Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 10:52 AM

#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....


#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.

#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.