Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Jul 20 2016 11:43 AM

#2664654 2016 Playoffs % chances (part II)

Posted by Buppy on 05 April 2016 - 09:33 PM

Of course I didn't account for the possibility of a shootout...Okay, so with the shootout loss by Boston today, here's what things come down to for us against Boston later this week:
Detroit regulation win - We're in the playoffs. Boston is out.
Detroit overtime OR shootout win - Have to go at least 0-1-1 to guarantee the playoffs.
Boston regulation win - Have to go 2-0 to guarantee the playoffs (one win would have to be in regulation/OT).
Boston overtime win - Have to go 1-0-1 to guarantee the playoffs (win has to be regulation/OT).
Boston shootout win - Have to go 1-0-1 to guarantee the playoffs.
In other words, even if we lose to Boston later this week our playoff destiny is still under our control. By losing tonight, Boston has put themselves in a situation to need outside help to make it.

Couple minor corrections:
If we beat Boston in a shootout, we would need 2 points to guarantee a spot.

If Boston beats us in a SO, we would need either 4 points or 3 with a ROW.

Reason is in those scenarios, Boston either wins or ties the season series, and they would win goal differential. We're currently only one ROW ahead. So we need either more points or to match them in both points and ROW.

#2664495 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 11:44 PM


Got tired of copying... So right now we are not a good offensive or defensive club. We don't have the assets to make major improvements in both areas. But we can do so in one area. There is a reason why people say "defense wins championships", mainly because it is true. If the options are good defense with a poor offense OR a good offense with a poor defense, give me the former every time.

I am far less worried about how many points we get from our D than I am about how many goals our D gives up. From a economical standpoint defensive Dmen are cheaper than offensive Dmen. If a team has 2 good offensive Dmen that is more than enough. Now we have made deep runs each way. The 95, 08, and 09 teams had D's that averaged about 2.6 points per game. The 97, 98, and 02 teams averaged about 1.9 points per game from the D. That is a big difference. But that goes back to question I asked a few pages back, is our D not scoring enough because of the D or because of the F's? Cases can be made for both sides.

But when we come to the limited scoring side, that is far more on the D. If we had a top 10 D now we would be a good 10 points ahead in the standings. We also would be a team better built for the playoffs.

You're the one who brought up Schenn's offensive numbers, I just pointed out that they aren't good despite where they'd rank on our team. If you want to talk defense, his numbers are worse than anyone on our team.

#2664483 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 09:06 PM

Some on here love circular firing squads. Our team needs to improve, yet at the same time we can't live without any of our players...... But hey the early tee times are coming.


Now some of you young fellas a big into the new age statistics. if you use those Scheen would be our second best offensive Dman tied with Smith. It terms of points per 60 mins. The arguement isn't if Scheen is a top 50 Dman in the league-he isn't. The question is is he better than what we have? he would be our 3rd best Dman. You can balk all you want at 5 mil per year, but that is what the market bares. IE Ericsson at 4.75 mil and KFQ at 4.25 million. Both of which are older more mistake prone, and they are far less physical. Schenn has like 220 hits this season. We don't have anyone over 100 IIRC. That is a big and needed change.


Now from managements stand point I can see them deciding that Marchenko is our 4th Dman. He is already playing on the second pair with Kronwall right now. He is younger and cheaper than Schenn. But is he better? Good question.


For the record, I am not some huge Schenn advocate. he is merely an option that would make our defense better. Nothing more. He is also well under 30 which helps his cause. if he is signed to a 5 or 6 year deal, it expires in his early 30's, not late 30's like so many of our broken down vets have going on.

Not sure where you're getting those numbers, but they're wrong. At even strength, he's actually above everyone, not that it means anything. He has the exact same stat line as Ericsson, but plays about 1/2 a minute less per game so he's marginally ahead in /60. Overall he'd be 4th, marginally below Smith and slightly above Dekeyser. Regardless, being as good as some bad offensive players means he's also bad offensively. Hardly worth noting.


There's a lot I could go into in regards to advanced metrics that show that Schenn is not any better than anyone on our team (and probably worse), but not going to bother. Agree to disagree.


As to your first comment, let's not get fallacious. No one is saying that and you know it. Yes, we need to improve, and everyone knows we'll need to change some players. But a good way to not improve is to give away too much of what we already have.

#2664447 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 04:56 PM

Lombardi and Sutter beg to differ. ...

Mantha and someone like Backes would more than make up for what we lose by trading Tatar and Nyquist...

Lombardi and Sutter are paying him $1.8m to be a third pair guy, not $5m to play second. If he's so good and they're so great, why do you think they'll let him walk?

Even if, and it's a big if, Mantha and Backes could replace Nyquist and Tatar, you still haven't improved at F. Which is what I said. Sign Schenn and you aren't going to improve the forwards.

Even if you think it would cost Nyq+Tatar+Smith to get a top D, and that Backes+Mantha would replace them, we'd still be better off going with a cheap kid over Schenn and actually adding something at F.

#2664431 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 03:52 PM

... Both can be moved without hurting us at F...

No. They can't.

Maybe we could move one for some improvement on D, then hope to offset that loss via UFA. Even that is unlikely. No chance in hell for both.

But this is getting a bit far afield from my original point. Schenn isn't good, and would be a waste of money.

#2664421 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 02:55 PM

now you are just assuming things. I have not at any point said that in any way shape or form. I have been very clear about making trades and signing UFA's and that this team needs at least 2 F

's and 3 Dmen between now and the start of the 17/18 season. That is on top of what we already have.

Wasn't assuming anything. The list of players you gave in your hypothetical $24M in free cap scenario did not include Nyquist or Tatar.


Even in the unlikely event that the cap rises more than expected and we get rid of Howard without retaining anything and we fill the backup G and scrub spots for ~$4M, then spend $10-13M on defense, you're looking at replacing Nyquist and Tatar for $7-10M. You're not going to get anything better than them in that price range, and even if you get something about as good, we still haven't actually improved at forward.


So again, signing Schenn as well someone that's actually good on defense is not only extremely unlikely, but also comes at the expense of upgrading at forward.


But affordability aside, Schenn is just not that good. Even if we were struggling to hit the cap floor I wouldn't want him. 

#2664405 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 04 April 2016 - 01:27 PM

do the math. Z 6.1, larkin >1, Abby 4.25, mantha >1, datsyuk 7.5, AA >1, Sheahan 2, Jurco >1, Glendening >1, DD 6, Kronwall 4.75, Ericsson 4.25, Oullett>1, Green 6, Marchenko >1, Mrazek 3. That is about 50 million. We have another 1.1 on Weiss's buyout. cap will be around 75 million. That leaves us with about 24 million to spend. 7 open roster spots.

So your perfect world is getting rid of Nyquist and Tatar. For Schenn.


#2664345 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 03 April 2016 - 10:09 PM

I am done with Smith and it looks like Blashill is as well. Smith turns 28 soon and is a UFA after next season. Now is the time to move him in a deal to give him a fresh start. Schenn is 26-younger than Smith and KFQ. it still bugs me to now end that KFQ and Smith make a combined 7 million per year!!!!!!!!

As for the young guys yes some will have to be moved our we will lose them for nothing. None are waiver protected anymore. Keep 8 Dmen next season.







That frees up Smith, and 2 of the marcheko/Sproul/Jensen group for moves. Summer of 2017 we could then move Kronwall-not that I think it will happen-just could. Summer of 2018 Green is gone. At that point we are down to 1 bad contract on D in Ericsson.

Schenn is not better than Quincey, Smith, or Ericsson. There's also no way we could ever afford a #1D and Schenn without getting rid of Ericsson at least, and even that probably wouldn't be enough.

#2664334 Goalie Battle

Posted by Buppy on 03 April 2016 - 08:34 PM

6 weeks of bad hockey is more than a few bad games.

Hasn't been 6 weeks. A few bad games. And most of the bad games, for both goalies, have been equally bad or worse defense.

All goalies have bad games, and games where the defense makes them look bad. Mrazek has had less than most, and comparable to the top goalies this year.

#2663609 2016 Playoffs % chances (part II)

Posted by Buppy on 31 March 2016 - 02:42 PM

They wouldn't have the tie breaker though. The first tie breaker if I'm not mistaken would be ROW, and the Wings would have 41 and the Bruins would have 40...

That's assuming all the wins are in regulation or OT. 

#2662475 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 28 March 2016 - 01:56 AM


Of course it's simplistic; I said myself that it was one crude measure.  The point is that the Wings don't even have 3 below average first line level players.  They have only 1.  Relying on depth is a myth; if you look at Cup-winning Wings teams, they all had top-level first line players (I only glanced at total points and not PPG).  If a team doesn't have top-level players, depth doesn't truly exist.  I think this season is bearing that out; without primary scoring, secondary scoring doesn't matter.


There isn't much of a difference goals v. points.  If players are putting up points, it means someone's getting goals.  If someone is scoring goals, it means others are getting points.  Detroit's 3 best at PPG average a rank of 88 in the NHL (Datsyuk is 43, Z 108, and Larkin 113).  Detroit's 3 best at GPG average a rank of about 82 (Larkin is 71, Datsyuk 86, and Tatar 88).  


I think the Wings have shown a good propensity to find 2nd line level players.  I would be very willing to give up some of those for higher-end talent.  With extra playing and power play time, the Wings have guys that would probably step up to produce sufficiently at the 2nd and 3rd line levels, especially next season.  But of course, it is easier said that done, as there has to be a team willing to give up higher-end talent for more depth.


The thing to keep in mind is that it isn't just looking at goals by 1 new player v 2 others.  Chances are there will be another player or two that come up with more goals now that they get more ice and PP time with the other 2 secondary scorers away.

Yeah, I wasn't all that clear. Not having top performing players is a problem. What I mean is that having below average top players wouldn't be much better, and potentially worse if we lose too much depth.


Relying on depth, "myth" or not, is simply reality. There are very few true impact players in the league, and they are almost never available. Stamkos may become available, and if he does I'm sure we'll make a pitch like we did with Suter. But odds are it's not going to happen. Odds are there will be no one available through trade that is so much better than Nyquist, Tatar, or Abby to justify trading two of them. Nyquist has 43 goals the last two years, Tatar has 49. There are 22 and 11 forwards (respectively) who have scored 10 or more above that. That's only 5 more per year, hardly a big difference even if someone steps up to equal the production of the 2nd player. 6 and 9 respectively that have averaged 10 more per year. Most likely none of them are available through trade. Fortunately, that also means that no one available would actually cost Nyquist + Tatar either, so this is kind of a moot point. 


Point is, despite all the contempt familiarity has bred for our roster, there are just not that many players in the league that are that much better than the secondary players we already have. The few that are we aren't going to get. The best thing we can do then is add without subtracting. While we may have some kids who could step up, it's not an unlimited supply and it's not a sure thing. Worth the risk to trade one, I'd say, but not two. And better to use the one for a defense upgrade IMO. 


And goals are more important than points. Even more so if we're giving up any of our better goal scorers. Someone has to finish, and actually put pucks in the net, or no one gets points.

#2662470 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 27 March 2016 - 10:44 PM

Buppy, Green juts got 6 mill per year last summer. Yandle is younger and another year of inflation gets added on, I would be shocked if he is under 7 million. If 2-3 teams get into a bidding war he could be 8+ easily.

Trouba is not a great Dman today, but he is also 22 and there is plenty of talent there. I think a pair of Trouba and Dekeyser could be very good in about 2 years. But of course this would require Holland to make a trade or 2.....

And Green had produced at a slightly better rate the year before. 10g, 45p in 71 games to 5g, 44p in 75 games so far this year for Yandle. Green also signed a 3 year deal. I'd assume Yandle will be looking for more. He's the same age Green was when we signed him last year.


I like Trouba and I'm sure that would be a very good pair. I'm just saying he's over-valued by some people around here. 


Just an example man. Tatar and Nyquist haven't scored 40 yet this year either. They might be just short. But the bigger point in this is guys that score 40 goals or 35 each year are the superstars that make other around them better by drawing all the attention. Guys like Nyquist and Tatar don't.

Yes, and if we don't figure out why they're down this year, the same thing likely turns your 35 goal scorer into a 25 goal scorer. And making others around them better means nothing if there's no one around them that's good in the first place.


Bottom line is this. We are not going to trade/replace half the team. It's not possible. (At least not replace with something better.) No matter what we do, no matter who we add, any significant improvement has to come from players that are already here. With what we added this year, we should already be better. Instead we're just as bad 5v5, and our PP is much worse. We have added a ton to the team in the last few years, but we're losing just as much. We need to stop taking steps back. That means trying to make additions while subtracting as little as possible. That means not trading two of our best young players. 

#2662468 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 27 March 2016 - 09:47 PM

Of course nothing is that cut and dried, but I understand your point. On that you are correct. Not enough top line guys. There is always a debate on are you better off with 2 good players or 1 great player? If you have 2 guys (Nyquist and tatar) that combined score 40-45 goals and make 8-9 million per year is that better than having 1 guy that scores 40+ and makes the same money? The hard part is the answer changes based on your team. If your team has 3 super stars then moving one for better depth makes sense. But that isn't us atm. We lack the stars so we need to trade/sign/develop some.

There were 3 players who scored 40 goals last year. Probably around the same this year, give or take. For the most part, those guys just aren't available. Stamkos may be (though he'll cost more than $9M I'd bet). With the young guys we have, it's worth looking into trading one of Nyquist and Tatar, but not both. At least until more of the kids actually prove something.

#2662465 Fixing this mess....

Posted by Buppy on 27 March 2016 - 09:28 PM

This is where Holland needs to go out and DO something. I like Yandle as a second pair guy. The trouble is he is a UFA and is going to get paid like a top pair guy. Is Yandle really worth 8million per year? That is the area I think he will be signed at. I would much rather make strong runs at Fowler and Trouba. If Holland landed both I might drive to Detroit and kiss him! I think I am safe on that front however.....LOL

But those are the type of guys we should be going after. Guys that are close to being stars that we can control at a reasonable rate. Then come the summer of 2017 try to find another 1 or 2 Dmen. We need 3 over the next 2 summers, be it from trade, UFA or youth developing.

I agree that Yandle may get over-valued by some around here (though the Trouba hype from some is far worse), but I doubt he will get $8M. I would guess around $6M depending on the cap and term.


We don't need 3 defensemen either. Might seem that way because we lack a real top defenseman, so we judge everyone as being not good enough. We may want to replace some for cap reasons, but I think we'd be alright without doing so. We may not even want to add more than one this summer, with expansion looming.


As far as trade targets, Vatanen or Lindholm are the most realistic options. Could be the perfect storm there, as I think they are also two of the best options rumored to be available.


The problem with the offense isn't 2nd liners playing like 2nd liners.  Guys like Nyquist, Abby and Tatar are fine as 2nd liners.  It's the lack of 1st line forwards.  I just took at look at players by points per game.  It's crude, but I think illustrative.  Figure that essentially the top 90 forwards in PPG in the NHL are "1st liners".  If so, then the Wings have just 1 1st liner (Datsyuk, ranked 43rd).  Forwards from 91-180 would be "2nd liners".  The Wings have 5 of them (Z, Larkin, Tatar, Abby, Nyquist).  There are 4 "3rd liners" (Richards, AA, Helm, Pulks) and 2 "4th liners" (Sheahan, Glendening).


Again, this is a super rough look at things, but the big problem is having too many 2nd fiddles and not enough guys carrying play and scoring.  The solution is probably something along the lines of packaging 2 of the 2nd liners, plus other pieces, to get a "1st liner"... then hope Larkin steps up production in his 2nd year and Mantha/AA can step up to "2nd liners".  Easier said than done, but if Holland can't get creative enough to do it, then the org. needs to find someone that can.

I think that's a bit too simplistic.


First, the goal is to be a good team, so we want our 1st-liners to be above average. If you have 3 guys ranked in the 50s or 60s for your 1st line, odds are you aren't going to be very good unless your depth is exceptional. That isn't likely to be true if we trade too much of what we have. Finding top talent is difficult, and expensive. Most likely, there just isn't a deal out there. We probably need to rely on depth more than power at the top, as well as the kids taking a step forward. That means trying to figure out why most of our team took a step back this year. 


Secondly, we need to concentrate on goal-scoring rather than just points. One major problem this year is that in terms of goal-scoring, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are very poor relative to the top forwards on other teams. The rest of the team, even having a poor year, is average or slightly above.

#2662445 Looking ahead at expansion draft

Posted by Buppy on 27 March 2016 - 04:48 PM


Ok, so then all the pending RFA and UFA will have to be protected or exposed....including Datsyuk.

This just made me realize that Datsyuk and his NMC will still be on the roster at the likely time of the expansion draft. May be forced to protect him.


Kind of sucks if true. We may not know if he even wants to play the following year. Even if he did, I'm not sure an expansion team would take a chance on a guy who'd be an UFA a week later. Hopefully, any potential forced protection of NMC players wouldn't include players whose contracts (or clauses) expire that year.