3/2 I Don't Like Sand GDT - Red Wings @ Coyotes - 8:00 PM ET

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

28 minutes ago, Hockeymom1960 said:

Our best option at this point is to lose the rest of the games.  Who's all in?  

Nah. We gotta have a little dignity. 

[Dabura 12,207]

4 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Nah. We gotta have a little dignity. 

Dignity shmignity.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

33 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Nah. We gotta have a little dignity. 

To hell with dignity!!

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, Dabura said:

Dignity shmignity.

 

1 hour ago, Hockeymom1960 said:

To hell with dignity!!

 

A team without dignity is a team without hope.

A team without hope has already lost.

A team that has already lost can never win.

-Neomaxizoomdweebie (2019)

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

2 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

 

A team without dignity is a team without hope.

A team without hope has already lost.

A team that has already lost can never win.

-Neomaxizoomdweebie (2019)

That doesn't matter this season.  It's over.  Concentrate on moving on down the ladder 

[MileHighWingsGuy 178]

3 hours ago, Hockeymom1960 said:

Our best option at this point is to lose the rest of the games.  Who's all in?  

With this team and coach not sure there’s really any other option.

[HoweFan 74]

I hope the guys can pull together after losing a couple of friends and win every game from here on in.  Building off a loser mentality can’t be good

[Spongewingredpants 75]

how odd, the Wings can't score anymore after trading a guy with 33 assists

[Dabura 12,207]

4 hours ago, Spongewingredpants said:

how odd, the Wings can't score anymore after trading a guy with 33 assists

• Two-game sample
• Wings have been a low-scoring team for years now
• Guy had 40 points last season, but, sure, let's act like he's the straw that stirred the drink and Holland definitely should've given him a $5M x 5 contract, I'm sure everyone here would've loved that

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

57 minutes ago, Dabura said:

• Guy had 40 points last season, but, sure, let's act like he's the straw that stirred the drink and Holland definitely should've given him a $5M x 5 contract, I'm sure everyone here would've loved that

Yeah. I would have done it. I get the arguments for trading him. I just disagree with them. I won't re-post my reasons for re-signing him, I will just wait to see if turns into an "I told you so" kinda thing.

[Dabura 12,207]

30 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yeah. I would have done it. I get the arguments for trading him. I just disagree with them. I won't re-post my reasons for re-signing him, I will just wait to see if turns into an "I told you so" kinda thing.

$5M(+) x 5 years. For a 29-year-old complementary winger. Having a career year, in a contract year. Who put up 40 points last season. And 48 points the season before that. And 43 points the season before that.

Agree to disagree -- but I will die on the "Hell no, I would not give Nyquist a 5(+) x 5 extension" hill.

[kickazz 5,459]

11 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yeah. I would have done it. I get the arguments for trading him. I just disagree with them. I won't re-post my reasons for re-signing him, I will just wait to see if turns into an "I told you so" kinda thing.

Don't be a homer lol. 

You don't give a long term contract to a player turning 30 and never being able to put up 50 points in the NHL in 7+ seasons. I get that you liked Nyquist but that's just silly. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by kickazz

[barabbas16 499]

18 hours ago, kickazz said:

Don't be a homer lol. 

You don't give a long term contract to a player turning 30 and never being able to put up 50 points in the NHL in 7+ seasons. I get that you liked Nyquist but that's just silly. 

Um, I mean, I'm with you on the not giving Nyquist a 5 year deal.  But, he totally did put up over 50 points once, is going to again this year, and he also had that 1st season where he put up 48 in like 57 games.  You need to at least insert a "consistently" in your sentence or something.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 minutes ago, barabbas16 said:

Um, I mean, I'm with you on the not giving Nyquist a 5 year deal.  But, he totally did put up over 50 points once, is going to again this year, and he also had that 1st season where he put up 48 in like 57 games.  You need to at least insert a "consistently" in your sentence or something.

You're right he did. That was also when he was 24 and 25 years old and not 29 turning 30.   

Edited March 5, 2019 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

19 hours ago, kickazz said:

Don't be a homer lol. 

You don't give a long term contract to a player turning 30 and never being able to put up 50 points in the NHL in 7+ seasons. I get that you liked Nyquist but that's just silly. 

Makes factually wrong statement

37 minutes ago, kickazz said:

You're right he did. That was also when he was 24 and 25 years old and not 29 turning 30.   

Moves the goal posts

And ignores the fact that this is Nyquist's best season of his career, yes at age 29/30

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 3/4/2019 at 7:47 PM, kickazz said:

Don't be a homer lol. 

You don't give a long term contract to a player turning 30 and never being able to put up 50 points in the NHL in 7+ seasons. I get that you liked Nyquist but that's just silly. 

Sure you do. Guys that age get 5 year deals all the time. Thats exactly what I expect him to get in free agency.

Whats silly is trading away a similar package 5 years from now to re-acquire him or a similar player which is exactly what "contenders" do. It empties the cupboard, and is exactly the reason why teams are sent into rebuild mode.

Keeping your secondary scorers AND your draft picks is how you stay competitive for a long time. Trading away one to acquire the other and then trading it back again later is counterproductive.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Sure you do. Guys that age get 5 year deals all the time. Thats exactly what I expect him to get in free agency.

Whats silly is trading away a similar package 5 years from now to re-acquire him or a similar player which is exactly what "contenders" do. It empties the cupboard, and is exactly the reason why teams are sent into rebuild mode.

Keeping your secondary scorers AND your draft picks is how you stay competitive for a long time. Trading away one to acquire the other and then trading it back again later is counterproductive.

I agree with you in a way. But you have to assume then that the window will open again in the next 5 years.
 

I don't think it will

[kickazz 5,459]

18 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Sure you do. Guys that age get 5 year deals all the time. Thats exactly what I expect him to get in free agency.

Whats silly is trading away a similar package 5 years from now to re-acquire him or a similar player which is exactly what "contenders" do. It empties the cupboard, and is exactly the reason why teams are sent into rebuild mode.

Keeping your secondary scorers AND your draft picks is how you stay competitive for a long time. Trading away one to acquire the other and then trading it back again later is counterproductive.

I mean do you have any substantial evidence that proves this? Or is it all theoretical. Signing Nyquist now for 5 years when we’re not even a contender makes no sense. And don’t exactly know when we will be able to contend. It could be 10 years from now. If you hold onto al your players you don’t get draft picks other than the default ones you’re granted. If you’re trying to build thru the draft then you have to trade to get more picks. Thus is GM 101 and precisely why NHL GM throughout the league in every sport do this.

You sign a secondary scorer when you’re ready to make the push. You don’t keep one around assuming you’ll contend tomorrow when in reality it could be 2030. By which time Nyquist would be 40+ but another secondary scorer might be 28 years old and we sign that guy at that point in time.

It also goes both ways. Nyquist may not want to play here due to the fact that we’re not ready. He’s may end up staying in San Jose to win the cup who are closer to it then we are. 

It’s not as simple as you make it seem. It takes two to tango. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

On 3/3/2019 at 9:07 AM, Dabura said:

The Wings are going through a rebuild (finally).

Holland has embraced the rebuild, icing a fatally flawed team and stocking up on draft picks.

Holland has presided over two drafts in this new rebuild era, and from those drafts he's pulled five 1st-round-caliber players in Rasmussen, Zadina, Veleno, McIsaac, and Berggren.

The Wings are currently in 30th place with 17 games left. The Wings currently own 10 picks in the upcoming draft, including our 1st, our 2nd, and two other 2nds.

If the Wings keep playing the way they're playing, we could be looking at Jack Hughes or Kaapo Kakko. Getting Kakko would immediately accelerate the rebuild. Getting Hughes would change everything. Hell, getting Bowen Byram -- who no one's projecting to go in the top three -- would give us that elusive stud D prospect who projects as a legit #1 defenseman.

All of which is to say the Wings are where they should be. Yzerman wouldn't be doing things in a noticeably different way. Yzerman wouldn't buy out Abdelkader and Helm and DeKeyser and Nielsen. Yzerman wouldn't say, "We need this roster to be filled to the brim with kids. Younger is always better." Yzerman probably wouldn't be making huge trades, because we don't have much to trade and we don't have any malcontents like Drouin.

If we replace Blashill and we finish next season in 20th place, people will complain that we're not tanking properly.

I agree that Yzerman wouldn't do all of this, but I do think he would look to shake things up a little, to make it "his team"... once again. It's not very often a new GM steps in and keeps the exact same team intact without making any trades. I do think he'd be pretty quick to trade / buy out at least a player or two.

[Dabura 12,207]

3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I agree that Yzerman wouldn't do all of this, but I do think he would look to shake things up a little, to make it "his team"... once again. It's not very often a new GM steps in and keeps the exact same team intact without making any trades. I do think he'd be pretty quick to trade / buy out at least a player or two.

That's fair.

I guess I just feel like the Yzerman HYPE! assumes our situation is more malleable than it really is. I get that people want to see some changes, but I don't know that putting Yzerman in charge gets us those changes right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Yzerman taking over this summer. I just wouldn't expect much to change in his first year or two.

[krsmith17 7,191]

On 3/5/2019 at 10:05 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Sure you do. Guys that age get 5 year deals all the time. Thats exactly what I expect him to get in free agency.

Whats silly is trading away a similar package 5 years from now to re-acquire him or a similar player which is exactly what "contenders" do. It empties the cupboard, and is exactly the reason why teams are sent into rebuild mode.

Keeping your secondary scorers AND your draft picks is how you stay competitive for a long time. Trading away one to acquire the other and then trading it back again later is counterproductive.

We're not going to be a contender for the next 3-5 years. How does it make any sense to hold on to a soon-to-be 30 year old, who won't be good beyond that time frame? It doesn't. Trade him and gain assets that will hopefully be able to help us in the future. If we want to add a veteran depth winger in 3-5 years when we are a legit contender, by all means, do it then. But that veteran player will not be Nyquist. He will be past his prime. Trading a 2nd and 3rd round pick when we become competitive again will not "empty the cupboard". This whole debate is ridiculous. This team is not in a position to compete, which means they shouldn't be in a position to extend mediocre players beyond their prime to long term extensions...

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 minute ago, Dabura said:

That's fair.

I guess I just feel like the Yzerman HYPE! assumes our situation is more malleable than it really is. I get that people want to see some changes, but I don't know that putting Yzerman in charge gets us those changes right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Yzerman taking over this summer. I just wouldn't expect much to change in his first year or two.

Agree completely. I'm okay with Holland seeing us through this rebuild, but I'd also be okay with Yzerman taking over. Same goes for Blashill. I'd be completely okay with extending him beyond this season, and I think we will. The people that are constantly complaining about Holland and Blashill, don't really understand how a rebuild works. They think it should be seamless, the way we "retooled" from the Yzerman, Fedorov era to the Zetterberg, Datsyuk era. We got extremely lucky back then, and it rarely ever works that way. This rebuild is not going to happen over night, and the faster people realize this, the easier it'll be.

[Dabura 12,207]

14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Agree completely. I'm okay with Holland seeing us through this rebuild, but I'd also be okay with Yzerman taking over. Same goes for Blashill. I'd be completely okay with extending him beyond this season, and I think we will. The people that are constantly complaining about Holland and Blashill, don't really understand how a rebuild works. They think it should be seamless, the way we "retooled" from the Yzerman, Fedorov era to the Zetterberg, Datsyuk era. We got extremely lucky back then, and it rarely ever works that way. This rebuild is not going to happen over night, and the faster people realize this, the easier it'll be.

Yup.

Honestly, all I really care about right now is getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick. If we can do that, I think Wings fans will generally be much happier people, regardless of what happens with the front office.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

We're not going to be a contender for the next 3-5 years. How does it make any sense to hold on to a soon-to-be 30 year old, who won't be good beyond that time frame? It doesn't. Trade him and gain assets that will hopefully be able to help us in the future. If we want to add a veteran depth winger in 3-5 years when we are a legit contender, by all means, do it then. But that veteran player will not be Nyquist. He will be past his prime. Trading a 2nd and 3rd round pick when we become competitive again will not "empty the cupboard". This whole debate is ridiculous. This team is not in a position to compete, which means they shouldn't be in a position to extend mediocre players beyond their prime to long term extensions...

It's not ridiculous. If you think that managing a team thru the typical cycle of contender to bottom feeder and back again is cool, then ok. You can't stay at the top forever, its true. But there are ways to prevent a full-on drop to the bottom, if you plan ahead. It is possible to stay respectable during a "rebuild". I gave an opinion as to one way to accomplish that. If you want to disagree that my approach wouldn't work, that's fine. But I fail to see how having a strategy to build for the future while at the same time thinking beyond that to avoid a race to the bottom is "ridiculous".

And I am surprised that you dont think that trading away your prospects and draft picks doesn't "empty the cupboard" when that's precisely how we got into this mess.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

It's not ridiculous. If you think that managing a team thru the typical cycle of contender to bottom feeder and back again is cool, then ok. You can't stay at the top forever, its true. But there are ways to prevent a full-on drop to the bottom, if you plan ahead. It is possible to stay respectable during a "rebuild". I gave an opinion as to one way to accomplish that. If you want to disagree that my approach wouldn't work, that's fine. But I fail to see how having a strategy to build for the future while at the same time thinking beyond that to avoid a race to the bottom is "ridiculous".

And I am surprised that you dont think that trading away your prospects and draft picks doesn't "empty the cupboard" when that's precisely how we got into this mess.

You really think that trading away a 2nd and 3rd round pick is emptying the cupboard? So we must have gotten a massive haul from San Jose then hey?...

I didn't like some of the trades made to keep the streak alive, but we didn't get into "this mess" by trading away a couple picks and mediocre prospects. We got in this mess because it's the natural cycle of professional sports. Like you said, you can't stay at the top forever. When you lose franchise cornerstones like Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk, you're bound to regress. And yes, I think bottoming out is necessary to get back on top. I don't necessarily think you need multiple 1st overall picks, but I do think you need multiple top 10 picks. Name a team that has gone from the bottom to the top in the modern NHL without completely bottoming out for at least a few seasons. It hasn't been done. We have a solid young core, but we're going to need another couple minimum to complete this rebuild.