WingedWheel91

Even if that was Boqvist/Bouchard instead of Dahlin, I'm still happy.

My old buddy KRSmith and I have had several disagreements in the past, but I guess we see clearly on this topic. To add to his point, or maybe explain it another way (for the last time): Individually: Daley, Kronwall, DD, Ericsson, Green are all decent players and could help a contending team without crippling them financially. Collectively: This was possibly the worst group of defenceman in the league last season, and offer us no hope for improvement next year. Combined, they also offer very little roster flexibility (NTC, NMC) and cancel any hope for major turnover in the near future. Daley was just the most recent (un-neccessary) addition to this group of older, un-productive, long term players - which is why I have primarily discussed his name...

Were a Mike Green signing away from this reality.

Looks really nice, lots of potential...dare I say something to be excited about? I just can't understand how you expect to succeed with such a young, exciting group of defencemen. Shouldn't you have atleast a couple 34 year old unproductive veterans in there to protect the confidence of those players? Because like, Vegas is like, about to win a cup with this top 6: Shea Theodore (Age 22), Nate Schmidt (Age 26), Brayden Mcnabb (Age 27), Deryk Engelland (Age 36), Colin Miller (Age 25) and Jon Merril (Age 26). Hmm... That's weird, no elite players, average age of 27, and top 7 in GAA through the regular season? Impossible. Can't wait to have Green, Daley, Ericsson, Dekeyser and Kronwall locked in to our dumpster fire of a defence for the next few seasons. That Daley signing was awesome though! Progressive thinking at its finest! I hope Green gets 3 years this summer too, cuz like, more veterans!

Let me clear this up for everyone: Next year, if we get lucky - we may have: Dahlin/Boqvist, Hronek, and Cholowski all ready to make our team. Maybe they are ready, maybe they aren't... But it's not even a possibility considering we have Ericsson, Kronwall, Dekeyser, Daley and potentially Mike Green (who was actually our best Dman this season) signed to multi-year contracts. The same can be said the following year, and then the year after that. Given how bad we were last season, and how many contracts we already had locked in - I didn't agree with giving away another roster spot for 3 seasons to a guy that produces very little... Especially at 34 years old. What happens? We finish in an even lower spot this year and trade away everyone we possibly can at the deadline for futures... but good thing we have that calming stop gap on D to help the transition!

I have seen several posts saying things like "you don't throw prospects into the deep end and expect them to swim", but that isn't the case with all players. Even our GM has admitted the fault in his roster. He came out last week and stated that 2 younger players at a minimum will be inserted into our lineup, meaning 2 are coming out. Hence my frustration at the signing.

#1 - Well, Sproul outperformed Trevor Daley on a better team, in every statistical category per game (in a limited sample) this season. As a RH defenceman at just 25 years old - I sure as hell would rather have him over Daley today, especially after watching Daley's 77 games for us. #2 - Again, Daley did absolute nothing to improve this team. We were actually 4 positions worse. #3 - Yes, you are correct. The fact you used Trevor Daley and building block in the same sentence deserved my response. Isn't a stop gap literally the complete opposite of a building block? #4 - Yes, we finished fifth from the bottom. I would rather have seen Daleys top 4 minutes occupied by someone like Hicketts, Sproul, XO, Jensen etc. If doing that cost us 2 or 3 spots in the standings, so be it...It's important to know what you have and what you don't. Sheltered minutes and limited exposure don't accomplish anything. Also, where did this notion that - unless your team is competitive - players under a certain age must remain in the minors if they ever want to succeed at the NHL level? This theory is complete garbage. Every player is different, and there are several instances of young players flourishing on bad teams, and young players struggling with good teams.

#1 - Daley's signing (not his fault) caused the departure of Ryan Sproul... Who (assuming he had the same production in DET he did in NY) would be a much more valuable asset today than Daley is. #2 - Everything in terms of health and production went better than expected for our defenceman this year, and we were the 5th worst team in the NHL? What exactly did he bring to our team? #3 - How far have we fallen to describe a 34 year old defenceman (who just put up 16 points in a full season) as a "building block we can use the next 2 seasons". I think the "block" you were looking for should start with the word trade. #4 - We just finished in the bottom 10 of both GF and GA per game... What level of stability have we established with these veterans to transition our young defenceman into? In all likelihood, our same group of defenceman will likely regress next season.. that's the thing about age! When that happens, how does your point make any sense? This community has become too soft! Our GM is acting like a hoarder that can't let go of the past. The Trevor Daley signing is great...When you need a partner for Lidstrom (like Rafalski) or Kronwall (like Stuart). Right now, we are 3 pieces away from being 3 pieces away!!! Until we get a Dahlin, Hughes, Doughty, Karlsson..etc which changes everything and makes cap dollars important. Until we are in a contending position, long term complimentary contracts to players over the age of 25 don't really make sense...Can we agree on that?

This is exactly correct and the simple point I'm trying to make to the Trevor Daley truthers I never thought existed. Not a bad guy, not a bad player - but I will never understand the contract he was offered. Unfortunately, that Beauchemin signing might actually happen.

Daley is under-contract longer than any of those names above, he also has a NMC like all of our defenseman do. So yes, obviously it would become more difficult to add any of those players when you have $3,000,000 committed to a guy who has no trade value, and doesn't produce much. Again, my entire issue is with philosophy. What exactly did we sign him for? Please tell me what sense his signing made (considering term and age) when we traded Mrazek, Tatar, and attempted to trade Green all for futures during the same season, where we finished 5th from the bottom?

There is alot I agree and disagree with here, but I will generalize my argument the quickest way possible: If we get a lucky bounce in the lottery and get Dahlin this summer, we are instantly closer (and more attractive to FAs). There is no argument in the world that justifies wasting 3 years of term and cap dollars for a 34 year old replacement level player (thanks for the 16 points) at a time where names like Tavares, Doughty, Karlsson are going to hit the market. These pieces fall 1 by 1, and that $3,000,000 is far more valuable in the bank than spent on the production Trevor Daley could ever bring us. I agree that if we don't get Dahlin, Trevor Daley's contract isn't going to cripple us - but my issue is (and always has been) a matter of philosophy. I thought last summer Holland would spend that amount of time trying to get rid of a guy like Ericsson, instead of adding a similar player for as many years. Hell, I would have been happier if he got rid of Ericsson and ate $3,000,000 of his salary because we would be as bad today with more money and roster spots available. It looks bleak today, but a lot can change on draft night and the months that follow. I won't ever agree with wasting money on older players before we are contending, especially when we have way to many of them already.

My general argument against the Daley signing was that it was a bad fit, and un-neccessary for a team in our position. We already had Ericsson, Dekeyser and Kronwall on long term contracts taking spots away from any younger talent for the next few years, are any of those guys going to get better? Adding Daley meant that we would have 4 older mediocre Defenceman locked into our lineup until 2020... Hronek, No. But Hicketts is going to be 22 in a few weeks and looked decent when he was up, Ouellet is going to be 25 this summer, Robbie Russo is already 25, Lashoff is 27 with solid NHL experience... If you are worried Daleys spot could only be filled by a kid who's confidence might be shattered because he "wasn't ready" - how long do you plan on waiting for that to happen? Knowing what you have in these guys is as important as knowing what you don't.

I have no idea what this has to do with my argument that generally disagrees with giving older players long term contracts, in the middle of a re-build. Ericsson's contract (as bad as it is) is unrelated to my point as his current deal was signed in 2013. Your statement "You don't just throw prospects into the deep end and hope they swim" is also hard to understand, considering I didn't mention any of our prospects? Without Trevor Daley, we still would have rostered 6 defenceman per night and probably finish very close to 5th worst in the league - without ruining anyone's confidence.

He isn't a terrible player, nor does he have a terrible contract. I just thought it was a terrible fit for a team that has more than enough long term, NMC contracts attached to players that aren't producing at much higher than replacement... with little shot at winning.

lol when you aren't good enough to make the playoffs, the emphasis should be placed on developing your younger players. When we signed Daley, I questioned if Holland really looked at this team and said "we have a shot" - because that's what a 34 year old depth signing for 3 years tells me.