krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 8 hours ago, Buppy said: This idea is simply wrong. The vets are not guaranteed anything nor preventing any kids from making the team. We could bring them all back, plus resign Green, plus sign Beauchemin, strap Vladdy to a sled and sign him to a 3 year deal, and if we go to TC and find 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr our defense next year would be 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr. In the whole of the cap era, the best young defenseman to lose out to a vet would be a toss-up between Ericsson and Quincey. How many Quincey-Ericsson-Kindl-Smith-Lashoff-Dekeyser-Almqvist-Marchenko-Ouellet-Sproul-Jensens will we go through before you start to consider the possibility that the next in line is not necessarily the next big thing, and that the reason they're getting passed over isn't because of vets or contracts or UFA signings, but rather because they just aren't that good? It's already been said that the Wings defense is a pretty low bar. If a Hicketts/Hronek/Cholowski/potential 2018 pick can't make it over that bar, we should probably temper our excitement for them. No, vets are not "guaranteed" a spot in the lineup, but they sure as hell are favored. How many times have we heard "tie goes to the vet" blah, blah, blah? Because experience. In this organization a kid has to play outstanding to get a shot. In some situations I can get behind this sort of philosophy, but in a rebuild on a team as old as the Red Wings are? No way. Tie should go to the younger player that actually has some sort of potential (even if that potential is limited). No one is saying that Hicketts or even Cholowski or Hronek are "the next big thing", or a "prime Bobby Orr"... All people are saying is that we desperately need to get younger, and give some of these kids a legit opportunity. Maybe things are finally going to start changing though. Holland has said all the right things in his season ending presser and other interviews about getting younger. Maybe management are finally starting to get it. The league is getting younger and the Wings need to follow suit. I think they will start to trend in that direction over the next couple years. I didn't agree with bringing in yet another 30+ player on a multi-year contract last off season, but fortunately, I don't think we're going to see any more of those signings any time soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BinMucker94 302 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 First try. Keeping the dream alive! 3 Dabura, krsmith17 and Keep Your Stick On the Ice reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AtlantaHotWings 987 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 14 hours ago, Buppy said: This idea is simply wrong. The vets are not guaranteed anything nor preventing any kids from making the team. We could bring them all back, plus resign Green, plus sign Beauchemin, strap Vladdy to a sled and sign him to a 3 year deal, and if we go to TC and find 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr our defense next year would be 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr. In the whole of the cap era, the best young defenseman to lose out to a vet would be a toss-up between Ericsson and Quincey. How many Quincey-Ericsson-Kindl-Smith-Lashoff-Dekeyser-Almqvist-Marchenko-Ouellet-Sproul-Jensens will we go through before you start to consider the possibility that the next in line is not necessarily the next big thing, and that the reason they're getting passed over isn't because of vets or contracts or UFA signings, but rather because they just aren't that good? It's already been said that the Wings defense is a pretty low bar. If a Hicketts/Hronek/Cholowski/potential 2018 pick can't make it over that bar, we should probably temper our excitement for them. I keep searching for the bolded player on the potential draft picks lists and don't see him. Is/are he(they) a free agent signing? Also if a player named Lidstrom or Harvey shows up to camp perhaps they could play for us too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 15 hours ago, Buppy said: This idea is simply wrong. The vets are not guaranteed anything nor preventing any kids from making the team. We could bring them all back, plus resign Green, plus sign Beauchemin, strap Vladdy to a sled and sign him to a 3 year deal, and if we go to TC and find 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr our defense next year would be 6 copies of prime Bobby Orr. In the whole of the cap era, the best young defenseman to lose out to a vet would be a toss-up between Ericsson and Quincey. How many Quincey-Ericsson-Kindl-Smith-Lashoff-Dekeyser-Almqvist-Marchenko-Ouellet-Sproul-Jensens will we go through before you start to consider the possibility that the next in line is not necessarily the next big thing, and that the reason they're getting passed over isn't because of vets or contracts or UFA signings, but rather because they just aren't that good? It's already been said that the Wings defense is a pretty low bar. If a Hicketts/Hronek/Cholowski/potential 2018 pick can't make it over that bar, we should probably temper our excitement for them. 5 hours ago, krsmith17 said: No, vets are not "guaranteed" a spot in the lineup, but they sure as hell are favored. How many times have we heard "tie goes to the vet" blah, blah, blah? Because experience. In this organization a kid has to play outstanding to get a shot. In some situations I can get behind this sort of philosophy, but in a rebuild on a team as old as the Red Wings are? No way. Tie should go to the younger player that actually has some sort of potential (even if that potential is limited). No one is saying that Hicketts or even Cholowski or Hronek are "the next big thing", or a "prime Bobby Orr"... All people are saying is that we desperately need to get younger, and give some of these kids a legit opportunity. Maybe things are finally going to start changing though. Holland has said all the right things in his season ending presser and other interviews about getting younger. Maybe management are finally starting to get it. The league is getting younger and the Wings need to follow suit. I think they will start to trend in that direction over the next couple years. I didn't agree with bringing in yet another 30+ player on a multi-year contract last off season, but fortunately, I don't think we're going to see any more of those signings any time soon. I think there's a middle ground here. Have the Wings failed miserably to find D prospects who are actually worth a damn? Yes. Have the Wings been obsessed with stocking the depth chart with as much veteran depth as humanly possible and "overripening" prospects? Yes. Does the latter follow from the former? I would say that it does, but only to an extent. I would say the veteran roadblock thing has indeed been a real thing and that even prospects who are better than the Marchenkos and Jensens and Sprouls would have been held back for somewhat artifically created reasons as opposed to it being purely meritocratic. ("A young Lidstrom would make the team out of camp" isn't really an argument.) Hicketts probably should've made the team out of camp this season. Indeed, Cleary said he was damn close to making the cut. If a player is damn close to making the cut and all of the players who make the cut are veterans, it's fair to cry "ROADBLOCK!" and "DEJA VU!" Several years ago, Babcock wanted Ouellet on the opening night roster and Holland overrode him on it. This veteran thing is a thing. It is known. It has been known for a long time. Draper recently suggested there's been another component to all of this, which I guess you could characterize as "failings of the Wings' development program": We need to expedite this process. We need to get these kids bigger and faster and stronger, quicker, to come in and start challenging for spots. That’s how you get better. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2018/02/10/detroit-red-wings-kris-draper/323124002/ All I know for sure is I'm ready for 1) an influx of high-end prospects and 2) the already-underway youth movement. No more "We feel Libor Sulak has the potential to be a real good player for us in 20 years." Please, God, no more. 2 krsmith17 and LeftWinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 7 hours ago, krsmith17 said: No, vets are not "guaranteed" a spot in the lineup, but they sure as hell are favored. How many times have we heard "tie goes to the vet" blah, blah, blah? Because experience. In this organization a kid has to play outstanding to get a shot. In some situations I can get behind this sort of philosophy, but in a rebuild on a team as old as the Red Wings are? No way. Tie should go to the younger player that actually has some sort of potential (even if that potential is limited). No one is saying that Hicketts or even Cholowski or Hronek are "the next big thing", or a "prime Bobby Orr"... All people are saying is that we desperately need to get younger, and give some of these kids a legit opportunity. Maybe things are finally going to start changing though. Holland has said all the right things in his season ending presser and other interviews about getting younger. Maybe management are finally starting to get it. The league is getting younger and the Wings need to follow suit. I think they will start to trend in that direction over the next couple years. I didn't agree with bringing in yet another 30+ player on a multi-year contract last off season, but fortunately, I don't think we're going to see any more of those signings any time soon. I don't recall ever hearing that other than on this forum, but I assume it's just another "we like our team" piece of nonsense. And as usual, when you judge things based on media soundbites, it gives a ridiculously inaccurate depiction of reality. In the last 6 seasons, we have had 15 different defensemen play at least 20 games for a total of 45 player-seasons. 16 of those 45 were players 25 or under. 855 of 2615 total games. Roughly one third of our defense roster over the last six years has been devoted to bringing in young players. 8 of the 15 played at least one year at 25 or younger. 6 at 23 or younger. Suggesting that kids aren't given legit opportunities is laughably false. The kids we've had just haven't been very good. Whine all you want about "tie goes to the vet", but the fact is neither Hicketts nor Sproul were anywhere close to a "tie" with any of our s***ty vets. 1 hour ago, Dabura said: I think there's a middle ground here. Have the Wings failed miserably to find D prospects who are actually worth a damn? Yes. Have the Wings been obsessed with stocking the depth chart with as much veteran depth as humanly possible and "overripening" prospects? Yes. Does the latter follow from the former? I would say that it does, but only to an extent. I would say the veteran roadblock thing has indeed been a real thing and that even prospects who are better than the Marchenkos and Jensens and Sprouls would have been held back for somewhat artifically created reasons as opposed to it being purely meritocratic. ("A young Lidstrom would make the team out of camp" isn't really an argument.) Hicketts probably should've made the team out of camp this season. Indeed, Cleary said he was damn close to making the cut. If a player is damn close to making the cut and all of the players who make the cut are veterans, it's fair to cry "ROADBLOCK!" and "DEJA VU!" Several years ago, Babcock wanted Ouellet on the opening night roster and Holland overrode him on it. This veteran thing is a thing. It is known. It has been known for a long time.... One, that's not a middle ground. That's just saying the same thing while acknowledging that the kids have sucked. Two, your second question is demonstrably false (see above). The "veteran thing" is a fan thing, because the most popular player on a struggling team is the one who isn't playing. Funny you'd mention Ouellet. Several years later he still isn't as good as the several years older and worse version of Ericsson everyone wanted him to replace, and is now himself included as a "vet" that's holding back the kids. 1 Prolix reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Dabura said: I think there's a middle ground here. Have the Wings failed miserably to find D prospects who are actually worth a damn? Yes. Have the Wings been obsessed with stocking the depth chart with as much veteran depth as humanly possible and "overripening" prospects? Yes. Does the latter follow from the former? I would say that it does, but only to an extent. I would say the veteran roadblock thing has indeed been a real thing and that even prospects who are better than the Marchenkos and Jensens and Sprouls would have been held back for somewhat artifically created reasons as opposed to it being purely meritocratic. ("A young Lidstrom would make the team out of camp" isn't really an argument.) Hicketts probably should've made the team out of camp this season. Indeed, Cleary said he was damn close to making the cut. If a player is damn close to making the cut and all of the players who make the cut are veterans, it's fair to cry "ROADBLOCK!" and "DEJA VU!" Several years ago, Babcock wanted Ouellet on the opening night roster and Holland overrode him on it. This veteran thing is a thing. It is known. It has been known for a long time. Draper recently suggested there's been another component to all of this, which I guess you could characterize as "failings of the Wings' development program": We need to expedite this process. We need to get these kids bigger and faster and stronger, quicker, to come in and start challenging for spots. That’s how you get better. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2018/02/10/detroit-red-wings-kris-draper/323124002/ All I know for sure is I'm ready for 1) an influx of high-end prospects and 2) the already-underway youth movement. No more "We feel Libor Sulak has the potential to be a real good player for us in 20 years." Please, God, no more. The bolded is kinda the point though. Draper/Babcock/Fans can hoot n holler for young players all they want, but the smart one there was Holland. XO doesn't even look ready for full duties now, after multiple seasons with the wings, let alone back then. It would be one thing if we drafted a kid, held him back per usual, and then he lit up the league when we finally let him on to the squad full-time. That would be case in point that kids are being held back too long... but that hasn't happened. Every time we bring a kid on they've been completely underwhelming. Kindl, Smith, Jensen, Sproul, Marchenko, Ouellet, etc. Each one of those players were hyped and fans clamored and moaned that they should be on the team, then when they finally were, they turned out to be poop. At this point, why would Hicketts be the exception? Each one of those players was the exception at one point so forgive me if I'm skeptical... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Buppy said: One, that's not a middle ground. Sure it is. You're claiming the only thing that's held kids back is their own shortcomings, that the Wings make roster decisions based purely on merit, in every single case, with no special consideration ever given to veteran status, contract size, etc. I agree that the kids have mostly sucked and that this has (arguably) hurt their cause more than veteran depth has. I disagree that the Wings are always completely 100% objective in these matters and that there's never been a veteran thing. The notion that the kids have mostly sucked is pretty self-explanatory, so I focused on the veteran thing. The veteran thing is indeed a thing. I'm not saying it's a sinister, conspiratorial thing. On the contrary: it's actually pretty mundane. Why? Because it makes sense. The Wings were perennial contenders for roughly a quarter century. That means going Cup-or-bust every year, which means leaning on proven, experienced veterans and maintaining a winning culture shaped by proven, experienced veterans. It also means having a perpetually shallow prospect pool. All of this is why we get "Tie goes to the veteran." All of this is why we get "This is a man's league." All of this is why we get "overripening" as an overriding development philosophy. All of this is why we get "Why does anyone think [x prospect] is going to be a savior in Detroit right now?" It doesn't mean grave injustices have been inflicted upon countless Wings prospects. It just means the Wings are/were obsessed with veteran depth. The Wings have been veteran-centric for ages now. Again, this is known. It's understood. If I say all of this to an NHL GM (maybe even Holland himself), he's not going to stare at me blankly and ask, "What are you talking about?" He'd acknowledge the perpetually shallow prospect pool and how that's been a major factor in the Wings' reluctance to "go younger," and he'd also acknowledge that the Wings are known for being veteran-centric, possibly to their own detriment in some cases. That's been a big part of the Wings identity for a long time. If you're drafted by the Wings, your path to the NHL is probably going to be longer than it would be with many other organizations. I remember Tatar passive-aggressively threatening to bolt to the KHL because he felt he was overdue for a promotion to the big club and was concerned that the Wings might be placing veteran roadblocks in front of him. I remember Mike Modano. I remember Cleary being kept around way past his expiration date as a player. I remember Blashill revealing that he had to push back against Holland and convince him that Larkin ought to be on the 2015-16 opening night roster. I think arguing that there's absolutely no veteran thing is not arguing in good faith. I also think overstating the impact of the veteran thing on prospects is not arguing in good faith. I think neither side here is arguing in entirely good faith. 4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: The bolded is kinda the point though. Draper/Babcock/Fans can hoot n holler for young players all they want, but the smart one there was Holland. XO doesn't even look ready for full duties now, after multiple seasons with the wings, let alone back then. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight, though. Honestly, I think you're being kind of hilariously militant about all of this. There've been cases where a kid could've been promoted earlier but wasn't, and I'm not going to say it's totally, completely, 100% because the kid wasn't good enough in every single case. (Nor will I say it's because of a conspiracy to keep kids down.) Ouellet probably would've been a serviceable #6 back then. It's not a grave injustice that he didn't get that roster spot at that time, but I think it's naive/dishonest to say it was entirely a merit thing and that any and all other cases have been only about merit, 100% objective. 4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: It would be one thing if we drafted a kid, held him back per usual, and then he lit up the league when we finally let him on to the squad full-time. That would be case in point that kids are being held back too long... but that hasn't happened. Question: Why are we limiting this discussion to defensemen? Nyquist probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Tatar probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Hicketts probably could've/should've made the team out of camp this season if it was entirely about merit. Blashill probably shouldn't have had to butt heads with Holland over Larkin. 4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: At this point, why would Hicketts be the exception? Each one of those players was the exception at one point so forgive me if I'm skeptical... Hicketts had a great rookie season in the AHL and a great training camp last fall. Maybe Blashill wanted him to improve his skating just a little bit more, that's fine, I totally get that. But, speaking of skepticism, I don't fully buy that he was sent back to the AHL because he didn't do enough to earn a spot and giving him another year in the AHL was really just about doing what was best for his development. He failed to make the cut because Green, Daley, DeKeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, Jensen, and Ouellet were ahead of him on the depth chart and Holland was not going to move Jensen/Ouellet to make room. Edited April 21, 2018 by Dabura Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Dabura said: Sure it is. You're claiming the only thing that's held kids back is their own shortcomings, that the Wings make roster decisions based purely on merit, in every single case, with no special consideration ever given to veteran status, contract size, etc.... ...and Holland was not going to move Jensen/Ouellet to make room. Let's not exaggerate things here. What I said is that kids absolutely do have opportunities to make the team. Because they do. "Purely on merit" is fallacious. "Merit" isn't a thing unto itself. A player's past performance (which some could consider as veteran status) is inextricably included in any evaluation of merit. Organizational depth is also a merit worth considering. As can be putting players in suitable roles and/or weighing the difference between playing a big role in the minors versus a minor role in the big league. I didn't mention forwards because if I did someone would have said "we're talking about defense, that doesn't count". But since you bring it up, I have often argued the same thing in regards to all players. "Overripe" is more of a fan meme than a true organizational philosophy. Larkin, despite the ironic attempt to use a kid who made the team in his first camp at 19 as an example of bias against kids, pretty well proves my point. But even if you want to believe that "veteran status" is given undue consideration, that cannot explain these supposed examples of kids "not being given a fair chance" because of the simple fact that we have never had a roster comprised entirely of veterans. Any kid you point to as being passed over in favor of a vet was also passed over in favor of a different kid. You say Holland wouldn't move Jensen or Ouellet, but why? They aren't exactly vets, and even if you did want to define vet liberally enough to include them, I would still question why you'd think we wouldn't move them. We just recently moved Marchenko in favor of Jensen. Kindl, Smith, Quincey also fairly recently moved out. Clearly the team is willing to get rid of players when they want. I'd say people are upset not because there's a bias toward vets, but rather that there isn't a bias against them. They just think those are the same thing. 1 ChristopherReevesLegs reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,961 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 The more influx of high end draft picks, the more we can and will attract that 27 year old UFA in his prime down the road. Mantha, Larkin, this years high end pick, (plus the 3 late 1sts) and next years high end pick, will no doubt help this team with the high end "home grown" talent, but then we can go back to adding a 27-30 year old UFA or two here and there to make us that much better. Here are some of the top prospects for the 2019 draft: - Alex Newhook (F) Victoria Grizzlies BCHL 45 22 44 66 10 - Kaapo Kakko (RW) TPS U20 Jr. A SM-liiga 38 25 30 55 16 - Peyton Krebs (LW) Kootenay Ice WHL 67 17 37 54 40 - Dylan Cozens (C) Lethbridge Hurricanes WHL 57 22 31 53 20 - Arthur Kaliyev (LW) Hamilton Bulldogs OHL 68 31 17 48 20 - Jack Hughes (C) U.S. National U17 Team USDP 24 13 35 48 10 - Alex Turcotte (C) U.S. National U17 Team USDP 39 15 32 47 14 - Kirby Dach (C) Saskatoon Blades WHL 52 7 39 46 12 - Samuel Poulin (LW) Sherbrooke Phoenix QMJHL 55 16 29 45 42 - Ryan Suzuki (C) Barrie Colts OHL 64 14 30 44 10 - Nolan Foote (LW) Kelowna Rockets WHL 50 13 27 40 31 - Henri Nikkanen (F) JYP U20 Jr. A SM-liiga 50 20 18 38 10 - Dmitri Sheshin (F) Stalnye Lisy Magnitogorsk MHL 51 12 26 38 12 - Xavier Parent (F) Halifax Mooseheads QMJHL 63 13 16 29 30 - Albin Grewe (C/RW) Djurgårdens IF J20 SuperElit 36 10 17 27 54 - Bowen Byram (D) Vancouver Giants WHL 60 6 21 27 52 - Sasha Mutala (RW) Tri-City Americans WHL 68 11 15 26 28 - Alex Vlasic (D) U.S. National U17 Team USDP 52 8 18 26 18 - Marshall Warren (D) U.S. National U17 Team USDP 52 6 19 25 26 - Matthew Robertson (D) Edmonton Oil Kings WHL 67 7 17 24 44 ...and here is just an example of some of the UFA available come 2020, when hopefully we'll be on an upswing and attractive to some players. (of course having JT and or Karlsson on our team beforehand would help too.) 1. Nicklas Bäckström UFA 30 C Left $8,000,000 $6,700,000 2. Alex Pietrangelo UFA 28 D Right $7,500,000 $6,500,000 3. Patrick Marleau UFA 38 LW, C Left $4,250,000 $6,250,000 4. Braden Holtby UFA 28 G Left $5,000,000 $6,100,000 5. Taylor Hall UFA 26 LW, C Left $6,000,000 $6,000,000 6. Corey Crawford UFA 33 G Left $5,000,000 $6,000,000 7. Ryan Callahan UFA 33 RW Right $4,700,000 $5,800,000 8. Mikael Granlund UFA 26 C, LW, RW Left $6,500,000 $5,750,000 9. Tyson Barrie UFA 26 D Right $6,000,000 $5,500,000 10. Mikko Koivu UFA 35 C Left $5,000,000 $5,500,000 11. Justin Schultz UFA 27 D Right $6,000,000 $5,500,000 12. Nathan Horton UFA 32 RW Right $3,600,000 $5,300,000 13. David Clarkson UFA 34 RW Right $3,250,000 $5,250,000 14. Torey Krug UFA 27 D Left $5,000,000 $5,250,000 15. Jared Spurgeon UFA 28 D Right $5,500,000 $5,187,500 16. Mike Hoffman UFA 28 LW, C Left $5,650,000 $5,187,500 17. Zach Bogosian UFA 27 D Right $6,000,000 $5,142,857 18. Brayden Schenn UFA 26 C, LW Left $4,500,000 $5,125,000 19. Andrew MacDonald UFA 31 D Left $5,750,000 $5,000,000 20. Andy Greene UFA 35 D Left $5,000,000 $5,000,000 21. Alex Galchenyuk UFA 24 C, LW, RW Left $4,900,000 $4,900,000 22. Sami Vatanen UFA 26 D Right $4,500,000 $4,875,000 23. Justin Faulk UFA 26 D Right $6,000,000 $4,833,333 24. Craig Anderson UFA 36 G Left $4,000,000 $4,750,000 25. Carl Söderberg UFA 32 C, LW Left $4,000,000 $4,750,000 26. Martin Hanzal UFA 31 C Left $4,000,000 $4,750,000 27. TJ Brodie UFA 27 D Left $4,838,000 $4,650,400 28. Clarke MacArthur UFA 33 LW Left $4,750,000 $4,650,000 29. Chris Kreider UFA 26 LW Left $4,000,000 $4,625,000 30. Tyler Toffoli UFA 25 RW, LW Right $4,800,000 $4,600,000 31. Troy Brouwer UFA 32 RW Right $4,500,000 $4,500,000 32. Christopher Tanev UFA 28 D Right $5,250,000 $4,450,000 33. Dmitry Kulikov UFA 27 D Left $4,333,333 $4,333,333 34. Michael Frolík UFA 30 RW, C Left $3,000,000 $4,300,000 35. Craig Smith UFA 28 C, RW Right $4,750,000 $4,250,000 36. Jonathan Ericsson UFA 34 D Left $4,250,000 $4,250,000 37. Evgeni Dadonov UFA 29 LW, RW Left $3,600,000 $4,000,000 38. Jake Muzzin UFA 29 D Left $4,450,000 $4,000,000 39. Marco Scandella UFA 28 D Left $4,750,000 $4,000,000 40. Mikkel Boedker UFA 28 LW, RW Left $3,000,000 $4,000,000 41. Roman Josi UFA 27 D Left $4,000,000 $4,000,000 42. Johan Franzen UFA 38 RW, LW Left $1,000,000 $3,954,545 43. Travis Hamonic UFA 27 D Right $4,875,000 $3,857,143 44. Cody Eakin UFA 26 C Left $3,850,000 $3,850,000 45. Matt Beleskey UFA 29 LW Left $3,000,000 $3,800,000 46. Justin Braun UFA 31 D Right $3,800,000 $3,800,000 47. Jacob Markström UFA 28 G Left $4,000,000 $3,666,667 48. Michael Stone UFA 27 D Right $3,500,000 $3,500,000 49. Vladimír Sobotka UFA 30 LW Left $3,000,000 $3,500,000 50. Radko Gudas UFA 27 D Right $2,500,000 $3,350,000 51. Thomas Greiss UFA 32 G Left $3,750,000 $3,333,333 52. Brenden Dillon UFA 27 D Left $3,900,000 $3,270,000 53. Charlie Coyle UFA 26 C, RW Right $4,250,000 $3,200,000 54. Trevor Daley UFA 34 D Left $2,200,000 $3,166,667 55. Patrick Eaves UFA 33 RW, LW Right $3,000,000 $3,150,000 56. Sam Gagner UFA 28 C, RW Right $3,200,000 $3,150,000 57. Jean-Gabriel Pageau UFA 25 C Right $3,400,000 $3,100,000 58. Conor Sheary UFA 25 LW, RW Left $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,961 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 ...and no, don't even mention Franzen as a joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 40 minutes ago, LeftWinger said: The more influx of high end draft picks, the more we can and will attract that 27 year old UFA in his prime down the road. Mantha, Larkin, this years high end pick, (plus the 3 late 1sts) and next years high end pick, will no doubt help this team with the high end "home grown" talent, but then we can go back to adding a 27-30 year old UFA or two here and there to make us that much better. Here are some of the top prospects for the 2019 draft: ... I hope we draft Alex Newhook next year. Fellow Newfie and my cousin trains him in the offseason. I met him this past summer, and he seems like a good young kid. Unreal talent too. Unfortunately he's a left-handed winger, but whatever. It would be 4-5 years before he'd sniff the NHL anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,961 Report post Posted April 21, 2018 I noticed on the list (and the whole one at eliteprospects.com) that there is another Foote, Suzuki and Bertuzzi gonna be drafted in 2019. Cal's brother, Nick's brother and Todd's son. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted April 22, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 5:23 PM, Dabura said: Sure it is. You're claiming the only thing that's held kids back is their own shortcomings, that the Wings make roster decisions based purely on merit, in every single case, with no special consideration ever given to veteran status, contract size, etc. I agree that the kids have mostly sucked and that this has (arguably) hurt their cause more than veteran depth has. I disagree that the Wings are always completely 100% objective in these matters and that there's never been a veteran thing. The notion that the kids have mostly sucked is pretty self-explanatory, so I focused on the veteran thing. The veteran thing is indeed a thing. I'm not saying it's a sinister, conspiratorial thing. On the contrary: it's actually pretty mundane. Why? Because it makes sense. The Wings were perennial contenders for roughly a quarter century. That means going Cup-or-bust every year, which means leaning on proven, experienced veterans and maintaining a winning culture shaped by proven, experienced veterans. It also means having a perpetually shallow prospect pool. All of this is why we get "Tie goes to the veteran." All of this is why we get "This is a man's league." All of this is why we get "overripening" as an overriding development philosophy. All of this is why we get "Why does anyone think [x prospect] is going to be a savior in Detroit right now?" It doesn't mean grave injustices have been inflicted upon countless Wings prospects. It just means the Wings are/were obsessed with veteran depth. The Wings have been veteran-centric for ages now. Again, this is known. It's understood. If I say all of this to an NHL GM (maybe even Holland himself), he's not going to stare at me blankly and ask, "What are you talking about?" He'd acknowledge the perpetually shallow prospect pool and how that's been a major factor in the Wings' reluctance to "go younger," and he'd also acknowledge that the Wings are known for being veteran-centric, possibly to their own detriment in some cases. That's been a big part of the Wings identity for a long time. If you're drafted by the Wings, your path to the NHL is probably going to be longer than it would be with many other organizations. I remember Tatar passive-aggressively threatening to bolt to the KHL because he felt he was overdue for a promotion to the big club and was concerned that the Wings might be placing veteran roadblocks in front of him. I remember Mike Modano. I remember Cleary being kept around way past his expiration date as a player. I remember Blashill revealing that he had to push back against Holland and convince him that Larkin ought to be on the 2015-16 opening night roster. I think arguing that there's absolutely no veteran thing is not arguing in good faith. I also think overstating the impact of the veteran thing on prospects is not arguing in good faith. I think neither side here is arguing in entirely good faith. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight, though. Honestly, I think you're being kind of hilariously militant about all of this. There've been cases where a kid could've been promoted earlier but wasn't, and I'm not going to say it's totally, completely, 100% because the kid wasn't good enough in every single case. (Nor will I say it's because of a conspiracy to keep kids down.) Ouellet probably would've been a serviceable #6 back then. It's not a grave injustice that he didn't get that roster spot at that time, but I think it's naive/dishonest to say it was entirely a merit thing and that any and all other cases have been only about merit, 100% objective. Question: Why are we limiting this discussion to defensemen? Nyquist probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Tatar probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Hicketts probably could've/should've made the team out of camp this season if it was entirely about merit. Blashill probably shouldn't have had to butt heads with Holland over Larkin. Hicketts had a great rookie season in the AHL and a great training camp last fall. Maybe Blashill wanted him to improve his skating just a little bit more, that's fine, I totally get that. But, speaking of skepticism, I don't fully buy that he was sent back to the AHL because he didn't do enough to earn a spot and giving him another year in the AHL was really just about doing what was best for his development. He failed to make the cut because Green, Daley, DeKeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, Jensen, and Ouellet were ahead of him on the depth chart and Holland was not going to move Jensen/Ouellet to make room. First bold: Yes I am. If were going to use examples there's going to be plenty of hindsight involved. It was a poor example on your part. Holland was right to block Babcock at the time. And what about Larkin? Does he exist in some weird alternative space/time where Holland's laws of prospects do not apply? Or did Holland simply see a player whose merit warranted he be on the team? So perhaps XO just wasn't good enough at the time (probably, hindsight suggests he still isn't)? The only real trend I've noticed with our prospects is most play about 100 regular AHL games - give or take - and then are promoted. Hicketts just hit two full AHL seasons for a total of 140 regular AHL games (Mantha, a much better prospect, got promoted after 2 full AHL seasons and a total of 132 regular AHL games). So I would say Hicketts is right on track. This year he did his duties as the #1 call-up and now it's time for a promotion. Second bold: Because I plan to segway this into the same point I always try to hammer home: This team is completely clueless when it comes to drafting and developing modern Dmen, so you better believe I think we ought to stock up on guys like Daley. Third bold: "9 you're a moron, Hicketts absolutely should have been on the team this year" Ok, I disagree, but fair enough. But's lets pretend i agree and I think Hicketts should have been on the team all season... my biggest problem would not be Daley, an effective Dman, it would be the fact that Holland did not do away with the useless pieces like Jensen and XO. If Hicketts was truly ready they both could have been waived for all I care. 19 hours ago, Buppy said: Let's not exaggerate things here. What I said is that kids absolutely do have opportunities to make the team. Because they do. "Purely on merit" is fallacious. "Merit" isn't a thing unto itself. A player's past performance (which some could consider as veteran status) is inextricably included in any evaluation of merit. Organizational depth is also a merit worth considering. As can be putting players in suitable roles and/or weighing the difference between playing a big role in the minors versus a minor role in the big league. I didn't mention forwards because if I did someone would have said "we're talking about defense, that doesn't count". But since you bring it up, I have often argued the same thing in regards to all players. "Overripe" is more of a fan meme than a true organizational philosophy. Larkin, despite the ironic attempt to use a kid who made the team in his first camp at 19 as an example of bias against kids, pretty well proves my point. But even if you want to believe that "veteran status" is given undue consideration, that cannot explain these supposed examples of kids "not being given a fair chance" because of the simple fact that we have never had a roster comprised entirely of veterans. Any kid you point to as being passed over in favor of a vet was also passed over in favor of a different kid. You say Holland wouldn't move Jensen or Ouellet, but why? They aren't exactly vets, and even if you did want to define vet liberally enough to include them, I would still question why you'd think we wouldn't move them. We just recently moved Marchenko in favor of Jensen. Kindl, Smith, Quincey also fairly recently moved out. Clearly the team is willing to get rid of players when they want. I'd say people are upset not because there's a bias toward vets, but rather that there isn't a bias against them. They just think those are the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HoweFan 74 Report post Posted April 22, 2018 My dream draft slightly revised #5 Bouchard or Boquist, #27 M Samuelson, # 33 KA Miller or Bahl # 36 O’Brien # 68 C Douglas # 81 Sutter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RightWeiner 17 Report post Posted April 22, 2018 11 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: First bold: Yes I am. If were going to use examples there's going to be plenty of hindsight involved. It was a poor example on your part. Holland was right to block Babcock at the time. And what about Larkin? Does he exist in some weird alternative space/time where Holland's laws of prospects do not apply? Or did Holland simply see a player whose merit warranted he be on the team? So perhaps XO just wasn't good enough at the time (probably, hindsight suggests he still isn't)? The only real trend I've noticed with our prospects is most play about 100 regular AHL games - give or take - and then are promoted. Hicketts just hit two full AHL seasons for a total of 140 regular AHL games (Mantha, a much better prospect, got promoted after 2 full AHL seasons and a total of 132 regular AHL games). So I would say Hicketts is right on track. This year he did his duties as the #1 call-up and now it's time for a promotion. Second bold: Because I plan to segway this into the same point I always try to hammer home: This team is completely clueless when it comes to drafting and developing modern Dmen, so you better believe I think we ought to stock up on guys like Daley. Third bold: "9 you're a moron, Hicketts absolutely should have been on the team this year" Ok, I disagree, but fair enough. But's lets pretend i agree and I think Hicketts should have been on the team all season... my biggest problem would not be Daley, an effective Dman, it would be the fact that Holland did not do away with the useless pieces like Jensen and XO. If Hicketts was truly ready they both could have been waived for all I care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,961 Report post Posted April 22, 2018 I believe that Jensen will stay around because he is a good (nicely paid) 6/7 D-man as our D gets better. I am not saying Hicketts is above him ATM on the scale, but until we see what shakes out this draft and training camp, he would make a solid bottom pairing with Jensen. I liked Green, I guess it would not be the worst thing if he re-signed, but I am not in favor of it because we have Daley, Ericsson and Kronwall as the "Vet presence" and God I hope DD re-finds the reason(s) that 30 teams wanted to sign him a few season's ago. Back to our draft position, I really believe that any D we draft NOT named Dahlin with out 1st has a damn good chance of making the team out of this year's Camp. Obviously Dahlin would be nearly a shoe in to make the team, but think about the quality of D in the top 10, we haven't drafted any one D-man of their caliber in a very, VERY long time! IMO, Hughes, Bouchard, Boqvist and Dobson already have skills that are better than most of our D in our system, and some on our NHL club. Like i mentioned in a different thread, the top four "vets" on our team aren't going anywhere, they have a spot come October. They should sit most/all pre-season games and let our D kids compete for those two spots. ESPECIALLY our 1st pick this draft and Cholowski. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted April 23, 2018 12 hours ago, LeftWinger said: I believe that Jensen will stay around because he is a good (nicely paid) 6/7 D-man as our D gets better. I am not saying Hicketts is above him ATM on the scale, but until we see what shakes out this draft and training camp, he would make a solid bottom pairing with Jensen. I liked Green, I guess it would not be the worst thing if he re-signed, but I am not in favor of it because we have Daley, Ericsson and Kronwall as the "Vet presence" and God I hope DD re-finds the reason(s) that 30 teams wanted to sign him a few season's ago. Back to our draft position, I really believe that any D we draft NOT named Dahlin with out 1st has a damn good chance of making the team out of this year's Camp. Obviously Dahlin would be nearly a shoe in to make the team, but think about the quality of D in the top 10, we haven't drafted any one D-man of their caliber in a very, VERY long time! IMO, Hughes, Bouchard, Boqvist and Dobson already have skills that are better than most of our D in our system, and some on our NHL club. Like i mentioned in a different thread, the top four "vets" on our team aren't going anywhere, they have a spot come October. They should sit most/all pre-season games and let our D kids compete for those two spots. ESPECIALLY our 1st pick this draft and Cholowski. How I see it: Jensen: Cost-effective option, doesn't move the needle either way Kronwall: Enjoy your last season buddy Ouellet: Get Marc Bergevin on the phone before the rest of league catches wind that he's not good Dekeyser & Ericsson: Overpaid in dollars and term Green & Daley: Effective Dmen on fair contracts Hicketts: Time to promote I am, as most know, anti-scorched earth with this rebuild. I would like to see the team use this period of time to critically assess who helps us and who is fat. Keep the later, trim the former. Green & Daley, to me, are what is going right with this defense. I would like to keep both. Dekesyer & Ericsson on the other hand, represent all that is wrong with this defense. Unfortunately we are probably stuck with both. Kronwall, Jensen, & Ouellet I do not feel strongly about one way or the other. However, because we cannot move DD and E, I would like to see Jensen and XO go. I like Jensen's price tag, but this is not a playoff team in need of inexpensive backup players. Trade XO for whatever we can get while he still has value. Give their spots to Hicketts and/or Sulak/Free-Agent. 1 Neomaxizoomdweebie reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,961 Report post Posted April 23, 2018 re-signing Green to a 1 year deal would help in two ways, he was one of our best D-men, plus the trade that hopefully would happen this time at the TDL. TD is tradable as well this TDL, although he can control where he goes. (15 team No-trade list) Add them along with Howard and Nyquist, they could net us a couple extra 2nds and 3rds maybe. Of course with what Holland fleeced Vegas for, who flippin knows what we could acquire. Couple all that with our drafting of Dahlin (or other high end D man in the top 8) and Kronwall retiring, 2019 Camp is shaping up to be a great competition for available spots! 2 kliq and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites