Jump to content


Rest in Peace, MidMichSteve

krsmith17's Photo

krsmith17

Member Since 12 Jun 2011
Online Last Active Today, 09:19 AM
-----

#2674950 This hits the nail on the head......

Posted by WingedWheel91 on Today, 08:33 AM

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?

 

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?




#2674908 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by kliq on Yesterday, 05:54 PM

I hope we can move his contract, but if it requires us giving up good assets, then screw it.

 

We are not going to win the cup next year, so why sacrifice the future for cap relief for 1 year. If we are in a situation where its either sign Stamkos AND give us assets, or keep the caphit and not get Stamkos, then sure I would do it. But if its a situation where its trading his contract to get cap space, then getting more Qunicey's and Richards, I would rather not lose the future assets unless we are talking a 7th round pick or something pretty insignificant (ie. a very low-end prospect).




#2674901 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by nyqvististhefuture on Yesterday, 03:05 PM

As of now, it looks like only Arizona, Carolina, and NJ might need help getting to the floor. All of those teams have a lot of spots to fill, so they might get there anyway. We can hope that more than one of them needs help, but if there's only one team that ends up having any interest, they could ask for a lot if they think we're more desperate than they are.
 
Most likely it will be fairly cheap. I would think less value than even Pulk. But you never know. Could be that no one even needs it.


Well if no one wants datsyuks contract at a good price to save cash then f*** them ... Pavel only has one year left , we can free up cap space by getting rid of Howard and hopefully Ericsson

And we have Quincey and Richards off the books this year .... We won't get ripped off , I'd much rather use pulkkinen in a package deal or give him some real ice time and see what he can do , than a throw in to get rid of a one year contract


#2674874 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Buppy on Yesterday, 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. 




#2674783 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by chances14 on 01 May 2016 - 04:29 PM

the overreaction to this is quite hilarious

 

can't imagine what the reaction would be if an actual fraud company like amway got the naming rights. heck, there should be more hatred towards airline companies and banks. these companies have been ripping people off for years

 

little ceaser's has been associated with hockey in michigan for decades all the way back to the 70's with the start of the little ceaser's amateur league. Little Cesar's has done more to promote and devleop hockey in this area than any other company

 

it's a shame people are using something so petty such as their dislike of the pizza as the reason why the arena shouldn't be named after little Ceaser's




#2674763 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by kliq on 01 May 2016 - 01:10 PM

Prolly not because those names aren't nearly as tacky. Ford is a great car company, quite possibly as quintessentially American as the sport of football itself. Comerica isn't as good, but it has america in the name so its ok. 

Little Caesars is gross. Can anyone on here actually remember the last time they at pizza from there? Lets remember also, this isn't just a name, you're promoting a product. And that product is as healthy as mcdonalds and coke. Not something I want my hockey team associated with. Unhealthy food like that is part of the down fall of this country.

 

Have you been to a Wings game lately? Little Ceasers is all over the place. From people coming through the stands during commercials and throwing pizza into the stands, from signs, marketing etc. Being associated with LC is nothing new.
 




#2674761 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by Hockeymom1960 on 01 May 2016 - 01:05 PM

Majority of the people in Michigan think Little Caesar pizza is terrible. They also think for $5 dollars sometimes it's worth it. When I need some cheap pizza on the go I stop by Little Caesars. When I need quality pizza I can name 25 other places in Michigan. And that doesn't even include Jets, Pizza Hut, Dominoes. 

 

Part of the reason people are "upset" with the name is just that ^.  Little Caesar's is terrible Pizza. It's low quality and crap grade. If they named it the Pizza Hut Arena it would probably be better received. 

 

Just listing some reasons why people have issue with the name. Illitch named it after his pizza business, which I get. But most people also think his pizza tastes bad and shouldn't be named for an original 6 legendary team arena.

 

The Red Wings are LEGEND-

 

wait for it.

 

DARY. 

 

Joe Louis (with his 66 wins and 52 by Knockout) was LEGEND 

 

wait for it.

 

DARY.

 

Little Caesar's is not legendary.

 

Wings fans are spoiled. They want cool stuff. 

 

- Think about it this way. For years people in Michigan have made fun of Little Caesar's pizza. Just so happens that Pizza place is about to be named after their sports team arena. PAYBACK! 

 

Bottom line Wings fans are spoiled and think they are entitled.  Sorry but they aren't and that petition is a joke will not change a thing.  I'd be more concerned with the product on the ice rather than where that product is being played or the name of the arena it's played in.




#2674736 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by kliq on 01 May 2016 - 10:22 AM

The problem is two fold. One, the Red Wings are better than playing in a corporate palace. Two, the company they have chosen as the corporate palace is embarrassing. Everyone will be making fun of it, and rightly so. This just takes another step for the Wings to become no better than the Predators or Hurricanes or Ducks in terms of respect and dignity. Just another hockey club. Its just sad to me. The only thing that saves them is if they don't put the stupid proposed logo on the roof and let it have the winged wheel all over. Other wise they will be a laughing stock. Because from the sounds of Holland, they sure won't be a strong contending team to counter balance the ridiculous name of their arena.

 

They are no different than 5 of the other original 6 teams.

 

Chicago: United Centre (airline)

Montreal: Bell Centre (Phone)

Boston: TD Garden (Bank)

Toronto: ACC (airline)

 

I'm sorry but this post as well as so many others are a complete overreaction. Do I like the name, no, but its really not a big deal. At least its named after a corporation that our owner founded.




#2674623 All Purpose Grand Rapids Griffins Thread

Posted by NerveDamage on 30 April 2016 - 10:56 AM

AA was reassigned to the GR Griffins today.




#2674577 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by marcaractac on 29 April 2016 - 10:51 PM

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.

 

I'd imagine there would be some sort of tax break in there as well. But who knows! I do also see the allure of having your own company having the naming rights (and getting all the perks that come with that) and not have to bow to any other potential corporate demands. From a business stand point it makes a lot of sense to me. As far as the advertising aspect of it goes, i've been tuning that garbage out for so long now it has zero affect on me lol.

 

It goes back the the Staples Center example. Never in my life have I ever thought of Staples when hearing that building mentioned. Not even when seeing the lit up logo on my TV screen. I always just see them as redundant and meaningless names, and the proof is out there that it's what happens in these buildings that make them meaningful over what they're called. Look at The Joe. Does anyone care about that place like they do now without those 4 cups wins? Probably not. It would probably be seen more as an ageing, ugly building that has basically been in need of upgrades since the day it opened.

 

The city is getting a great new arena. Yeah, it would be awesome if it could be named after Gordie. But we all knew from the start that was never going to happen. I'm just gonna focus on the positives. Which is literally everything else but the name itself.  




#2674571 Official - Little Caesars Arena

Posted by marcaractac on 29 April 2016 - 10:22 PM

In Canada we have arenas named after monopolistic cable companies, a s***ty airline, a bank (because we all know what stand up companies banks are). Wanna know what these buildings have in common besides being named after s***ty corporations? They are all awesome places to catch a game. 

 

At least the Wings new arena is being named after a business based out of the city and not simply sold to the highest bidder. Does it sound a little silly? Perhaps. But so does half of the other arenas out there. It will be called by its abbreviation more than anything. The name of these buildings is literally the least important thing about them this day and age. 

 

But oh wait, I live in Newfoundland so what the f*** do I know, right?




#2674599 Blashill

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 30 April 2016 - 01:19 AM

I think the bigger issue is the piss poor attitude our guys are displaying. I don't remember players coming out in the media like this complaining. Be a professional and discuss these things with the coach and GM rather than going through the media. Grow up. This isn't how the red wings do things.

He was just being politically correct. If he lambasts th coach, he knows he's a goner. He doesn't belong on the fourth line. He said h had to play differently because h as on the fourth line. I'm sure he felt like a fish out of water there.

Here's Tatar's quotes:

 

"My goals were way higher than they end up, but it was different stuff this year than it was last year. It was different position for me, so I guess what the numbers are saying is the way it is now."

 

"I think the position was way different this year than last year, after last season playing most of the time with Pav (Datsyuk) and Helmer (Darren Helm)," Tatar said. "This time I was kind of around the lines. With different position comes different responsibility. Wherever I played I tried to play best, bring the energy as much as I could."

 

"It was a little tougher to get comfortable, I was squeezing the stick almost all season. The goals I set were hard to end up (with), so it was kind of disappointing for me."

 

I don't see how any of that is really criticism of Blashill. He acknowledge that the place he was put with Pav was better for production and that being put with Shea and Nyquist and "around the lines' was "tougher," but he says "I don't mind being in that position...We can't leave everything on Pav and Hank (Zetterberg), those guys need help. I think last season me and Nyquist stepped up and helped them."

http://www.mlive.com...r_was_sque.html




#2674596 This hits the nail on the head......

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 30 April 2016 - 12:56 AM

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?

Buppy and Kliq covered most of what I would have responded to here.

 

I'm just going to put in the perspective that our cup drought is the 5th shortest. I does show us to be a little spoiled to expect to be winners again so soon after. The cap is designed so that cup are spread around and success is not suppose to be sustainable. It's like MarioCart, where all the cars in last place get all the good s*** in the ? boxes. And when you're in first you get hit by all that good s*** and try to make a go of it with your little banana peel that you receive and hold on long enough to get your prize. Or maybe I drank a little tonight...

 

But really, 25 other fanbases have a right to be angrier than we are. Plus I think we have a real hope of returning to the elite with Mrazek, Larkin, DK, Tatar, Nyquist, AA etc.




#2674613 Mantha

Posted by VM1138 on 30 April 2016 - 08:06 AM

At 5v5 Mantha was on the ice for 4 goals for and 10 goals against. If you're giving up 2.5 goals for every 1 you score, it's not exciting. It's getting blown out. You need to do something better. He doesn't need to be a Selke candidate, but there's some evidence to suggest he needs to be better.
 
I don't think he's wholly responsible for all the goals against, but I don't think he's wholly responsible for all the goals for either. And I don't believe that right now his offense is good enough to outweigh his defense. At least not in a top line role. 


Who cares if he is on the ice for goals against? +\- is misleading. Did Mantha cause those goals against?


#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.