, that's pretty much exactly the age we should be cutting off players like him at.

Second bold: You stated the emphasis should be on developing younger players. That begs the question, who do you want to develop? Ouellet? Hicketts? Hronek? I think two of those guys could very well have their confidence ruined, especially when removing a minute eater like Daley and everyone shifting up. The other I don't think is worth developing.

All in all I think it's a bit dramatic to stop posting over. Holland's done wayyyyyy worse things than signing Trevor Daley.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 hour ago, WingedWheel91 said:

He isn't a terrible player, nor does he have a terrible contract.

I just thought it was a terrible fit for a team that has more than enough long term, NMC contracts attached to players that aren't producing at much higher than replacement... with little shot at winning.

 

1 hour ago, barabbas16 said:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[WingedWheel91 271]

15 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

First bold: 3 years is a long-term contract? Daley will be 36 when the contract ends, that's pretty much exactly the age we should be cutting off players like him at.

Second bold: You stated the emphasis should be on developing younger players. That begs the question, who do you want to develop? Ouellet? Hicketts? Hronek? I think two of those guys could very well have their confidence ruined, especially when removing a minute eater like Daley and everyone shifting up. The other I don't think is worth developing.

All in all I think it's a bit dramatic to stop posting over. Holland's done wayyyyyy worse things than signing Trevor Daley.

My general argument against the Daley signing was that it was a bad fit, and un-neccessary for a team in our position. We already had Ericsson, Dekeyser and Kronwall on long term contracts taking spots away from any younger talent for the next few years, are any of those guys going to get better? Adding Daley meant that we would have 4 older mediocre Defenceman locked into our lineup until 2020...

Hronek, No. But Hicketts is going to be 22 in a few weeks and looked decent when he was up, Ouellet is going to be 25 this summer, Robbie Russo is already 25, Lashoff is 27 with solid NHL experience... If you are worried Daleys spot could only be filled by a kid who's confidence might be shattered because he "wasn't ready" - how long do you plan on waiting for that to happen? Knowing what you have in these guys is as important as knowing what you don't.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

33 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

My general argument against the Daley signing was that it was a bad fit, and un-neccessary for a team in our position. We already had Ericsson, Dekeyser and Kronwall on long term contracts taking spots away from any younger talent for the next few years, are any of those guys going to get better? Adding Daley meant that we would have 4 older mediocre Defenceman locked into our lineup until 2020...

Hronek, No. But Hicketts is going to be 22 in a few weeks and looked decent when he was up, Ouellet is going to be 25 this summer, Robbie Russo is already 25, Lashoff is 27 with solid NHL experience... If you are worried Daleys spot could only be filled by a kid who's confidence might be shattered because he "wasn't ready" - how long do you plan on waiting for that to happen? Knowing what you have in these guys is as important as knowing what you don't.

 

I agree that Daley wasn't a good fit for this team, but going forward we shouldn't have much of an issue making room for the kids. Kronwall's contract is up at the end of next season, and he may or may not play the entire season. I also think management, right or not, were thinking that Kronwall likely wouldn't be healthy enough to play all of this season, let alone next. Ericsson and Daley's contracts don't end until the following season, but one or both could easily be moved before then as well. Hicketts should have a spot once Ouellet is likely traded or waived. I want Green back, but only if he's 100% healthy and one or more of the other vets (Ericsson / Daley) are moved and / or if Kronwall isn't healthy. Hronek will likely get a look at some point next season as well. I'm not that high on Saarijarvi or anyone else in the system other than Cholowski, and I think he needs a full season in Grand Rapids (unless he proves otherwise). A lot will depend who we take with our first pick in this year's draft as well. If we luck out in the lottery and get Dahlin, we will obviously need to make room for him. Anyone else would be at least one year away anyway.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

My general argument against the Daley signing was that it was a bad fit, and un-neccessary for a team in our position. We already had Ericsson, Dekeyser and Kronwall on long term contracts taking spots away from any younger talent for the next few years, are any of those guys going to get better? Adding Daley meant that we would have 4 older mediocre Defenceman locked into our lineup until 2020...

Hronek, No. But Hicketts is going to be 22 in a few weeks and looked decent when he was up, Ouellet is going to be 25 this summer, Robbie Russo is already 25, Lashoff is 27 with solid NHL experience... If you are worried Daleys spot could only be filled by a kid who's confidence might be shattered because he "wasn't ready" - how long do you plan on waiting for that to happen? Knowing what you have in these guys is as important as knowing what you don't.

 

Exactly, 4 veteran Dmen locked in, with 2 spots remaining for younger guys. Maybe 5 vets and 1 spot for a young guy if Green is signed. Both scenarios are fine with me. I'd like to see Hicketts make the team full-time and have Hronek as the call-up. Ouellet, Russo, Lashoff, and Jensen are all pretty trash and are not worth developing any farther, especially not at the NHL level. But if we don't sign Green, I'd pick Jensen to be the 6th Dman, as Hronek probably isn't ready for fulltime duties yet as he's not even received a single callup yet. So I don't see Daley as a bad fit at all. In fact he was a pretty good fit on our blue line all season and I was happy with the way we played our defensive prospects this year.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 4/10/2018 at 10:07 AM, krsmith17 said:

I agree. Signing Daley, who is at the tail end of his career, for three years with a NTC made no sense for a rebuilding team. Sure, he's a solid top 4 defenseman, but it was just an unnecessary signing in my opinion.

13 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

My general argument against the Daley signing was that it was a bad fit, and un-neccessary for a team in our position.

I would agree with this if any of these were true:

1. Daley was signed in favor of a MUCH younger 2nd pair defenseman that was available in free agency.

2. Signing Daley created a long jam that prevented a young, developing dman who was ready for full time NHL duty from making the roster.

3. Daley was overpaid and did not play up to his contract.

4. Daley had little or no playoff experience or mentoring abilities or leadership skills.

Since none of these were true, I would say that Daley would be a "good Fit" on just about any team, including this one. Just because the team is "rebuilding" doesn't mean that you don't sign contributory veterans to fill out your roster.

13 hours ago, WingedWheel91 said:

Adding Daley meant that we would have 4 older mediocre Defenceman locked into our lineup until 2020...

Hicketts is going to be 22 in a few weeks and looked decent when he was up, Ouellet is going to be 25 this summer,

Robbie Russo is already 25, Lashoff is 27 with solid NHL experience... 

 

First: Irrelevant. If we don't have any NHL ready kids to add to the blueline, what's difference does it make how many veterans make up the defense? 

Second: Hicketts was not ready for full time NHL duty yet, he's a lesser player than Daley and plays a different style. He's also a 3rd pairing guy, so if anyone is keeping him off the roster, its Ouellet and/or Jensen; or putting Wit on D instead of playing F, not Daley.

Third: Russo and Lashoff are not NHL caliber defenseman. Putting them on the roster full time would basically be announcing to every young player coming up that we're not committed to winning. Pretty hard to instill a winning attitude in a young player when management isn't also committed to it.

13 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

but going forward we shouldn't have much of an issue making room for the kids. Kronwall's contract is up at the end of next season, and he may or may not play the entire season. I also think management, right or not, were thinking that Kronwall likely wouldn't be healthy enough to play all of this season, let alone next. Ericsson and Daley's contracts don't end until the following season, but one or both could easily be moved before then as well. Hicketts should have a spot once Ouellet is likely traded or waived. I want Green back, but only if he's 100% healthy and one or more of the other vets (Ericsson / Daley) are moved and / or if Kronwall isn't healthy. Hronek will likely get a look at some point next season as well. I'm not that high on Saarijarvi or anyone else in the system other than Cholowski, and I think he needs a full season in Grand Rapids (unless he proves otherwise). A lot will depend who we take with our first pick in this year's draft as well. If we luck out in the lottery and get Dahlin, we will obviously need to make room for him. Anyone else would be at least one year away anyway.

I agree with the rest of this.

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Exactly, 4 veteran Dmen locked in, with 2 spots remaining for younger guys. Maybe 5 vets and 1 spot for a young guy if Green is signed. Both scenarios are fine with me. I'd like to see Hicketts make the team full-time and have Hronek as the call-up. Ouellet, Russo, Lashoff, and Jensen are all pretty trash and are not worth developing any farther, especially not at the NHL level. But if we don't sign Green, I'd pick Jensen to be the 6th Dman, as Hronek probably isn't ready for fulltime duties yet as he's not even received a single callup yet. So I don't see Daley as a bad fit at all. In fact he was a pretty good fit on our blue line all season and I was happy with the way we played our defensive prospects this year.

This guy gets it.

[krsmith17 7,191]

8 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I would agree with this if any of these were true:

1. Daley was signed in favor of a MUCH younger 2nd pair defenseman that was available in free agency.

2. Signing Daley created a long jam that prevented a young, developing dman who was ready for full time NHL duty from making the roster.

3. Daley was overpaid and did not play up to his contract.

4. Daley had little or no playoff experience or mentoring abilities or leadership skills.

Since none of these were true, I would say that Daley would be a "good Fit" on just about any team, including this one. Just because the team is "rebuilding" doesn't mean that you don't sign contributory veterans to fill out your roster.

First: Irrelevant. If we don't have any NHL ready kids to add to the blueline, what's difference does it make how many veterans make up the defense? 

Second: Hicketts was not ready for full time NHL duty yet, he's a lesser player than Daley and plays a different style. He's also a 3rd pairing guy, so if anyone is keeping him off the roster, its Ouellet and/or Jensen; or putting Wit on D instead of playing F, not Daley.

Third: Russo and Lashoff are not NHL caliber defenseman. Putting them on the roster full time would basically be announcing to every young player coming up that we're not committed to winning. Pretty hard to instill a winning attitude in a young player when management isn't also committed to it.

What does "playoff experience" have to do with anything when you're team that should be rebuilding? This team was never going to make the playoffs. And "mentoring abilities" / "leadership skills"? Who was he mentoring / leading? He was paired with Ericsson all season, and we didn't have a single young defenseman on the team for him to mentor / lead... Which is kind of the point some of us were arguing last July... Holland even said flat out in his post season presser, "our defense is old". Maybe he's finally starting to get it... You can't keep signing these stop-gap veterans and expect to successfully rebuild a team. At some point you have to give the kids an opportunity. He's been reluctant to do this in the past, but I think we'll see this team get much younger over the next couple seasons. This is what should have been priority last off-season. It wasn't, but I guess it's better late than never...

No, there probably weren't any "MUCH better 2nd pair defensemen" available in free agency, but the point is, we probably should have stayed away from free agency altogether. We didn't NEED to sign a free agent. I would much rather have kept Hicketts or Sproul on the team over signing Daley. But if for whatever reason we didn't think Hicketts was ready, and thought Sproul wasn't a player, and for whatever reason, Holland had to sign a free agent, there were younger options available. I would rather have taken a flyer on a 25 year old Joe Morrow or Ryan Murphy (both 2011 first round draft picks) over a 34 year old Daley. Sure, they would have been gambles (similar to sticking with Hicketts or Sproul) but that's what a rebuilding team should do. Roll the dice on the kids and hope some of them pan out. I still think Hicketts would have been ready last year. He was the last cut in training camp, and looked good in his pre-season games. I also think we gave up on Sproul way too early, but that's another discussion.

I like Daley, I think he's a solid defenseman, but three years was way too long to sign a 34 year old, when you're trying to rebuild. Especially considering we already had a 36 year old Kronwall locked up for two more years, a 33 year old Ericsson locked up for three more years, and a 32 year old Green for this year. Our two youngest defensemen were both 27 years old, DeKeyser and Jensen... That's an average age of 31.5 on defense for a team that should be trying to get younger... Makes no sense to me... Let's sign Francois Beauchemin this summer. He was more productive than Daley last year and he'll only be 38 years old next year...

While it was a bad signing at the time, Holland can still make good by trading / waiving one or two players in the coming months to make room for some of the kids. Kenny, you were extended for another two years to prove that you can successfully rebuild this team. I went out on a limb and said that I think you're capable of pulling this off. You better not f*** this up...

[WingedWheel91 271]

15 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I would agree with this if any of these were true:

1. Daley was signed in favor of a MUCH younger 2nd pair defenseman that was available in free agency.

2. Signing Daley created a long jam that prevented a young, developing dman who was ready for full time NHL duty from making the roster.

3. Daley was overpaid and did not play up to his contract.

4. Daley had little or no playoff experience or mentoring abilities or leadership skills.

Since none of these were true, I would say that Daley would be a "good Fit" on just about any team, including this one. Just because the team is "rebuilding" doesn't mean that you don't sign contributory veterans to fill out your roster.

First: Irrelevant. If we don't have any NHL ready kids to add to the blueline, what's difference does it make how many veterans make up the defense? 

Second: Hicketts was not ready for full time NHL duty yet, he's a lesser player than Daley and plays a different style. He's also a 3rd pairing guy, so if anyone is keeping him off the roster, its Ouellet and/or Jensen; or putting Wit on D instead of playing F, not Daley.

Third: Russo and Lashoff are not NHL caliber defenseman. Putting them on the roster full time would basically be announcing to every young player coming up that we're not committed to winning. Pretty hard to instill a winning attitude in a young player when management isn't also committed to it.

I agree with the rest of this.

This guy gets it.

There is alot I agree and disagree with here, but I will generalize my argument the quickest way possible:

If we get a lucky bounce in the lottery and get Dahlin this summer, we are instantly closer (and more attractive to FAs). There is no argument in the world that justifies wasting 3 years of term and cap dollars for a 34 year old replacement level player (thanks for the 16 points) at a time where names like Tavares, Doughty, Karlsson are going to hit the market. These pieces fall 1 by 1, and that $3,000,000 is far more valuable in the bank than spent on the production Trevor Daley could ever bring us.

I agree that if we don't get Dahlin, Trevor Daley's contract isn't going to cripple us - but my issue is (and always has been) a matter of philosophy. I thought last summer Holland would spend that amount of time trying to get rid of a guy like Ericsson, instead of adding a similar player for as many years. Hell, I would have been happier if he got rid of Ericsson and ate $3,000,000 of his salary because we would be as bad today with more money and roster spots available.

It looks bleak today, but a lot can change on draft night and the months that follow. I won't ever agree with wasting money on older players before we are contending, especially when we have way to many of them already.

 

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

10 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

There is alot I agree and disagree with here, but I will generalize my argument the quickest way possible:

If we get a lucky bounce in the lottery and get Dahlin this summer, we are instantly closer (and more attractive to FAs). There is no argument in the world that justifies wasting 3 years of term and cap dollars for a 34 year old replacement level player (thanks for the 16 points) at a time where names like Tavares, Doughty, Karlsson are going to hit the market. These pieces fall 1 by 1, and that $3,000,000 is far more valuable in the bank than spent on the production Trevor Daley could ever bring us.

I agree that if we don't get Dahlin, Trevor Daley's contract isn't going to cripple us - but my issue is (and always has been) a matter of philosophy. I thought last summer Holland would spend that amount of time trying to get rid of a guy like Ericsson, instead of adding a similar player for as many years. Hell, I would have been happier if he got rid of Ericsson and ate $3,000,000 of his salary because we would be as bad today with more money and roster spots available.

It looks bleak today, but a lot can change on draft night and the months that follow. I won't ever agree with wasting money on older players before we are contending, especially when we have way to many of them already.

 

So you're not going to sign a mid-level player in 2017 because a couple guys might be available in 2019??

 

Again...Daley's contract is the last of our worries.  I don't really know what to say if you really think that that signing is going to have any effect on any of those guys signing here....It won't.

Holland is always going to want character veteran role models around.  Daley is a good one who doesn't break the bank and fills a need. Trade a forward if you have to.

[WingedWheel91 271]

1 minute ago, Son of a Wing said:

So you're not going to sign a mid-level player in 2017 because a couple guys might be available in 2019??

 

Again...Daley's contract is the last of our worries.  I don't really know what to say if you really think that that signing is going to have any effect on any of those guys signing here....It won't.

Daley is under-contract longer than any of those names above, he also has a NMC like all of our defenseman do. So yes, obviously it would become more difficult to add any of those players when you have $3,000,000 committed to a guy who has no trade value, and doesn't produce much.

Again, my entire issue is with philosophy. What exactly did we sign him for? Please tell me what sense his signing made (considering term and age) when we traded Mrazek, Tatar, and attempted to trade Green all for futures during the same season, where we finished 5th from the bottom?

 

 

 

[WingedWheel91 271]

7 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

What does "playoff experience" have to do with anything when you're team that should be rebuilding? This team was never going to make the playoffs. And "mentoring abilities" / "leadership skills"? Who was he mentoring / leading? He was paired with Ericsson all season, and we didn't have a single young defenseman on the team for him to mentor / lead... Which is kind of the point some of us were arguing last July... Holland even said flat out in his post season presser, "our defense is old". Maybe he's finally starting to get it... You can't keep signing these stop-gap veterans and expect to successfully rebuild a team. At some point you have to give the kids an opportunity. He's been reluctant to do this in the past, but I think we'll see this team get much younger over the next couple seasons. This is what should have been priority last off-season. It wasn't, but I guess it's better late than never...

No, there probably weren't any "MUCH better 2nd pair defensemen" available in free agency, but the point is, we probably should have stayed away from free agency altogether. We didn't NEED to sign a free agent. I would much rather have kept Hicketts or Sproul on the team over signing Daley. But if for whatever reason we didn't think Hicketts was ready, and thought Sproul wasn't a player, and for whatever reason, Holland had to sign a free agent, there were younger options available. I would rather have taken a flyer on a 25 year old Joe Morrow or Ryan Murphy (both 2011 first round draft picks) over a 34 year old Daley. Sure, they would have been gambles (similar to sticking with Hicketts or Sproul) but that's what a rebuilding team should do. Roll the dice on the kids and hope some of them pan out. I still think Hicketts would have been ready last year. He was the last cut in training camp, and looked good in his pre-season games. I also think we gave up on Sproul way too early, but that's another discussion.

I like Daley, I think he's a solid defenseman, but three years was way too long to sign a 34 year old, when you're trying to rebuild. Especially considering we already had a 36 year old Kronwall locked up for two more years, a 33 year old Ericsson locked up for three more years, and a 32 year old Green for this year. Our two youngest defensemen were both 27 years old, DeKeyser and Jensen... That's an average age of 31.5 on defense for a team that should be trying to get younger... Makes no sense to me... Let's sign Francois Beauchemin this summer. He was more productive than Daley last year and he'll only be 38 years old next year...

While it was a bad signing at the time, Holland can still make good by trading / waiving one or two players in the coming months to make room for some of the kids. Kenny, you were extended for another two years to prove that you can successfully rebuild this team. I went out on a limb and said that I think you're capable of pulling this off. You better not f*** this up...

This is exactly correct and the simple point I'm trying to make to the Trevor Daley truthers I never thought existed. Not a bad guy, not a bad player - but I will never understand the contract he was offered.

Unfortunately, that Beauchemin signing might actually happen.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, WingedWheel91 said:

Daley is under-contract longer than any of those names above, he also has a NMC like all of our defenseman do. So yes, obviously it would become more difficult to add any of those players when you have $3,000,000 committed to a guy who has no trade value, and doesn't produce much.

Again, my entire issue is with philosophy. What exactly did we sign him for? Please tell me what sense his signing made (considering term and age) when we traded Mrazek, Tatar, and attempted to trade Green all for futures during the same season, where we finished 5th from the bottom?

 

 

 

We didn't try trading those players until we were out of the playoff picture. Daley was signed 8 months prior to any of that.

He was signed as a veteran with recent cup winning experience that could help the team

1 hour ago, WingedWheel91 said:

This is exactly correct and the simple point I'm trying to make to the Trevor Daley truthers I never thought existed. Not a bad guy, not a bad player - but I will never understand the contract he was offered.

Unfortunately, that Beauchemin signing might actually happen.

Good cap hit for what he brings, a player that brought some stability to our crumbling blue line.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

Perspective is key here. When Daley was signed, Kronwall had been nursing a bad knee for years. He missed training camp due to back issues. There was no guarantee that he would even be on the roster this year. Green was on the last year of his contract and was a good trade candidate. No guarantee he was coming back after this year. DeKeyser had just come off of his worst season statistically. Ericsson was playing well below his contract again coming into this past season. So if we hadn't signed Daley, we could have potentially gone into the season with Kronwall on LTIR, DD and Ericsson having another bad season (You don't think having TD paired with E and putting less responsibility on DD's shoulders had anything to do with them both having better years? I do.) Mike Green, who would have been traded if healthy leaving another hole on D, Ouellet, Jensen, and Sproul. Welcome to Diarrhea on Ice. Plus, none of the kids were ready. This is exactly the scenario where you sign a "stop-gap" defenseman. To fill holes made by older players leaving or retiring and filling out the roster until the next generation is ready. If there was a situation where there was even one kid being forced to stay in the minors during even one year of his contract, then i would say it was a bad signing. It wasn't.

Again. Even rebuilding teams need to develop a winning culture if they want to have any chance of becoming relevant again. It creates a better environment for younger players to develop within and makes a team more attractive to free agents.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[krsmith17 7,191]

21 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Perspective is key here. When Daley was signed, Kronwall had been nursing a bad knee for years. He missed training camp due to back issues. There was no guarantee that he would even be on the roster this year. Green was on the last year of his contract and was a good trade candidate. No guarantee he was coming back after this year. DeKeyser had just come off of his worst season statistically. Ericsson was playing well below his contract again coming into this past season. So if we hadn't signed Daley, we could have potentially gone into the season with Kronwall on LTIR, DD and Ericsson having another bad season (You don't think having TD paired with E and putting less responsibility on DD's shoulders had anything to do with them both having better years? I do.) Mike Green, who would have been traded if healthy leaving another hole on D, Ouellet, Jensen, and Sproul. Welcome to Diarrhea on Ice. Plus, none of the kids were ready. This is exactly the scenario where you sign a "stop-gap" defenseman. To fill holes made by older players leaving or retiring and filling out the roster until the next generation is ready. If there was a situation where there was even one kid being forced to stay in the minors during even one year of his contract, then i would say it was a bad signing. It wasn't.

Again. Even rebuilding teams need to develop a winning culture if they want to have any chance of becoming relevant again. It creates a better environment for younger players to develop within and makes a team more attractive to free agents.

Perspective is something I've spoke of though. I mentioned that management may have been unsure of Kronwall's health, as well as Green being in the last year his contract, and Daley playing a part in Ericsson's strong season. I still don't think the Red Wings today or in the future would have been any worse off, if we didn't sign Daley, Kronwall spent half the season on IR, we traded Green at the deadline, and Ericsson didn't have a resurgence. Having the vets healthy and playing well is only important to the team this year. It has no bearing on the team in the future. What matters for the future is getting the kids playing well, which is what should be management's main focus.

You keep saying that the kids weren't held down in GR / the kids weren't ready for the NHL. Hicketts was held down, and he was ready this year. He'll be more than ready next year, and there still might not be room for him on the roster. Moves are going to have to be made. I just hope it's at the expense of a veteran, rather than a younger player. Holland has said it himself, our defense is old. We need to get younger. Now do something about it...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

41 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Perspective is something I've spoke of though. I mentioned that management may have been unsure of Kronwall's health, as well as Green being in the last year his contract, and Daley playing a part in Ericsson's strong season. I still don't think the Red Wings today or in the future would have been any worse off, if we didn't sign Daley, Kronwall spent half the season on IR, we traded Green at the deadline, and Ericsson didn't have a resurgence. Having the vets healthy and playing well is only important to the team this year. It has no bearing on the team in the future. What matters for the future is getting the kids playing well, which is what should be management's main focus.

You keep saying that the kids weren't held down in GR / the kids weren't ready for the NHL. Hicketts was held down, and he was ready this year. He'll be more than ready next year, and there still might not be room for him on the roster. Moves are going to have to be made. I just hope it's at the expense of a veteran, rather than a younger player. Holland has said it himself, our defense is old. We need to get younger. Now do something about it...

First Bold: Right, removing our 2nd best Dman wouldn't do a thing...

Second Bold: Says who? You? Fact is he didn't make the team, and that's not because of Trevor Daley. All he had to do was beat out players like XO or Jensen if he was so ready. He didn't.