Report: Detroit to name Steve Yzerman as GM

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

Panarin and Karlsson are in their primes

Even if you consider 28 to be "in their prime" (I'd say you're wrong), they're not going to be 28 for the duration of their contracts. I'm not here thinking that they'll sign and instantly decline. Even with the injury concerns, I think they'll have a few good years before the decline starts. The issue is, we're at least a few years away from contending, even with Karlsson and / or Panarin.

I get it, you want Karlsson and Panarin. I don't. From everything I've seen, heard and read, I'd be shocked if we sign either.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Even if you consider 28 to be "in their prime" (I'd say you're wrong), they're not going to be 28 for the duration of their contracts. I'm not here thinking that they'll sign and instantly decline. Even with the injury concerns, I think they'll have a few good years before the decline starts. The issue is, we're at least a few years away from contending, even with Karlsson and / or Panarin.

I get it, you want Karlsson and Panarin. I don't. From everything I've seen, heard and read, I'd be shocked if we sign either.

We won’t be able sign them. But with them we would definitely be a playoff team. 

This team lacks superstars, signing two of them would turn things around guaranteed 100%. 

Anyways I’m sure Yzerman and every other GM with cap space will consider getting one of them because you never pass up on free agent superstars. I know you’re hoping a deal doesn’t pan out, but they will definitely be on the radar.

Edited April 29, 2019 by kickazz

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

I'd like to add Panarin.  We need a good righty.

[krsmith17 7,191]

8 hours ago, kickazz said:

We won’t be able sign them. But with them we would definitely be a playoff team. 

This team lacks superstars, signing two of them would turn things around guaranteed 100%. 

Anyways I’m sure Yzerman and every other GM with cap space will consider getting one of them because you never pass up on free agent superstars. I know you’re hoping a deal doesn’t pan out, but they will definitely be on the radar.

Signing Karlsson and Panarin would give us two superstars. No debate there. My argument is that signing two of these guys narrows our Cup window because those contracts are not going to age well at all. Even with two of them, I don't think this team is a Cup contender. A playoff team, sure, but still not ready to truly compete for a Cup.

We need to be thinking long term, and in my opinion, Karlsson and Panarin are not long term solutions. You know who are long term solutions? Our current core with the addition of another top pick in 2020...

[e_prime 1,936]

9 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

I'd like to add Panarin.  We need a good righty.

I’d like that too but I’d put my money on him going to Florida.

[kickazz 5,459]

32 minutes ago, e_prime said:

I’d like that too but I’d put my money on him going to Florida.

Hi 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

On 4/27/2019 at 12:30 PM, kickazz said:

I’ll have you know the mods and site owner are not running to their safe space or trying to silencing your opinion. They’re simply here to make sure this hockey forum stays on topic and the no-politics rule is followed.

It’s an agreement you adhered to when making the account (always read the fine print).

Only you do that

1 hour ago, e_prime said:

I’d like that too but I’d put my money on him going to Florida.

I expect Florida to go superhard after Panarin and Bob

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

4 hours ago, e_prime said:

I’d like that too but I’d put my money on him going to Florida.

That's interesting.  What makes u feel Florida?  

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Only you do that

I expect Florida to go superhard after Panarin and Bob

Even then nobody will attend their home games.  

Just now, Jonas Mahonas said:

That's interesting.  What makes u feel Florida?  

Beaches and b**ches

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

On 4/28/2019 at 5:14 AM, krsmith17 said:

I'm confused. In another thread you're advocating trading for Karlsson, but in this one, you're saying we should only focus on signing young players with high ceilings or veteran players on the cheap. Karlsson is neither of those things.

For the record, I agree with your philosophy in this thread, for the most part... However, I don't think we're a complete dumpster fire as you put it. I think we're a rebuilding team, with a lot of very promising young players on the team / in the system, with more on the way in the next two drafts.

You replied to my previous message, but you clearly didn't read it, or understand it. These NTC/NMC really don't effect a team that much. Certainly not enough to blame that on the team's demise. This team is bad now, because it's the natural cycle of sports. Every team inevitably has to be bad before they can be good again. We miraculously avoided one rebuild because we got extremely lucky in the draft. The chance of that happening again was slim to none.

I was impartial on the Nielsen signing. Didn't like it at the time, but didn't hate it either. I hated the Daley and Vanek signings. Green was a good signing. But yeah, for the most part, I agree that we should stay away from these types of signings, which is why I've been saying that we should stay far away from free agency this offseason.

I think we're on the same page really. The difference being that I think that there are certain players that are always worth pursuing. These players are rare but I would throw in guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Subban, Karlsson and a few others. The reason I think guys like these are worth pursuing is because they're elite talents and instantly make the team better and on top of it, from a business standpoint, they put people in the seats and help with the fanbase. I get that it's not the best move long-term from a strategic perspective as you mentioned in the other thread compared to a guy like Trouba for instance.

I did read and understand your comment about NTC/NMC and I think you're wrong but I have no interest in getting into an argument. I do however think it's a bad move though and I'll give you my reasons why. Right now, I'm 34 years old, if I were in the NHL right now and had a family, maybe a couple of kids and have spent 10+ years with one team and put down some family roots then I would say no to waiving a full NTC. I do understand the differences between modified NTCs and NMCs where teams can submit a list and that is certainly doesn't impact a team as much but whenever you relinquish control, you do limit your options on what you can get for a return.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

21 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Holland made those moves to maintain the playoffs as long as possible. It was his job. Its what ownership and higher ups wanted him to do. If he hadnt done it, they would have given the job to someone else to do it. It wouldnt have been any different if Yzerman had been GM. He may not have made the same moves per se, but I can guarantee that the mandate would have been the same: Keep the streak alive as long as possible. And Stevie would have made moves to keep it going just like Holland did.

I truly believe that if Holland had stepped aside in 2010 and Yzerman made GM, he would have made similar moves and the team would be in the same place now. And fans would have been claiming that Yzerman wasnt fit to do the job and Ilitch should have kept Holland at the helm instead.

Daley and Green were signed to fill out the D and provide veteran leadership. Not enough D talent in the organization at the time.

Nielsen was signed because we needed a 2C.

Vanek was brought in as a depth F, a RH shot, and for the PP.

All of them were justifiable at rhe time considering the circumstances.

I think that's a massive oversimplification. I'll grant you that the FO wanted to keep the streak alive, hell, I wanted to keep it going as well but not in the expense of mortgaging the future. Regardless of the long-term goals of the franchise, contracts are obviously very different and the team could look VERY different based on a lot of different factors. I think we have a lot of terrible contracts. I don't see Tampa Bay with many...

[gcom007 1,465]

36 minutes ago, Never_Retire_Steve said:

I think we're on the same page really. The difference being that I think that there are certain players that are always worth pursuing. These players are rare but I would throw in guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Subban, Karlsson and a few others. The reason I think guys like these are worth pursuing is because they're elite talents and instantly make the team better and on top of it, from a business standpoint, they put people in the seats and help with the fanbase. I get that it's not the best move long-term from a strategic perspective as you mentioned in the other thread compared to a guy like Trouba for instance.

I did read and understand your comment about NTC/NMC and I think you're wrong but I have no interest in getting into an argument. I do however think it's a bad move though and I'll give you my reasons why. Right now, I'm 34 years old, if I were in the NHL right now and had a family, maybe a couple of kids and have spent 10+ years with one team and put down some family roots then I would say no to waiving a full NTC. I do understand the differences between modified NTCs and NMCs where teams can submit a list and that is certainly doesn't impact a team as much but whenever you relinquish control, you do limit your options on what you can get for a return.

I generally agree with you but I have to pause on Karlsson. Something about the idea of throwing a lot of money and term at him really doesn’t sit right after this season. The injuries, the age, the off-ice sideshow...I get that he’s great, but it doesn’t feel like a smart move. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

I'm kinda surprised more people don't have the attitude of "when a bonafide star is available for nothing, you sign him" in regards to Karlsson. Regardless of injuries, he's still only 28 and producing at a superstar clip. Would you have passed on Crosby when he had all those concussions if he was made available? If Brent Burns was available over Karlsson would you be gun ho for him?

I'm not gonna be mad if we don't purse him, just sorta surprised.

[kickazz 5,459]

13 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Signing Karlsson and Panarin would give us two superstars. No debate there. My argument is that signing two of these guys narrows our Cup window because those contracts are not going to age well at all. Even with two of them, I don't think this team is a Cup contender. A playoff team, sure, but still not ready to truly compete for a Cup

If we sign Karlsson and Panarin today we have them till age 35. Not 40. It's really not as bad as people are making it out to be. We get them into their prime years and post early prime. Not like we'd be signing a bunch of 32 year old dude till their 40.

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

5 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Even then nobody will attend their home games.  

Beaches and b**ches

Why did you edit beaches? And why did you list it twice?

[kickazz 5,459]

13 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

We need to be thinking long term, and in my opinion, Karlsson and Panarin are not long term solutions. You know who are long term solutions? Our current core with the addition of another top pick in 2020...

I don't agree with that linear thought process and I don't think any GM does. You can't just rely on your young guys you draft early and hope that in the long term you win the cup, when the current guys cant even make the playoffs. 

It's not like we're a bubble team. We're one of the worst teams in the NHL and that's not a joke. We need help. We need superstars and we already have 3-4 young players who are getting  into their primes. 

If we continue to be the worst team the next 3 or 4 years vs become an immediate playoff team and eventual cup winners, then you go for the becoming a playoff team and consistency. 

What more do you think this team needs? A defenseman? A forward? A goalie? We've drafted a bunch of young guys. It's not so bad to get some free agents to fill the holes now. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by kickazz

[Dabura 12,207]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm kinda surprised more people don't have the attitude of "when a bonafide star is available for nothing, you sign him" in regards to Karlsson. Regardless of injuries, he's still only 28 and producing at a superstar clip. Would you have passed on Crosby when he had all those concussions if he was made available? If Brent Burns was available over Karlsson would you be gun ho for him?

My big hangup is that we'd probably have to seriously overpay to get him to sign with us. I don't feel like this is a situation where we have as good a shot as anyone else. I think Karlsson looks at, say, Dallas and sees a good playoff team and the possibility of a phenomenal top three in Karlsson, Heiskanen, Klingberg. I think Karlsson looks at Tampa or Florida and says, "Yeah, I think I put this team over the top. We're gonna win some Cups together." I think Karlsson looks at Detroit and sees...a basement team that's still a few years away from being a serious contender, even with an Erik Karlsson on the blue line.

I dunno. Maybe Yzerman has crazy-ambitious plans and he's able to sell Karlsson on a crazy-ambitious vision. "We want you. And we want Trouba. And we're gonna get Nylander or Kapanen. And I'm gonna dump at least two of our albatross contracts, which will cost assets, but I don't care, we're going for it."

Edited April 30, 2019 by Dabura

[F.Michael 4,590]

5 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Even then nobody will attend their home games.  

Beaches and b**ches

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, gcom007 said:

I generally agree with you but I have to pause on Karlsson. Something about the idea of throwing a lot of money and term at him really doesn’t sit right after this season. The injuries, the age, the off-ice sideshow...I get that he’s great, but it doesn’t feel like a smart move. 

??

The Hoffman thing? Otherwise I'm missing something here.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

3 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm kinda surprised more people don't have the attitude of "when a bonafide star is available for nothing, you sign him" in regards to Karlsson. Regardless of injuries, he's still only 28 and producing at a superstar clip. Would you have passed on Crosby when he had all those concussions if he was made available? If Brent Burns was available over Karlsson would you be gun ho for him?

I'm not gonna be mad if we don't purse him, just sorta surprised.

Agreed. Let's purse this mothaf***a !!!!

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm kinda surprised more people don't have the attitude of "when a bonafide star is available for nothing, you sign him" in regards to Karlsson. Regardless of injuries, he's still only 28 and producing at a superstar clip. Would you have passed on Crosby when he had all those concussions if he was made available? If Brent Burns was available over Karlsson would you be gun ho for him?

I'm not gonna be mad if we don't purse him, just sorta surprised.

Yeah he's only 28. But he is more than likely going to sign a high dollar long term contract. Thats not good when u still have Nielsen, Abby, and Helm on the books for a few more years soaking up cap space. I would rather keep the money to re-sign pending free agents with.  That's where the cap space should be going. Not bringing in almost 30 year olds who are going to end up hurting the team later on those contracts when their cap hit has exceeded their diminishing skills.

Imagine 35 year old Karlsson and Panarin with cap hits totalling 18 mil at a time when this teams kids are in their primes and due for big pay raises/contracts. That's not good long term financial planning, which is ironic because people used to criticize Holland for being too fiscally shortsided.

[krsmith17 7,191]

12 hours ago, Never_Retire_Steve said:

I think we're on the same page really. The difference being that I think that there are certain players that are always worth pursuing. These players are rare but I would throw in guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Subban, Karlsson and a few others. The reason I think guys like these are worth pursuing is because they're elite talents and instantly make the team better and on top of it, from a business standpoint, they put people in the seats and help with the fanbase. I get that it's not the best move long-term from a strategic perspective as you mentioned in the other thread compared to a guy like Trouba for instance.

I did read and understand your comment about NTC/NMC and I think you're wrong but I have no interest in getting into an argument. I do however think it's a bad move though and I'll give you my reasons why. Right now, I'm 34 years old, if I were in the NHL right now and had a family, maybe a couple of kids and have spent 10+ years with one team and put down some family roots then I would say no to waiving a full NTC. I do understand the differences between modified NTCs and NMCs where teams can submit a list and that is certainly doesn't impact a team as much but whenever you relinquish control, you do limit your options on what you can get for a return.

What am I "wrong" about regarding the NTC/NMC? Like I said, obviously a contract without a NTC/NMC is better than one with one, but it makes sense (sometimes) when they're given out. Obviously Holland gave out a few too many. No one would argue that, but they are sometimes a useful tool to lower a player's cap hit. I completely understand giving Kronwall a NTC. That one makes sense. Same goes for Green. I don't think Nielsen, Vanek, Ericsson or DeKeyser should have been given one, but I guess I get why they were at the time. Abdelkader, Helm and Daley never should have received one in my opinion.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that we're in pretty good shape going forward. Most of the NTC/NMC will fall off in the next year or so, and the remaining three are all easily moveable. Yzerman is not at all handcuffed with any contracts. Even if there is one he doesn't like, he's shown that he's not afraid to buyout a player.

[Rick D 350]

Some of these guys wouldn't be trade-able even if they didn't have the clause as part of their contract. They just don't produce enough to be worth what they are being paid. Nielsen, Abdelkader, Helm have some of the worst $ / point in the league for forwards.

• Nielsen   624/784     132k/ point
• Helm      681/784      166k/ point
• Abby      708/784      708k/ point

https://www.capfriendly.com/cost-per-point/2019/season/forwards/all/all/costperpoints/desc/standardized

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm kinda surprised more people don't have the attitude of "when a bonafide star is available for nothing, you sign him" in regards to Karlsson. Regardless of injuries, he's still only 28 and producing at a superstar clip. Would you have passed on Crosby when he had all those concussions if he was made available? If Brent Burns was available over Karlsson would you be gun ho for him?

I'm not gonna be mad if we don't purse him, just sorta surprised.

If we could sign Karlsson for a reasonable contract, say 5 years at $8M, I'd be okay with it, but 7 years at $12M, no thanks...

10 hours ago, kickazz said:

If we sign Karlsson and Panarin today we have them till age 35. Not 40. It's really not as bad as people are making it out to be. We get them into their prime years and post early prime. Not like we'd be signing a bunch of 32 year old dude till their 40.

Again with the prime years... A player's prime in today's NHL is around 23-28 give or take. Both Karlsson and Panarin will be 28 at the start of next season. I didn't say anything about 40, so I'm not sure where that is coming from, but with the league continuously getting younger, 35 is getting close to what 40 was 10+ years ago.

10 hours ago, kickazz said:

I don't agree with that linear thought process and I don't think any GM does. You can't just rely on your young guys you draft early and hope that in the long term you win the cup, when the current guys cant even make the playoffs. 

It's not like we're a bubble team. We're one of the worst teams in the NHL and that's not a joke. We need help. We need superstars and we already have 3-4 young players who are getting  into their primes. 

If we continue to be the worst team the next 3 or 4 years vs become an immediate playoff team and eventual cup winners, then you go for the becoming a playoff team and consistency. 

What more do you think this team needs? A defenseman? A forward? A goalie? We've drafted a bunch of young guys. It's not so bad to get some free agents to fill the holes now. 

The current guys "can't even make the playoffs" because we're rebuilding... No one was expecting this team to come close to the playoffs, and they won't until they get some help. I'm of the opinion that we should continue to draft and develop until we're a little closer, and THEN go for a big name free agent or two that 'puts us over the top', not that 'gets us over the hump'...

The bolded is exactly why we shouldn't go after big name free agents. Bad teams need to think long-term, not short-term, which is what I believe Karlsson and Panarin would be.

Adding Karlsson and Panarin, may get us in the playoffs (over the hump), but it doesn't get us close to being a Cup contender (over the top). So we make the playoffs for a few seasons, continue drafting good, not great players in the middle of the 1st round, and in 3-5 years when Karlsson and Panarin start to decline, we're left with two albatross contracts, and a mediocre team...

I think we're two very good (2019 / 2020) drafts away from turning the corner. One more down season, and we get close or make the playoffs in 2020-21.

7 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yeah he's only 28. But he is more than likely going to sign a high dollar long term contract. Thats not good when u still have Nielsen, Abby, and Helm on the books for a few more years soaking up cap space. I would rather keep the money to re-sign pending free agents with.  That's where the cap space should be going. Not bringing in almost 30 year olds who are going to end up hurting the team later on those contracts when their cap hit has exceeded their diminishing skills.

Imagine 35 year old Karlsson and Panarin with cap hits totalling 18 mil at a time when this teams kids are in their primes and due for big pay raises/contracts. That's not good long term financial planning, which is ironic because people used to criticize Holland for being too fiscally shortsided.

Exactly. And that $18M is being generous... It would likely be close on $20M to get both Karlsson and Panarin here long term... F*** That!!!

[krsmith17 7,191]

22 minutes ago, Rick D said:

Some of these guys wouldn't be trade-able even if they didn't have the clause as part of their contract. They just don't produce enough to be worth what they are being paid. Nielsen, Abdelkader, Helm have some of the worst $ / point in the league for forwards.

• Nielsen   624/784     132k/ point
• Helm      681/784      166k/ point
• Abby      708/784      708k/ point

https://www.capfriendly.com/cost-per-point/2019/season/forwards/all/all/costperpoints/desc/standardized

Very true. However, being able to retain up to 50% on these contracts could definitely help. Abdelkader at $2.125M, Helm at $1.925M, or Nielsen at $2.625M all of a sudden doesn't look like such terrible contracts. Of course we wouldn't trade / retain on all of these contracts, but the option is there...