Report: Detroit to name Steve Yzerman as GM

[krsmith17 7,191]

37 minutes ago, kickazz said:

A year or two from now? What difference does one year or two years make between now. Karlsson is available now, not in 1 or 2 years. You sign him now and in "a year or two" like you said, he'd still be here. You're picking at straws for arguments sake. 

Also the guy we get in at 6th will not be in his prime because he'll be 18 now and in two years 20 and according to you prime doesn't start till 23. 

Your timeline is off, you want to wait 1-2 years, to me that makes no difference; we're never going to catch all of them in their primes. What's for sure at the moment though is that there's a Panarin and Karlsson available. So go get em. 

My timeline isn't off, you're just not understanding what I'm saying... When I say a year or two from now, I'm talking about when this team should start to turn the corner and make the playoffs. I don't expect to be a true contender in that time. In my opinion, we're about 5 years away, and by that time, Karlsson will be a shell of his former self...

30 minutes ago, kickazz said:

You said 35 is the new 40 lol. You also said that a players prime is 23-28 in a previous post. Now you're saying you agree that a defensemen prime is later. So either you agree with that or don't. See your quote below. 

So what is it? Is a defensemen's prime later? 

Because from what I'm seeing on the top defensemen in the league, the top defenders are in their 30s and some in the 28+ region. Out of the window of 23-28 that you listed.

Burns, Giardano, Yandle, Hedman, Carson, Doughty, go further down the list and you have Suter, Keith. 

One of Kronwall's best seasons came when he was 34 btw. 

To put it bluntly. I think the prime age 23-28 theory is bulls*** and doesn't apply for defenders. From what I'm seeing, D-men; especially high end talent (which includes the likes of Burns, Karlssons, Doughtys and Keiths and Suters) can perform extremely well into their late 20s and early to mid 30s (and even win Norris Trophies). 

If this was about signing Kyle Quincy at age 28 it would be one thing, but a talent like Karlsson at 28 another story. 

Just think about it, Karlsson as injured as he was this year had 42 assists in just 45 games played! The guy is an offensive beast even through injury. Definitely consider him.

Yes, a defenseman's prime is generally later than a forwards. So maybe you can stretch it from 23-28 to 25-30. Not a huge difference there. That doesn't change the fact that the league is getting younger.

Listen, I'm well aware of how awesome Erik Karlsson is, and I'd be beyond pumped to see him in the Winged Wheel in September. However, I don't agree that we should sign a 28 year old defenseman with injury concerns for 7 years, $12M AAV...

We'd get a few good years out of him, none of which we're a Cup contender, and then when we're finally good enough to contend, he's not good enough to carry us anymore... Makes no sense to me...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1.

=
All the reasons why we should in theory pursue and sign a superstar like Erik Karlsson

 

 

2. Lol we suck

=
All the reasons we won't sign a superstar like Erik Karlsson

[krsmith17 7,191]

Just to add, and reiterate what I've already said... If Yzerman can somehow pull off some voodoo magic s*** and convince Karlsson to sign for 5 years, $8M AAV, I guess I'd be fine with that... But I still don't think it gets us any closer to a Cup, and probably moves us further away from one in the future (5+ years from now)...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Who would rather sign Vanek or Karlsson?

Too broad a question. I need terms.

[kickazz 5,459]

16 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Just to add, and reiterate what I've already said... If Yzerman can somehow pull off some voodoo magic s*** and convince Karlsson to sign for 5 years, $8M AAV, I guess I'd be fine with that... But I still don't think it gets us any closer to a Cup, and probably moves us further away from one in the future (5+ years from now)...

How would you react if Yzerman gets Erik Karlsson for 12 million a year for 7 years?

f*** Yzerman? 

I would be content with it. Change is good. Karlsson for Michigan is good. Karlsson for Cholowski is good. Worst case he becomes a shell around age 33. Oh well, I’ll take 5 years for the franchise, teams and cities benefit. If that means 2 “possible” bad years at the end of his contract (personally doubt it) then so be it. 

You know what else Karlsson would bring in? Another free agent. And another, and another. It’s a snowball effect. Players want to play for good teams and players. They want to play where there’s an attraction. 

People are looking at Karlsson and Panarin and freaking out that “we’re not ready yet.”. It’s not about that, it’s about the franchise, selling tickets, motivation from teammates, attracting other players and raising eyebrows from trade partners.

Edited April 30, 2019 by kickazz

[Dabura 12,207]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

It boggles my mind that people wanted Mike Green back after a neck injury and history of liver infection/disease he has (guy only ended up playing 43 games so signing him was pointless anyways) but Erik Karlsson who is probably 3 times the player Green is; is too much because he had a booboo in his groin this year and something about an ankle injury that was fixed in 2017 almost 2 years ago. 

Mike Green wasn't going to cost us a billion dollars in cap space over the next trillion years.

[LeftWinger 4,951]

I didn't want green back. 

I want Yzerman to take a shot at Karlsson. 

[Dabura 12,207]

5 minutes ago, kickazz said:

How would you react if Yzerman gets Erik Karlsson for 12 million a year for 7 years?

f*** Yzerman?

I'd be thrilled, because Karlsson. But I'd also be a bit concerned, because salary cap.

Ultimately, I'd trust that Yzerman knows what he's doing and has a detailed plan.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

In "theory" I'm with Azzman on this one. For the whole bird in hand reason............

But you guys arguing about whether or not to sign Karlsson is like me paining over the moral dilemma of whether or not I should bone Scarlett Johnasen despite having a girlfriend. It ain't happening regardless, so why all the fuss? 

[kickazz 5,459]

4 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I'd be thrilled, because Karlsson. But I'd also be a bit concerned, because salary cap.

Ultimately, I'd trust that Yzerman knows what he's doing and has a detailed plan.

Same, I think he’s smart and a good negotiator. I wouldn’t be upset if we didn’t get him (likeliest scenario)

Let me ask you this, if Karlsson didn’t have injury issues, would you be for signing him? 

I guess my point is, I’m not about for waiting around till x y and z are in their deeper in their primes. I’m all for team improvement quickly. 2 months ago I was hoping that would be Jack Hughes. But that ain’t happening. 

—

On a side note anyone else notice Yzerman gives very little details about anything. That athletic interview was like “the f*** did he say” lol. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by kickazz

[Dabura 12,207]

You guys realize that $12M per year is roughly market value for Karlsson, right? So, assuming the Wings would have to overpay to get Karlsson (because the Wings currently suck), we're probably looking at over $12M per year. We're probably talking about crazy-stupid money.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

It boggles my mind that people wanted Mike Green back after a neck injury and history of liver infection/disease he has (guy only ended up playing 43 games so signing him was pointless anyways) but Erik Karlsson who is probably 3 times the player Green is; is too much because he had a booboo in his groin this year and something about an ankle injury that was fixed in 2017 almost 2 years ago. 

Green and Karlsson signings are completely different. I supported signing Green despite injury concerns because it was a low risk signing. Karlsson will command double the annual salary and 4 times the term of Green. With his injury history, that's too high of a risk for this team at this time IMO.

[Dabura 12,207]

15 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Let me ask your this, if Karlsson didn’t have injury issues, would you be for signing him?

I mean, technically I'm in favor of signing him even with the injury issues. I just don't want to sign him to a ridiculous contract. Unfortunately, like I've been saying, I suspect it would take a ridiculous offer to get the job done, so I guess in that sense I'm not in favor of signing him.

But, to answer your question: I'd be much more gung-ho if he didn't have injury issues.

15 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

But you guys arguing about whether or not to sign Karlsson is like me paining over the moral dilemma of whether or not I should bone Scarlett Johnasen despite having a girlfriend. It ain't happening regardless, so why all the fuss? 

Have boned Scarlett Johansson. Very, very, very disappointing.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Dabura

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

7 minutes ago, Dabura said:

 

Have boned Scarlett Johannson. Very, very, very disappointing.

CNN confirms. Then bashes Trump for not speaking out against it.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[kickazz 5,459]

10 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

In "theory" I'm with Azzman on this one. For the whole bird in hand reason............

But you guys arguing about whether or not to sign Karlsson is like me paining over the moral dilemma of whether or not I should bone Scarlett Johnasen despite having a girlfriend. It ain't happening regardless, so why all the fuss? 

It's a slow day in offseason hockey.

[Dabura 12,207]

8 minutes ago, kickazz said:

On a side note anyone else notice Yzerman gives very little details about anything. That athletic interview was like “the f*** did he say” lol. 

Yeah, lol.

1 minute ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

CNN confirms.

No, I'm telling the truth. She kept saying the Red Wings should sign Erik Karlsson to a $100M contract despite his injury history. Utterly insufferable.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

[Rick D 350]

Say we did get Erik Karlsson, eventually his salary is going to cost us some young talent because we cant afford to resign them. 

Who would you let go if you had to pick someone?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, Rick D said:

Say we did get Erik Karlsson, eventually his salary is going to cost us some young talent because we cant afford to resign them. 

Who would you let go if you had to pick someone?

Well there would probably be vets who can be cleared out one way or the other first, but to honor your question:

Athanasiou first, then Mantha

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 hour ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

In "theory" I'm with Azzman on this one. For the whole bird in hand reason............

But you guys arguing about whether or not to sign Karlsson is like me paining over the moral dilemma of whether or not I should bone Scarlett Johnasen despite having a girlfriend. It ain't happening regardless, so why all the fuss? 

Speaking of that, Karlsson has a hot wife.  Not sure why you couldn't just mention her for a more effective joke.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

11 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Speaking of that, Karlsson has a hot wife.  Not sure why you couldn't just mention her for a more effective joke.  

What does he know, he thinks Prince is cute

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Rick D said:

Say we did get Erik Karlsson, eventually his salary is going to cost us some young talent because we cant afford to resign them. 

Who would you let go if you had to pick someone?

Mantha, AA and Bert will by due for pay in 1 year but each of them will be less pay than Larkin and should be affordable. Ericsson, Daley and Howard will be off the books by then so it's no issue. Green will be on LTIR probably with his health. Our younger goalie will be cheap. AA, Bert and Mantha will be resigned and we can still afford a superstar salary with our cap space. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 hours ago, kickazz said:

How would you react if Yzerman gets Erik Karlsson for 12 million a year for 7 years?

f*** Yzerman? 

I would be content with it. Change is good. Karlsson for Michigan is good. Karlsson for Cholowski is good. Worst case he becomes a shell around age 33. Oh well, I’ll take 5 years for the franchise, teams and cities benefit. If that means 2 “possible” bad years at the end of his contract (personally doubt it) then so be it. 

You know what else Karlsson would bring in? Another free agent. And another, and another. It’s a snowball effect. Players want to play for good teams and players. They want to play where there’s an attraction. 

People are looking at Karlsson and Panarin and freaking out that “we’re not ready yet.”. It’s not about that, it’s about the franchise, selling tickets, motivation from teammates, attracting other players and raising eyebrows from trade partners.

I'd be a little worried to say the least... Karlsson will sign a massive contract this summer, and I think whoever signs him to said contract will regret it in a few years. I hope that's not us. I don't think it will be...

You keep talking about these 5 years of good hockey from Karlsson. But so what if we do get 5 good years out of Karlsson? We're 5 years away from being contender, with or without Karlsson. The only difference bringing Karlsson in will be where we pick in the next few years, top 5-10 or 15-25...

Karlsson will bring another free agent? And another?? And another??? It's a good thing there's no salary cap anymore...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, Rick D said:

Say we did get Erik Karlsson, eventually his salary is going to cost us some young talent because we cant afford to resign them. 

Who would you let go if you had to pick someone?

Karlsson

[kickazz 5,459]

56 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I'd be a little worried to say the least... Karlsson will sign a massive contract this summer, and I think whoever signs him to said contract will regret it in a few years. I hope that's not us. I don't think it will be...

You keep talking about these 5 years of good hockey from Karlsson. But so what if we do get 5 good years out of Karlsson? We're 5 years away from being contender, with or without Karlsson. The only difference bringing Karlsson in will be where we pick in the next few years, top 5-10 or 15-25...

Karlsson will bring another free agent? And another?? And another??? It's a good thing there's no salary cap anymore...

If Karlsson gets us into the playoffs or close to it, Yzerman would trade whoever and whatever to make our chances of winning happen. Karlsson would just be a stepping stone. 

I think you’re under that assumption that we sign Karlsson and that’s it.

Thats not how it works, at least not on this team. Look at what we did with bringing in Russian 5, then Hull, Robataile, and cap era with Schneider, then Rafalski, Hasek 3rd return for 07, Osgoods return, Brad Stuart. 

You know who made key trades to solidly his playoff team? Steve Yzerman w/ Lightening. The guy is known to take advantage of locking in guys as soon as he sees a window of opportunity for them to go far; or trade players away (Bishop, St Louis, Drouin) to replace them with younger or better options/assets. 

Unlike Holland, Yzerman doesn’t seem to have that loyalty of hanging on to guys; he seemed to constantly try and adapt the team into a better and better situation. 

Doubt we get Karlsson.  Again, point is it would be a positive snowball effect.

Karlsson, Trouba, Panarin. I’m all for these free agents and I believe Yzerman would do a good job of managing the situations. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by kickazz