Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 02:34 PM
****-

#2675279 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 06 May 2016 - 04:28 PM

Disagree. We are getting worse because we are drafting worse. Go back a page and look at all the top 20 Dmen taken after the 1st round. Guys that we could have taken in the 1st etc.... Look at all the euros we have drafted that haven't even panned out at the AHL level.

Yes I agree with you on the building through the draft should not mean we are 100% drafted players. In fact we have too many guys on our team that we drafted overall. 12-15 draftee's should be the max. The balance then picked up via trade/UFA which is becoming tougher overall. But just because something is tough doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it.

...

So wait, your original argument was that we were relying too much on the draft, now you're saying that we didn't make the right picks, but then in the next paragraph you go back to drafting too much.

 

I don't think you even have any clue what it is you want to say.




#2675261 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 06 May 2016 - 11:49 AM

Yes we have increased our % of players that we drafted, and our record has gotten worse. Yes those things are related. As for your list why didn't you list every player we drafted? The only players that matter are in fact the ones on the team. Ok one can make a case for those traded away to bring in other assets. But how many of those assets are here? How many of our former players are even average NHL players? Very few. You yourself call Andersson a non-NHL talent.

You are correct about the 1st round picks. That does hurt us now after helping us in the past. Which is why I said the next 5 drafts are important to see how well we draft.

It is possible-not likely but possible than come next fall we will have a grand total of 4 players on the team from the 2001-2010 drafts: Abby, Sheahan, Mrazek, and 1 of tatar/nyquist/pulk. If Ericsson was bought out, and we make trades with Howard, Smith, and 2 of the 3 forwards, that is all that is left. Depending on the moves we could be a better team however.

Building through the draft doesn't mean every player on the roster. It doesn't even necessarily mean most of the team. It mostly means the top players. It is far easier to get top end players through the draft than by trade or UFA. In the entire lockout era there have been only a small handful of the type of top players we need who have moved teams. We're not worse because we've been drafting too much. We've gotten worse because the players we need aren't available. 




#2675015 Calder finalists

Posted by Buppy on 03 May 2016 - 04:46 PM

Eichel had only 8 more points than McDavid, in 36 more games. I don't think it takes any ifs and assumptions to say that McDavid was the better player. If he wins it I wouldn't like it, but I think he deserved the nomination.

 

I also think Gost should win. Phenomenal performance for a rookie defenseman.




#2674874 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on 02 May 2016 - 11:37 AM

 

You're missing my point. Trades with imbalanced cap hits only happen when the team taking on the larger cap hit is getting something worthwhile from the other categories - picks or the better hockey talent. I suppose it is possible that we give up a hefty amount of picks to make the deal go through, but a Nyquist+Jurco+Sproul/Ouelett for Fowler trade just isn't happening. Fowler is the best player in that trade, so Anaheim would be taking on a larger cap hit and worse players. There is no part of that deal that makes sense for them.

 

Unless you can tell me with a straight face that you would trade Fowler (A top pairing D-Man scoring at .41 points/game who is only 24) for Nyquist (A second or third line winger barely getting above .5 points/game and will be 27 next season), then don't tell me it can happen the other way. Other teams exist for the purpose of beating us, not giving us their best players and relieving us of our dead weight. 

 

---

 

And no team is going to do us the favor of taking on Datsyuk's cap hit without asking for something in return. What that probably means is taking on some bad contract whose value is less than Datsyuk's but which would still impact our cap. No GM in their right mind would help us out in that way without taking a pound of flesh as payment - just because we're Detroit doesn't mean we get special favors. 

The rumors that one of the Ducks young defensemen might be available came out when they were struggling to score early in the year. It was rumored they wanted to pick up a scoring winger. They have several good young D they might use to get one. Nyquist is one of the top young wingers in the league, regardless of what you may think. He's not elite, but neither is Fowler. Now, the Ducks did find their scoring touch in the 2nd half, so maybe they're no longer interested in a trade like that. And even if they are, Lindholm or Vatanen would be moved first I'm sure. But in the context of the rumors, it does make some sense.

 

And in the Datsyuk trade, he was giving up Pulkkinen as incentive. You may not think anything of him, whatever. If a team is looking to add cap to reach the floor, it shouldn't take much of an incentive. It wouldn't be doing us a favor. Datsyuk's cap hit would be something they actually want, since it would save them real money. 




#2674668 Alexander Radulov: Wings on short-list of desired teams

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2016 - 03:57 PM

As long as youre not paying him obscene money you don't need him to have a career year. 20+ goals and 50 points is reasonable and would make him the best winger on our team. I'd offer him 4.5 million for three years, if he doesn't take it then oh well. If he does, great.

You don't think he'd produce as much as Datsyuk did this season? I'm saying the 49 points that Datsyuk gave us. 

 

9 years ago he scored 26 goals and 58 points, and on a team that scored more than the Wings. No, I don't think 50 points is at all reasonable, and I'd say 40 would even be a stretch. He's never been any better than any of our current scorers, and I don't see any reason to believe he would be now. I wouldn't offer him even $1.5 for one year. Rather give some kids a chance.




#2674657 Alexander Radulov: Wings on short-list of desired teams

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2016 - 03:18 PM

He's scored 53 goals in 172 NHL games. He's turning 30 in a couple months.

 

Why would we think he would suddenly become better if we added him? Playoff bubble team, inept offense that drove pretty much everyone's numbers down, likely losing our best player. To me that doesn't seem like the right formula to get a career best performance out of a 30 yo who hasn't played in the NHL in 5 years.




#2674594 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2016 - 12:32 AM

 

All big businesses take advantage of tax breaks. It's nothing new. It's easy to say tax payers will never see a cent, but this is an arena that will be there for decades. Money will be generated in the economy. It's the reason why tax payer money is used in these projects to begin with. If owners had to foot 100% of the bill for these arenas, 90% of the new buildings in the league wouldn't exist. No teams would make any money, where as the economy would still benefit from all the money spent at events all year round. The arena is great for the city, and that's why tax payer dollars go towards it. 

 

For the record, I think corporations getting tax breaks is garbage, but that is a completely different topic fit for somewhere else. But we'd take them as well if we were given the chance. Such is life. 

Well, there's data that says these arena deals are not good at all for the cities that make them, and I'd say that tax payer dollars go to them because politicians are dips***s who do dips*** things with other people's money. But I don't want to get too political. I'll just say that the DDA (the specific agency that will pay off the bonds) was a thing before the arena deal, and would still exist without it. It's an agency specifically created to do more or less exactly what it is doing with the arena. So if it wasn't the Illitch getting the money, it would be some other billion dollar development company. Given a choice between corporate welfare for a fancy new arena for a team I love, that I'll be able to enjoy for many, many years and corporate welfare for a new upscale condo development or office building or whatever thing I'd likely never know about because it wouldn't be newsworthy...well, I'll take the arena, even with a dumb name and an ugly, terrible-pizza-advertising, boring-non-LED roof.




#2674585 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by Buppy on 30 April 2016 - 12:10 AM

I honestly think he will gain something. I thought my post made that clear, but apparently not. What he's getting is advertising. What he's not getting is the additionally 125 million dollars from selling naming rights to a company that he doesn't own.

Little Caesars/Olympia Development/Illitch Holdings are massive corporations. It's not like he can walk into LC headquarters and grab $6M whenever he wants. The money is almost certainly to come out of funds already earmarked for marketing. The Illitch's and other higher-ups in the corporation have already taken their cut of the LC revenue, and now they'll get a piece of the naming rights revenue as well. I highly doubt there is any difference in "monetary gain" between selling it to his own company or an outside company.




#2674543 This hits the nail on the head......

Posted by Buppy on 29 April 2016 - 08:51 PM

 

 

Hold on Hold on.

 

We are 11 (ELEVEN) years removed from the Salary cap being institutied.

We are 5 years removed from Rafalski retiring. 

We are 4 years removed from Suter signing with the Wild. 

 

Are people seriously still trying to throw up these excuses?  That's pathetic.  If you can't adjust to something in 4 years you failed.  Period.  Let alone 11 years.  That's a joke. 


 

We haven't realistically competed for a cup since 09.  That's now SEVEN YEARS.  Expecting a team to compete for a cup once in 7 years is not asking too much nor does it make us "spoiled fans".  You want to know what fan base is happy just making the playoffs?  The Maple Leaves.  Is that who you want to be?

Actually, based on historical evidence, expecting to compete for a championship even just once every seven years is asking too much. Most teams will have periodic down times, often lasting that long or much longer. I would also say that we were in fact realistic contenders from 2010 through 2012, and maybe even 2013 given how those playoffs went. Maybe not among the top few favorites, but at least 2nd-tier.

 

Teams that are good will eventually come down. I would wager that every single team that is a contender this year will not be so every year for the next 15+ years. Most will probably not have more than a few years being near the top.

 

Things change with time. It's the nature of reality. Being happy that we can contend for the playoffs during our worst stretch in more than two decades doesn't mean we will always be happy with that result. To even suggest it does is short-sighted and foolish. We are near the point now where the old regime is either gone or declined past the point of relevance. We have several young players promising enough to give us reason to think we will start trending back up in the near future. We're still missing a few pieces, even if what we have already pans out, but we're also in better position to gain those pieces.

 

But whatever. Not going to waste anymore time now. This conversation has been had countless times over the last few years.




#2674400 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by Buppy on 29 April 2016 - 12:18 AM

The Caesarena. That's what I'm going with.

 

If there is solace to be taken, it's that the capitalistic rapacity that gives us corporate-named arenas is also what provides us with lives so comfortable that this is probably the worst thing to happen to us today.




#2670780 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 18 April 2016 - 03:26 PM

Don Maloney? Look at what this guy has done in Phoenix with a fraction of the budget the Wings have....

Um...nothing? 




#2669877 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 16 April 2016 - 08:55 PM

I think people are reading too much into the comments on AA and Mantha. Taken at face value, the comments are saying nothing more than that expectations should be tempered. 

 

A lot of people have unrealistically optimistic ideas of what those guys are likely to do, whether they admit it or not. Of course, those same people would be the first to defend AA and Mantha if they were given a chance and didn't produce, most likely saying "expectations were too high".

 

AA is exactly the kind of player that should be getting limited minutes. Most of the time he's on the ice, he's giving up more than he's getting. But every once in a while he'll pop off a great chance with his speed. Keep his minutes down and it's easier to shelter him. You increase the chance of getting the good stuff without the bad, and you have more premium minutes to give the guys who are more likely to produce a positive result.

 

Mantha .vs Andersson is a different story, but I don't think Mantha should be in our top-9 right now anyway. I would rather see Jurco in for Andersson (or just about anyone really), but I also don't think anyone would make any meaningful difference from the 4th line either.




#2667353 Mantha

Posted by Buppy on 12 April 2016 - 07:59 PM

Man, this thread has taken a turn... I apologize for contributing to the nonsense earlier.

 

For Christ sakes Nobody every said Martha would be the savior , fact is he's a talented kid that can shoot the puck and is a if body in front of the net that can help our powerplay , how's taking him away gonna help a team that's had problems scoring all season long?

Athanasiou had also shown a lot of promise and skill and he's on a 4th line barely playing instead of getting significantly more playing time

Andersson brings the same to the team like a glendening can,helm and others

Lets just say it like it is our coach is a chicken s*** and would rather play it safe with the veterans than playing younger kids ... Don't come here and complain when we're scoring 1 goal a game
...

So we'd score 1 goal a game with Andersson; what would you expect with Mantha? 
 
People getting all worked up over this like it makes some huge difference. Like it's so unbelievably stupid to not have him on the team. But at the same time you don't expect him to make a big difference.
 
Just a bunch of Mantha fans who want to see him play. Hopeful, maybe even optimistic, that he would be a difference maker but you wouldn't criticize him if he didn't. You have no real expectations for what he would do. Maybe some unquantifiable "look good" that he'd be sure to do since it's just a matter of your opinion. I get it, I want to see Pulk back in for the same reason. I'm just not getting bent out of shape about it. 
 
I think we are all hopeful that Mantha will become an important part of this team sometime soon. But he isn't right now. Maybe he would be if given more of a chance. Maybe he wouldn't. We don't know. Whether or not he is a better option than the least significant player in our lineup isn't worth all the hostility. 



#2667158 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 11 April 2016 - 07:46 PM

...

All of this is to say, I think our head coach and/or general manager has/have to come to understand and appreciate what many fans already know: Joakim Andersson and Jonathan Ericsson are not The Answer. Limiting Athanasiou to five minutes of ice time in big games is profoundly foolish, especially with Datsyuk leaving in the summer and an enormous void opening up at the top of our depth chart. The priority this season and next season has to be transitioning to a younger core, not trying to squeeze one.more.playoff.berth. out of our veterans' butts.

 

By all means, try to land a Martin Hanzal, someone who can play against the opposition's best players, allowing Larkin and Athanasiou to develop their game against weaker matchups. But don't cage creativity. Don't stifle scoring ability. Don't preach defense for the sake of "learning how to defend real well." I don't even want our defensemen worrying about defending. I want a precise, relentless quick-strike transition game. I want the game to be played on the opposition's half of the ice, because we always have the puck and we're always forcing the other team to play without the puck and "defend real well."

 

Suggested Reading

 

1. Darryl Sutter:
2. Dave Tippett:

3. Ken Hitchcock and the Non-Stop Blues

4. Ken Hitchcock's Reliance on Rookies Is Paying Off

We have been transitioning. Half our team has played 3 or fewer full seasons. Playing Mantha or giving AA more minutes isn't going to make a difference in anything. Whatever the kids become will be determined by their physical abilities, their talent, the years of dedication, training, and hard work they've done and will continue to do going forward. Not by a few minutes with Datsyuk.

 

In regards to the second part, it's important to realize that the variances in possession are not really that much. It would probably surprise most people to learn that in 5v5 CF%, Detroit was tied for 8th in the league this year. 51.7%. Pittsburgh was 2nd at 52.7%. LA was first with one of the best seasons recorded at 56.4%. While Sutter and others may make hyperbolic statements about always defending or always having the puck, those are extremes that just don't exist in the real world. They're just exaggerations to make a point.

 

Also worth noting that Sutter's and Hitchcock's teams, despite being very good teams with loads of talent, don't really score very well. (Neither have Tippett's, but he hasn't had much talent either.) Not sure you can say "listen to these guys" and "don't stifle scoring ability" at the same time.

 

...

The piece of Tippet on D-Men perfectly applies to the Wings and Smith vs Ericsson, just to mention. But hey, let's keep sitting Smith because we signed him to the cheaper deal... *sigh*

...

Adding on to what I was saying above, that Tippett quote is a gross exaggeration. The variance between players isn't that extreme. This season, there is a pretty extreme (relatively speaking) difference between Smith and Ericsson (7.5% by Corsi or 8.3% by shots) that's 2-3 times the difference it's been in the past. Adjusted for zone starts and competition, the difference this year would probably drop to around 5.5-6%, and virtually nothing in past years. Also, by goals the difference is about 1.8% this year, and 1% historically. Again if adjusted it would be even closer.

 

Maybe Smith has progressed enough this year that he deserves to be ahead of E on the depth chart, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as people think.

 

That is before we resign any RFA's. Mrazek will get 3, Dekeyser will get 5-6, Sheahan around 2. Now if I raad this right Franzen hasn't been removed from their numbers. I did the mnath last week and figured we would ahve about 15 million under the cap after the RFA's are resigned, Franzen to LTIR, and some guys are moved out in trade. But its not enough to improve the team AND replace Datsyuk. Holland has to trade the contract-which he has said he will not do.

Technically, Mitch Albom said that Datsyuk's agent said that "the Wings" said they wouldn't do that. But regardless, let's be realistic. If Datsyuk leaves, the chances of actually improving drop to more or less zero, regardless of how much cap we have available. There just aren't enough good players available.

 

The only way we're better next year is if we sign Stamkos or if the kids take a huge leap forward. We can go after Stamkos whether we dump Datsyuk first or not, so that's irrelevant. We'd likely have to trade his hit if we did land Stamkos (or at least that might be the easiest), but not to make him an offer. To be honest, I'm not even sure that Stamkos would be worth going after for what he'd likely cost.

 

If we don't sign Stamkos, there isn't much sense in going after any second-tier players who have already proven to be incapable of leading a team to a Cup (or even in many cases, to the playoffs). Ride it out with the kids, see where we're at, then maybe make moves at the deadline if the they look good enough to build around. 




#2666669 Predict The Red Wings' 20+ goal scorers for '15-'16

Posted by Buppy on 09 April 2016 - 09:25 PM

Not Abdelkader, the guy I was assured would hit 20 because he only needed 3 goals in the last 12 games to do it and who is fer sher worth that fat contract he signed?  You know, the guy who had 14 goals and 36 points in the last 80 games of the season?  Oh, but it's ok because his extension starts NEXT year and he's only making $1.8 mil or whatever now.

 

This team is far too talented to only have 2 guys hit 20 goals.

40+ points is worth $4M+, goal short of 20 or not. Especially for a guy as versatile as Abby.

 

In the last 69 games of the season, he had as many points as Zetterberg.