Our draft position

[Buppy 1,720]

Smith, Sproul, Hicketts, Hronek, whoever....eventually Kr is going to hit on one of them then he's going to LW'er us and say, "See, I was right the whole time!"

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours 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...

I am going to disagree with you here. I don't think he was ready to start the season. Maybe to start next season tho. And even if he was on the roster instead of Daley, that would have pushed one of Kronwall, Jensen, Ouellet or Hicketts into full time top 4 duty. Kronwall no longer has the health to do it, and the others are young 3rd pairing guys that would not benefit by being thrown into that kind of situation. And whether that's a good thing or bad, this team would have been far worse.

I do think he will be on the roster one way or another. I think Ouellet will be the odd man out and would not be surprised to lose him on waivers.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

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.

Pretty much. I also can see Daley kind of stepping in and taking Kronwall's place in the locker room when he retires.

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

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.

What would removing our "2nd best defenseman" have done? We would have finished lower in the standings? We would have been better off... One of the kids would have gotten an opportunity? We would have been better off...

Says who? Me, obviously. It's my opinion that Hicketts should have made the team out of camp. He was one of our better defensemen in camp / preseason, and he was very solid in his 5 games this season. You're acting as if this is the first time a young player has ever been passed over by a vet despite being deserving of a spot...

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

Smith, Sproul, Hicketts, Hronek, whoever....eventually Kr is going to hit on one of them then he's going to LW'er us and say, "See, I was right the whole time!"

Yeah, that's totally my thing... I always gloat when I'm right... 

 

Just for the record before people try to spin this into something it's not. I don't think leaving Hicketts off the opening night roster was a huge deal. I don't think Hicketts will ever be anything more than a bottom pair defenseman. I just don't agree that signing Daley was beneficial to this team, short term or long term. No, it probably won't have any major negative impact either, but it wasn't necessary. I don't think it was a good fit for the way this team was / is set up. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

What would removing our "2nd best defenseman" have done? We would have finished lower in the standings? We would have been better off... One of the kids would have gotten an opportunity? We would have been better off...

Says who? Me, obviously. It's my opinion that Hicketts should have made the team out of camp. He was one of our better defensemen in camp / preseason, and he was very solid in his 5 games this season. You're acting as if this is the first time a young player has ever been passed over by a vet despite being deserving of a spot...

Yeah, that's totally my thing... I always gloat when I'm right... 

 

Just for the record before people try to spin this into something it's not. I don't think leaving Hicketts off the opening night roster was a huge deal. I don't think Hicketts will ever be anything more than a bottom pair defenseman. I just don't agree that signing Daley was beneficial to this team, short term or long term. No, it probably won't have any major negative impact either, but it wasn't necessary. I don't think it was a good fit for the way this team was / is set up. 

How much lower did you need to finish to be happy? We finished pretty darn low and have decent lottery odds. Daley adds a steady player to what is one of the worst blue lines in the league. I want to rebuild without absolutely destroying the culture and confidence of this team. Thrusting an unready Hicketts into water over his head in a roster of XOs, DDs, Jensens, and crippled Kronwalls is no way to develop a prospect. Daley was a smart cost effective addition.

Well the team experts disagrees with your opinion, sorry. They also disagreed with you on Smith and Mrazek. You're becoming known for inflated opinions on young players.

[Dabura 12,207]

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

[insert every defenseman the Wings have drafted since 2001]....eventually Ken Holland is going to hit on one of them

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

8 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

How much lower did you need to finish to be happy? We finished pretty darn low and have decent lottery odds. Daley adds a steady player to what is one of the worst blue lines in the league. I want to rebuild without absolutely destroying the culture and confidence of this team. Thrusting an unready Hicketts into water over his head in a roster of XOs, DDs, Jensens, and crippled Kronwalls is no way to develop a prospect. Daley was a smart cost effective addition.

Well the team experts disagrees with your opinion, sorry. They also disagreed with you on Smith and Mrazek. You're becoming known for inflated opinions on young players.

I never said I wanted to finish lower in the standings...

I don't think a 34-36 year old that put up 16 points this year was the best solution to fix our piss poor defense. I think Hicketts or Sproul could have produced just as much or more, while not giving up a ton on the defense side. You disagree, which is fine. What about taking a flyer on a younger UFA defenseman like Murphy or Morrow? What about trading for a youngish defenseman? There are / were much better options to fixing this defense than signing a past his prime stop gap. But hey, what do I know... The "experts" disagree with me, so I'm obviously wrong...

I'm becoming "known for inflated opinions of young players" because people like you only point out when others are wrong on their projections... What about all the times people have been right? What about Ouellet and Marchenko? Most people were really high on both and said they were future top 4 defensemen (or better in some cases). I said they both sucked and were bottom pair defensemen at best. I also said Jensen was better than both and people gave me s*** for that as well. It's kinda sad that you (and a few others here) get your rocks off by pointing out when people are wrong... But whatever, to each their own I guess...

Edited April 14, 2018 by krsmith17

[mackel 679]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I never said I wanted to finish lower in the standings...

I don't think a 34-36 year old that put up 16 points this year was the best solution to fix our piss poor defense. I think Hicketts or Sproul could have produced just as much or more, while not giving up a ton on the defense side. You disagree, which is fine. What about taking a flyer on a younger UFA defenseman like Murphy or Morrow? What about trading for a youngish defenseman? There are / were much better options to fixing this defense than signing a past his prime stop gap. But hey, what do I know... The "experts" disagree with me, so I'm obviously wrong...

I'm becoming "known for inflated opinions of young players" because people like you only point out when others are wrong on their projections... What about all the times people have been right? What about Ouellet and Marchenko? Most people were really high on both and said they were future top 4 defensemen (or better in some cases). I said they both sucked and were bottom pair defensemen at best. I also said Jensen was better than both and people gave me s*** for that as well. It's kinda sad that you (and a few others here) get your rocks off by pointing out when people are wrong... But whatever, to each their own I guess...

We need to be careful... throwing kid after kid into the NHL to either sink or swim is the Edmonton model.  We do need character vets around to shield and teach these younger players.

That said we also need to be more willing to push aside a veteran when it's clear he's no longer needed in that role.  I think Daley is a character player and was a good signing.  ***IF*** they resign Green it needs to be 4 million and 1 year max with no trade restrictions and that's if he has a clean bill of health.

[Prolix 65]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I never said I wanted to finish lower in the standings...

 

13 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

What would removing our "2nd best defenseman" have done? We would have finished lower in the standings? We would have been better off...

[krsmith17 7,191]

26 minutes ago, mackel said:

We need to be careful... throwing kid after kid into the NHL to either sink or swim is the Edmonton model.  We do need character vets around to shield and teach these younger players.

That said we also need to be more willing to push aside a veteran when it's clear he's no longer needed in that role.  I think Daley is a character player and was a good signing.  ***IF*** they resign Green it needs to be 4 million and 1 year max with no trade restrictions and that's if he has a clean bill of health.

I agree. However, this team is nowhere close to the Edmonton model, nor did I say anything that would indicate that I'd like to see us model the Oilers... There's a huge difference between having a team full of kids and having the oldest team (and defense) in the league. There's a middle ground, and that's where I'd like to see the Red Wings. A defense that averaged over 30 years old, did not need a 34 year old "character" player to teach the young players... I asked this before, with no response, so I'll ask again. Which young players did Daley teach? The youngest defensemen on the roster were 27 years old. Not exactly young...

28 minutes ago, Prolix said:

 

Being better off does not equal wanting... I was one of the few that said I was still rooting for / wanting the Wings to win every game, despite knowing they'd be better off losing...

[Dabura 12,207]

56 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Where does Dahlin go if we get him?

On the top pairing with John Carlson.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I agree. However, this team is nowhere close to the Edmonton model, nor did I say anything that would indicate that I'd like to see us model the Oilers... There's a huge difference between having a team full of kids and having the oldest team (and defense) in the league. There's a middle ground, and that's where I'd like to see the Red Wings. A defense that averaged over 30 years old, did not need a 34 year old "character" player to teach the young players... I asked this before, with no response, so I'll ask again. Which young players did Daley teach? The youngest defensemen on the roster were 27 years old. Not exactly young...

Being better off does not equal wanting... I was one of the few that said I was still rooting for / wanting the Wings to win every game, despite knowing they'd be better off losing...

To answer your question: this past year, perhaps none. But he has 2 years left and Cholowski, Hronek, Hicketts, and 18 1st rounder will be up by then. Kronner, Ouellet, Jensen, Witkowski will all be gone by then. Hope that clears things up from my POV.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I never said I wanted to finish lower in the standings...

I don't think a 34-36 year old that put up 16 points this year was the best solution to fix our piss poor defense. I think Hicketts or Sproul could have produced just as much or more, while not giving up a ton on the defense side. You disagree, which is fine. What about taking a flyer on a younger UFA defenseman like Murphy or Morrow? What about trading for a youngish defenseman? There are / were much better options to fixing this defense than signing a past his prime stop gap. But hey, what do I know... The "experts" disagree with me, so I'm obviously wrong...

I'm becoming "known for inflated opinions of young players" because people like you only point out when others are wrong on their projections... What about all the times people have been right? What about Ouellet and Marchenko? Most people were really high on both and said they were future top 4 defensemen (or better in some cases). I said they both sucked and were bottom pair defensemen at best. I also said Jensen was better than both and people gave me s*** for that as well. It's kinda sad that you (and a few others here) get your rocks off by pointing out when people are wrong... But whatever, to each their own I guess...

If you didn't want to finish lower, then what's your point? Daley didn't hurt Hicketts or Sprouls development, all those two had to do was beat out XO and Jensen and they couldn't.  He's been our 2nd best Dman at a very good price. He's a building block we can use for the next 2 seasons, on a team with zero building blocks at D other than Mike Green. Hicketts and Sproul were never going to eat his level of minutes whether they made the team or not anyway, and Murphy/Morrow wouldn't have fixed the D either. Daley is a stop gap until we can insert better players. Older players are not are not useless assets, even on a rebuilding team. We need to transition our young Dmen on to a D corp with at least some level of stability, with decent players they can learn from and be led by.

Your known for inflated opinions because I point them out? Uh sure, sorta. The easy fix their is... idk maybe not over-hyping players? especially ones that suck? Then there would be nothing to point out. Problem solved.

Yes everyone wanted XO and Marchenko to succeed and develop into top 4 players. But once they got to the NHL and sucked pretty much 100% of everyone acknowledged that, yup, they suck. How many people have you seen running around the last 2 seasons preaching that XO has been mishandled and just needs more time/development and he will become something? I haven't seen anyone, yet it would be an easy argument to make, the kid is still only 24. But on the other hand, who ran around the past few seasons singing the praises of Smith and Mrazek?

I don't get my rocks off on fighting with you. I'd prefer that everyone acknowledge all of XO, Jensen, Marchenko, Smith, Sproul, and Mrazek, aren't very good, and then we can have reasonable discussion on what we do with these players. But unfortunately we always seem to get bogged down in dumb arguments about how Brendan Smith is a top 4 puck mover or our 2nd best Dman isn't needed on the team.

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Dabura 12,207]

4 hours ago, Dabura said:

On the top pairing with John Carlson.

For the record, this was a mostly serious response, though I guess it reads pretty well as snark. (Such is my effortless genius!)

If we get Dahlin, there's a decent chance that a number of doors suddenly open up for us. In theory, one of those could be a top UFA like John Carlson being drawn to us by the Dahlin factor, just as Lucic was drawn to the Oilers because of McDavid. Or maybe the Wings hold out for Karlsson/Ekman-Larsson.

In any case, Dahlin would make the roster out of camp and would likely play a prominent role on our back end right from the get-go.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

14 hours ago, Dabura said:

For the record, this was a mostly serious response, though I guess it reads pretty well as snark. (Such is my effortless genius!)

If we get Dahlin, there's a decent chance that a number of doors suddenly open up for us. In theory, one of those could be a top UFA like John Carlson being drawn to us by the Dahlin factor, just as Lucic was drawn to the Oilers because of McDavid. Or maybe the Wings hold out for Karlsson/Ekman-Larsson.

In any case, Dahlin would make the roster out of camp and would likely play a prominent role on our back end right from the get-go.

Yeah. I thought you were being cheeky. And I'm not sure what Carlson is. I have a feeling that he's a low end top pair/ high end #3 who benefits from playing on  good team. He'll get a huge payday in free agency and I don't know that we'll ever get our money's worth while he's on this roster. That would be my concern.

8 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Yes.  That's what I'm getting at.  Dahlin + Karlsson, and we are in business.

Except they would want Dahlin to get Karlsson.

[Dabura 12,207]

1 minute ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yeah. I thought you were being cheeky. And I'm not sure what Carlson is. I have a feeling that he's a low end top pair/ high end #3 who benefits from playing on  good team. He'll get a huge payday in free agency and I don't know that we'll ever get our money's worth while he's on this roster. That would be my concern.

Except they would want Dahlin to get Karlsson.

I go back and forth on John Carlson. I'm not sold on him being a guy you can build a Cupworthy blue line around, but on the other hand, he'd be a huge upgrade on what we have and defensemen like him don't exactly grow on trees.

But it feels like Erik Karlsson will be leaving Ottawa soon enough and I imagine Holland would rather wait a year and go after him or Ekman-Larsson. And by that time we should have a couple of veteran contracts coming off the books.

(All of this assumes we get Dahlin and Dahlin instantly makes the Wings really appealing to top UFAs.)

[RightWeiner 17]

19 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If you didn't want to finish lower, then what's your point? Daley didn't hurt Hicketts or Sprouls development, all those two had to do was beat out XO and Jensen and they couldn't.  He's been our 2nd best Dman at a very good price. He's a building block we can use for the next 2 seasons, on a team with zero building blocks at D other than Mike Green. Hicketts and Sproul were never going to eat his level of minutes whether they made the team or not anyway, and Murphy/Morrow wouldn't have fixed the D either. Daley is a stop gap until we can insert better players. Older players are not are not useless assets, even on a rebuilding team. We need to transition our young Dmen on to a D corp with at least some level of stability, with decent players they can learn from and be led by.

Your known for inflated opinions because I point them out? Uh sure, sorta. The easy fix their is... idk maybe not over-hyping players? especially ones that suck? Then there would be nothing to point out. Problem solved.

Yes everyone wanted XO and Marchenko to succeed and develop into top 4 players. But once they got to the NHL and sucked pretty much 100% of everyone acknowledged that, yup, they suck. How many people have you seen running around the last 2 seasons preaching that XO has been mishandled and just needs more time/development and he will become something? I haven't seen anyone, yet it would be an easy argument to make, the kid is still only 24. But on the other hand, who ran around the past few seasons singing the praises of Smith and Mrazek?

I don't get my rocks off on fighting with you. I'd prefer that everyone acknowledge all of XO, Jensen, Marchenko, Smith, Sproul, and Mrazek, aren't very good, and then we can have reasonable discussion on what we do with these players. But unfortunately we always seem to get bogged down in dumb arguments about how Brendan Smith is a top 4 puck mover or our 2nd best Dman isn't needed on the team.

 

This times a billion. Nailed it! 

[WingedWheel91 271]

On 4/14/2018 at 7:29 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If you didn't want to finish lower, then what's your point? Daley didn't hurt Hicketts or Sprouls development, all those two had to do was beat out XO and Jensen and they couldn't.  He's been our 2nd best Dman at a very good price. He's a building block we can use for the next 2 seasons, on a team with zero building blocks at D other than Mike Green. Hicketts and Sproul were never going to eat his level of minutes whether they made the team or not anyway, and Murphy/Morrow wouldn't have fixed the D either. Daley is a stop gap until we can insert better players. Older players are not are not useless assets, even on a rebuilding team. We need to transition our young Dmen on to a D corp with at least some level of stability, with decent players they can learn from and be led by.

Your known for inflated opinions because I point them out? Uh sure, sorta. The easy fix their is... idk maybe not over-hyping players? especially ones that suck? Then there would be nothing to point out. Problem solved.

Yes everyone wanted XO and Marchenko to succeed and develop into top 4 players. But once they got to the NHL and sucked pretty much 100% of everyone acknowledged that, yup, they suck. How many people have you seen running around the last 2 seasons preaching that XO has been mishandled and just needs more time/development and he will become something? I haven't seen anyone, yet it would be an easy argument to make, the kid is still only 24. But on the other hand, who ran around the past few seasons singing the praises of Smith and Mrazek?

I don't get my rocks off on fighting with you. I'd prefer that everyone acknowledge all of XO, Jensen, Marchenko, Smith, Sproul, and Mrazek, aren't very good, and then we can have reasonable discussion on what we do with these players. But unfortunately we always seem to get bogged down in dumb arguments about how Brendan Smith is a top 4 puck mover or our 2nd best Dman isn't needed on the team.

 

#1 - Daley's signing (not his fault) caused the departure of Ryan Sproul... Who (assuming he had the same production in DET he did in NY) would be a much more valuable asset today than Daley is.

#2 - Everything in terms of health and production went better than expected for our defenceman this year, and we were the 5th worst team in the NHL? What exactly did he bring to our team?

#3 - How far have we fallen to describe a 34 year old defenceman (who just put up 16 points in a full season) as a "building block we can use the next 2 seasons". I think the "block" you were looking for should start with the word trade.

#4 - We just finished in the bottom 10 of both GF and GA per game... What level of stability have we established with these veterans to transition our young defenceman into? In all likelihood, our same group of defenceman will likely regress next season.. that's the thing about age! When that happens, how does your point make any sense?

This community has become too soft! Our GM is acting like a hoarder that can't let go of the past. The Trevor Daley signing is great...When you need a partner for Lidstrom (like Rafalski) or Kronwall (like Stuart). Right now, we are 3 pieces away from being 3 pieces away!!! Until we get a Dahlin, Hughes, Doughty, Karlsson..etc which changes everything and makes cap dollars important.

Until we are in a contending position, long term complimentary contracts to players over the age of 25 don't really make sense...Can we agree on that?

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by WingedWheel91

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

#1 - Daley's signing (not his fault) caused the departure of Ryan Sproul... Who (assuming he had the same production in DET he did in NY) would be a much more valuable asset today than Daley is.

#2 - Everything in terms of health and production went better than expected for our defenceman this year, and we were the 5th worst team in the NHL? What exactly did he bring to our team?

#3 - How far have we fallen to describe a 34 year old defenceman (who just put up 16 points in a full season) as a "building block we can use the next 2 seasons". I think the "block" you were looking for should start with the word trade.

#4 - We just finished in the bottom 10 of both GF and GA per game... What level of stability have we established with these veterans to transition our young defenceman into? In all likelihood, our same group of defenceman will likely regress next season.. that's the thing about age! When that happens, how does your point make any sense?

This community has become too soft! Our GM is acting like a hoarder that can't let go of the past. The Trevor Daley signing is great...When you need a partner for Lidstrom (like Rafalski) or Kronwall (like Stuart). Right now, we are 3 pieces away from being 3 pieces away!!! Until we get a Dahlin, Hughes, Doughty, Karlsson..etc which changes everything and makes cap dollars important.

Until we are in a contending position, long term complimentary contracts to players over the age of 25 don't really make sense...Can we agree on that?

 

 

#1 No it did not. Ryan Sproul not being good enough to make this team caused Ryan Sproul to be moved out. Are you honestly suggesting Ryan Sproul is a more valuable player/better Dman than Trevor Daley? I'd like to pin that fact down before I even begin to approach that one.

#2 I've explained this in multiple posts now. Feel free to reread. I'm not rehashing everything in every post.

#3 Perhaps I used the term building block to loosely? Silly me. I also clearly referred to Daley as a stop gap. Hopefully that description eases you.

#4 Yes, I agree, our D is indeed unstable, and removing Daley would make it even more unstable. Are you suggesting you would like an unstable defensive core?

To your last point, yes, we can agree on that. In theory, it doesn't make a ton of sense for a rebuilding team to sign veteran complimentary players. Unfortunately, theory often comes up short in a pragmatic sense. These are not just contracts on paper or numbers on a screen. This is a team of men with a culture and a confidence that needs to be massaged, and an enterprise who's primary goal is to make money, not win a cup. If you want to be a purist and go full scorch the earth with this team, prepare for continued disappointment. Holland is going to add pieces he likes if he can get them at a good price. I don't think you'll see any Weiss or Nielsen type deals for the foreseeable future (overpaying to keep the streak alive) but I fully expect that Holland will explore bargain deals like Daley if he sees the opportunity arise. Holland's not just retooling this teams roster, he's rebuilding the culture as well.

At the end of day, my original point was that I think you're being completely melodramatic by protesting this board over the Trevor Daley signing. I'll hold to that.

 

[WingedWheel91 271]

42 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

#1 No it did not. Ryan Sproul not being good enough to make this team caused Ryan Sproul to be moved out. Are you honestly suggesting Ryan Sproul is a more valuable player/better Dman than Trevor Daley? I'd like to pin that fact down before I even begin to approach that one.

#2 I've explained this in multiple posts now. Feel free to reread. I'm not rehashing everything in every post.

#3 Perhaps I used the term building block to loosely? Silly me. I also clearly referred to Daley as a stop gap. Hopefully that description eases you.

#4 Yes, I agree, our D is indeed unstable, and removing Daley would make it even more unstable. Are you suggesting you would like an unstable defensive core?

To your last point, yes, we can agree on that. In theory, it doesn't make a ton of sense for a rebuilding team to sign veteran complimentary players. Unfortunately, theory often comes up short in a pragmatic sense. These are not just contracts on paper or numbers on a screen. This is a team of men with a culture and a confidence that needs to be massaged, and an enterprise who's primary goal is to make money, not win a cup. If you want to be a purist and go full scorch the earth with this team, prepare for continued disappointment. Holland is going to add pieces he likes if he can get them at a good price. I don't think you'll see any Weiss or Nielsen type deals for the foreseeable future (overpaying to keep the streak alive) but I fully expect that Holland will explore bargain deals like Daley if he sees the opportunity arise. Holland's not just retooling this teams roster, he's rebuilding the culture as well.

At the end of day, my original point was that I think you're being completely melodramatic by protesting this board over the Trevor Daley signing. I'll hold to that.

 

#1 - Well, Sproul outperformed Trevor Daley on a better team, in every statistical category per game (in a limited sample) this season. As a RH defenceman at just 25 years old - I sure as hell would rather have him over Daley today, especially after watching Daley's 77 games for us.

#2 - Again, Daley did absolute nothing to improve this team. We were actually 4 positions worse.

#3 - Yes, you are correct. The fact you used Trevor Daley and building block in the same sentence deserved my response. Isn't a stop gap literally the complete opposite of a building block?

#4 - Yes, we finished fifth from the bottom. I would rather have seen Daleys top 4 minutes occupied by someone like Hicketts, Sproul, XO, Jensen etc. If doing that cost us 2 or 3 spots in the standings, so be it...It's important to know what you have and what you don't. Sheltered minutes and limited exposure don't accomplish anything.  

Also, where did this notion that - unless your team is competitive - players under a certain age must remain in the minors if they ever want to succeed at the NHL level? This theory is complete garbage. Every player is different, and there are several instances of young players flourishing on bad teams, and young players struggling with good teams.

[RightWeiner 17]

15 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

#1 - Well, Sproul outperformed Trevor Daley on a better team, in every statistical category per game (in a limited sample) this season. As a RH defenceman at just 25 years old - I sure as hell would rather have him over Daley today, especially after watching Daley's 77 games for us.

#2 - Again, Daley did absolute nothing to improve this team. We were actually 4 positions worse.

#3 - Yes, you are correct. The fact you used Trevor Daley and building block in the same sentence deserved my response. Isn't a stop gap literally the complete opposite of a building block?

#4 - Yes, we finished fifth from the bottom. I would rather have seen Daleys top 4 minutes occupied by someone like Hicketts, Sproul, XO, Jensen etc. If doing that cost us 2 or 3 spots in the standings, so be it...It's important to know what you have and what you don't. Sheltered minutes and limited exposure don't accomplish anything.  

Also, where did this notion that - unless your team is competitive - players under a certain age must remain in the minors if they ever want to succeed at the NHL level? This theory is complete garbage. Every player is different, and there are several instances of young players flourishing on bad teams, and young players struggling with good teams.

Literally nobody said that.  All people have suggested is you dont rush prospects if they're not ready. Especially if your main goal is to develop youth and not win now. 

There are players like Larkin who are ready and there are players like Turgeon who need more time. Surround them with quality leadership and good role models at both levels and they should have a greater chance to flourish. It's not a new concept. 

 

[WingedWheel91 271]

22 minutes ago, RightWeiner said:

Literally nobody said that.  All people have suggested is you dont rush prospects if they're not ready. Especially if your main goal is to develop youth and not win now. 

There are players like Larkin who are ready and there are players like Turgeon who need more time. Surround them with quality leadership and good role models at both levels and they should have a greater chance to flourish. It's not a new concept. 

 

I have seen several posts saying things like "you don't throw prospects into the deep end and expect them to swim", but that isn't the case with all players.

Even our GM has admitted the fault in his roster. He came out last week and stated that 2 younger players at a minimum will be inserted into our lineup, meaning 2 are coming out.

Hence my frustration at the signing.

 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

59 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

#1 - Well, Sproul outperformed Trevor Daley on a better team, in every statistical category per game (in a limited sample) this season. As a RH defenceman at just 25 years old - I sure as hell would rather have him over Daley today, especially after watching Daley's 77 games for us.

#2 - Again, Daley did absolute nothing to improve this team. We were actually 4 positions worse.

#3 - Yes, you are correct. The fact you used Trevor Daley and building block in the same sentence deserved my response. Isn't a stop gap literally the complete opposite of a building block?

#4 - Yes, we finished fifth from the bottom. I would rather have seen Daleys top 4 minutes occupied by someone like Hicketts, Sproul, XO, Jensen etc. If doing that cost us 2 or 3 spots in the standings, so be it...It's important to know what you have and what you don't. Sheltered minutes and limited exposure don't accomplish anything.  

Also, where did this notion that - unless your team is competitive - players under a certain age must remain in the minors if they ever want to succeed at the NHL level? This theory is complete garbage. Every player is different, and there are several instances of young players flourishing on bad teams, and young players struggling with good teams.

#1 I believe you when say you watched Daley this season, but I'm not sure you watched or even remember Ryan Sproul. He spent 80% of the season in the minors and only logged 16 minutes a game in the few NHL games he did play, and for good reason. If you're going to measure Dmen by stats per game, you're gonna have a bad time

#2 Where the team finishes does not rest on Daley's shoulders. This team is better off with Daley eating big minutes, than it is with upgrading XO and Jensen's ice time.

#3 When I refer to a stop gap, I'm suggesting this is a player who probably won't win a cup during his time here. Just because he probably won't win a cup here doesn't mean he's not a block for us to build around.

#4 Let's be frank, without Daley XO and Jensen would have received more ice time. Any prospects coming up would be slotted in under them. If you're interested in developing XO and Jensen further, then we will have to agree to disagree. Jensen is not very good and is 28 in September, there's nothing left to develop. And XO is pretty awful and the team was trying to trade him at the deadline. These are the types of players we should be getting rid of, not Daley.

[RightWeiner 17]

3 minutes ago, WingedWheel91 said:

I have seen several posts saying things like "you don't throw prospects into the deep end and expect them to swim", but that isn't the case with all players.

Even our GM has admitted the fault in his roster. He came out last week and stated that 2 younger players at a minimum will be inserted into our lineup, meaning 2 are coming out.

Hence my frustration at the signing.

 

 

If youre going to quote someone then quote them. Don't change the words. 

 

Admit fault? Not really. Booth and probably Ouellete will come out. Svech/Turgeon and Hicketts in. Not exactly Earth shattering "admit your fault" moves.

[barabbas16 499]

1 hour ago, WingedWheel91 said:

#1 - Well, Sproul outperformed Trevor Daley on a better team, in every statistical category per game (in a limited sample) this season. As a RH defenceman at just 25 years old - I sure as hell would rather have him over Daley today, especially after watching Daley's 77 games for us.

#2 - Again, Daley did absolute nothing to improve this team. We were actually 4 positions worse.

#3 - Yes, you are correct. The fact you used Trevor Daley and building block in the same sentence deserved my response. Isn't a stop gap literally the complete opposite of a building block?

#4 - Yes, we finished fifth from the bottom. I would rather have seen Daleys top 4 minutes occupied by someone like Hicketts, Sproul, XO, Jensen etc. If doing that cost us 2 or 3 spots in the standings, so be it...It's important to know what you have and what you don't. Sheltered minutes and limited exposure don't accomplish anything.  

Also, where did this notion that - unless your team is competitive - players under a certain age must remain in the minors if they ever want to succeed at the NHL level? This theory is complete garbage. Every player is different, and there are several instances of young players flourishing on bad teams, and young players struggling with good teams.

1.  Calling the Rangers a better team to support your argument is pretty weak.  They finished a whole 1 spot above Detroit in the east and also missed the playoffs easily.  Detroit was 2-0-1 against the Rangers this season.  The Rangers were 3-11-2 in games that Ryan Sproul played.

Also, your statement that Sproul beat Daley in every statistical category per game is inaccurate.  1 goal in 16 games is not better than 9 in 77.

2.  This statement is completely unsubstantiated.  The team's performance for an entire season can't be blamed on one player (unless it's the goaltender, in some cases).

4.  We already know what we have/had in XO, Sproul, and Jensen.  XO is passably responsible, but has little offensive upside and is always the slowest skater on the ice....I'd just assume play Lashoff at this point - I think they have the same ceiling.  Sproul is the defenseman equivalent of Tomas Jurco (a LGW super-hyped prospect that turned out to be a fringe-NHL player).  The fact that he couldn't stick around here over XO speaks volumes about his time in the organization.  Jensen I actually like, but I like him only if he is a bottom pairing or #7 defenseman on the team and continues to get paid essentially the league minimum...again, though, he's already shown what he is.  I agree that it would've been nice to see more of Hicketts at the NHL level this season (since he's the only one of those you listed for which the team would need to figure out "what they have"), but for me that's as simple as waiving XO.

 

[WingedWheel91 271]

Let me clear this up for everyone:

Next year, if we get lucky - we may have: Dahlin/Boqvist, Hronek, and Cholowski all ready to make our team. Maybe they are ready, maybe they aren't... But it's not even a possibility considering we have Ericsson, Kronwall, Dekeyser, Daley and potentially Mike Green (who was actually our best Dman this season) signed to multi-year contracts.

The same can be said the following year, and then the year after that.

Given how bad we were last season, and how many contracts we already had locked in - I didn't agree with giving away another roster spot for 3 seasons to a guy that produces very little... Especially at 34 years old. What happens? We finish in an even lower spot this year and trade away everyone we possibly can at the deadline for futures... but good thing we have that calming stop gap on D to help the transition!