Jump to content

CrimsonFlame's Photo


Member Since 15 Apr 2009
Offline Last Active May 03 2016 10:10 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: This hits the nail on the head......

03 May 2016 - 10:12 AM


Here's what your missing:


If we're talking about the Salary Cap era, you can argue that the Red Wings were at (or near the top) of the "Stanley Cup favourites" list from 2007-2013 - Yes, we had a couple of early round exits in that range, but so did many of this years "favourites" in Chicago, Anaheim, and LA... it happens annually in the NHL.


The difference is that when our run began in 2007, almost all of the teams you would consider as front runners this year (Washington, LA, Chicago, St.Louis) did not qualify for the playoffs. If you go in depth, Chicago had a run from 1998-2009 where they only made the playoffs once, and didn't win a single round... Today they represent the modern day dynasty, and model of success. The LA Kings had a stretch 2002-2012 where they only made the playoffs once, and didn't win a single round. The Capitals didn't win a round from 1998-2009 - and missed the playoffs entirely in most of those years. The Penguins? They were a ping-pong ball away from bankruptcy and relocation.


What we have accomplished is extremely rare, and something I will always be proud to hear: We haven't missed the playoffs in 25 years. Let's not forget that the teams we envy today, spent (on average) about a decade out of the playoffs, mixed in with the odd 30th place finish. If you understand the salary cap and the fact it's working, how can you complain about the results we've had?


I think you're missing my point entirely. 


It's 2016.  By the time next season is in full swing it will be 2017.  10 years removed from 2007.  Even if you want to argue we were contenders between 2010 and 2013 (which I would say we were not since the results were embarrassed by the sharks and almost swept, almost swept by the sharks again, embarrassed and almost swept by the preds in the first round, and choking away a 3 - 1 lead against the blackhawks,) That will be four years ago.  Four years is an eternity in professional sports. 


Guys forget about what happened in the distant past.  Look at the here and now. The ship is sinking.  It has been sinking for a long time.  At some point you have to hold leadership responsible.  You can't keep looking to the captain and saying "Well he lead us on some successful voyages a long time ago!". 


Or let me ask the question this way:


Are you happy with how our season ended this year?  What about last year?  The year before?  What about the one before that one?  What about every year going back to 2010?  How many of those are you happy with the outcome?  The answer should be 0. 

In Topic: This hits the nail on the head......

02 May 2016 - 09:40 PM

Guys the salary cap is still an excuse?  EVERY TEAM in the league has to deal with the same damn salary cap.  Also he has had eleven years to adjust to it.  ELEVEN.  You can't keep signing this horrible contracts and making horrible moves and blaming it on the salary cap.  That's just ridiculous. 

In Topic: Official - Little Caesars Arena

29 April 2016 - 11:49 PM


I'd imagine there would be some sort of tax break in there as well..  


Oh great.  So not only is it bad enough the tax payers have to shell out half the money (of which they won't see a cent of profit), but now He doesn't have to pay taxes on it either?  That would be an outrage. 


Hypothetically of course idk how the details play out. 

In Topic: This hits the nail on the head......

29 April 2016 - 06:48 PM

It's not even possible for Holland intentional control everything with the wings. What would that even mean? He convinced the league to switch to the salary cap? Holland convinced Rafalski to retire early? He arranged Suter to meet a woman and BFF from Minnesota so that we would miss out on that signing?


He's a poker player trying to deal with the hand dealt. He's trying to make us great again by the way he thinks best with the circumstances of the league. The cap is meant to spread success around - we've fought the economic forces that tear apart success and we're the only team to make the playoffs every year post-lockout.


People need realize that the most likely alternative to our current 5 year dip in success is not trades and Stanley cups - It's the 10 year tank. I can only imagine the blogs that would be written in that situation. I think we'll be contenders in 3 years - we'll all see how Mraz, Larkin, Mantha etc. develop and if we'll be able to find the missing pieces.



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. 

An impatient fan base that expects a Cup every year is what causes teams like Anaheim to fire respected coaches after four straight division titles. He's absolutely dead on about this: If you expect Detroit to compete for the Cup every single year, then in today's league of parity, you are out of your mind. 


Making the playoffs every year is as about as reasonable an expectation as you can get. After that, everything is up for grabs. Look at this year: Maybe you'll be the Tampa Bay Lightning and get an easy first round matchup, or maybe you'll be the Chicago Blackhawks and have to face the St. Louis Blues. Would anyone here be disappointed at a first round exit with the quality of play that we saw in the Chicago/St. Louis series? I seriously hope not. Sometimes it just doesn't fall your way.


I don't disagree with Holland on this. 


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?

In Topic: Official - Little Caesars Arena

28 April 2016 - 10:53 PM


what arenas are named after an athletic company? 

I guess I didn't properly convey what I mean. 


Most stadiums are named after banks and financial institutions.  While they aren't athletic they aren't anti athletic eitther.  Neutral if you will. 


A big fat greasy cheesy pizza is about as anti athletic as you get.