Jump to content


gcom007's Photo

gcom007

Member Since 18 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:01 AM
**---

#2206307 Red Wings Sponsor?

Posted by gcom007 on 05 September 2011 - 10:47 PM

Thank you, at least one person in this thread understands the concept of personal responsibility. I can't believe people are actually ignorant enough to neg your posts. The good thing about capitalism is that it has lifted countless millions out of poverty, the bad thing about capitalism is that if you make uninformed decisions you lose your money. But don't blame the person who made the uninformed decision, he/she is a victim of the system and doomed to poverty by pure bad luck/scheming by evil rich people :rolleyes:.

On topic, I hate the fact that we have a corporate sponsor, but that has nothing to with it being Amway, I just don't want to see our sweaters start to look like the hood of a NASCAR car.


Wow, straw man, wow. If you're going to go there, I guess I will to while further defending my position on this matter.

The ideas of holding Amway responsible for their part in running a sleazy, manipulative business and holding individuals joining in that business responsible for their actions are not mutually exclusive. By no means would I suggest that all the Amway "IBO's" are any more victims of Amway's schemes as they are their own greed and gullibility. Ask any friend of mine that's gotten involved and then out of Amway if I ever gave them a pass and they'll tell you flat out that I didn't hold any punches in making them acknowledge what went profoundly wrong in their thought process.

The main colossal flaw in your perspective is very simple to illustrate. Just consider drug dealers and drug addicts. Is anyone in their right mind going to pronounce the drug dealer innocent by virtue of capitalism and the drug addicts guilty because they made the choice to buy the drugs? Does that make any sense at all? I don't think so.

Few things in life are black and white. Is it not possible that both have slipped up here? And in an effort to address a general problem, is it not reasonable to want to look for root causes? Is it not reasonable to objectively evaluate the whole of a problem to better understand it? Surely no more unreasonable than seemingly suggesting that we shouldn't criticize Amway, again, seemingly by virtue of the positive economic and social benefits of the capitalist system in general, as a wrong-doer.

The only thing black and white about this topic to me is that there are a lot of people running the scheme and placing their hope on the scheme that are making harmful choices. The primary difference between the runners and the participants though is that for the most part, in the short-term, an Amway "IBO" is making choices that hurt themselves. But Amway's decision to resort to a business model that clearly is centered around exploiting people's weaknesses and circumventing people's typical consumer defenses. It's a business model that is underhanded and predatory.

And lumping Amway in with capitalists is disrespectful to the essence of capitalism. The product Amway is most profiting on is (false) hope. The "products" you supposedly join Amway to sell are almost entirely purchased by and for the Amway IBO's, though internally you're simply "investing into your business." All the while you're also pouring more money into your Amway membership, a never-ending supply of "motivational and educational" material to help you grow your business, conferences to further inspire you, and if you manage to wind up sticking with it long enough to get some people under you, you're buying their "consumer products" too, and by that I mean far too often, the people under you that you're purchasing the vitamins for don't pay up. Nothing you can do about that. Oh well, just chalk it up to an "investment in your business."

Bottom line, Amway is anything but a commendable capitalist venture. No corporation or business is perfect, but usually most businesses are actually trying to offer an actual product or service that is of some tangible substance to someone. And what truly is great about capitalism is that if you have a great product that a lot of people want, you will be rewarded for producing and selling it, and I take no issue with this concept at all. But again, when looked at wholistically and objectively, it's clear that Amway is not producing a product that offers consumers much in terms of utility. Indeed, their primary product, the hope and the dream, is essentially vaporware, to use the word generally.

Furthermore, they have engineered their system to trip people's defenses up by infiltrating organizations, churches, clubs, basically any group of people that already has a built-in trust factor. They use that trust and social pressure against people, as well as every other little trick to take advantage of the less noble aspects of human nature. They know this. They've spent years crafting their "drug," and just as much time pin-pointing the easiest targets. They know exactly what they're doing. Again, it's predatory and underhanded.

You can easily dig deeper and mine up plenty of information to suggest that their ill-informed financial choices hurt the society and economy on whole as well. Just like all the terrible real-estate loans given out in the late-90's that came back to haunt us in 2008, people made poor personal decisions that ended up hurting the economy and society on whole. In that case as well, it's absurd and illogical to only blame the banks for offering the loans or only blame those taking the loans for taking more than they could expect to reasonably handle. All parties involved made poor decisions. I don't care who you are or what side you're on, if you're making poor decisions, you're part of the problem.

By this reasonable logic, I conclude that Amway is very much part of the problem. They are not the whole of the problem and their part in it does not minimize the role of personal responsibility at all. But they are the purveyors of a blatantly crooked business model that has been shown time and time again to have a tremendous negative effect on people's lives. That matter has nothing to do with capitalism, and as clearly illustrated, the logic that justifies their actions by virtue of capitalism opens plenty of doors to effects that I absolutely guarantee would send you crying to your knees if they came knocking on your doorstep.

Quite simply, Amway does infinitely more harm than good for society. Most any reasonable, objective, informed person can logically understand and defend that accusation. To many of us, the logical side of it as well as the emotional side of having to deal with friends and family who's lives were devastated by joining Amway leave us with nothing but contempt and disgust for Amway. That is why we don't want to have a team we love have much of anything to do with Amway if at all possible, let alone having to incessantly read and hear "the Detroit Red Wings presented by Amway."

The Detroit Red Wings, one of the classiest organizations in all of sports, presented by Amway, a company always bound to be one of the scummiest on any list of sleazy businesses.

The whole idea is nothing short of utterly disgraceful.


#2206219 Red Wings Sponsor?

Posted by gcom007 on 04 September 2011 - 11:37 PM

I am genuinely shocked that someone can defend this company and not be a part of it. The only times I have ever encountered it in the past is when one has someone in their life deeply involved in Amway that they can't bring themselves to criticize or when it's a former-Amwayer trying to justify their wasted time and money. Otherwise, it seems next to impossible to defend Amway.

I just do not understand at all how we can somehow justify Amway's sleazy business because the Devos family is charitable and from Michigan. I just don't care, because I know how they made their money!

And I don't care that they're not a pyramid scheme. Pyramid scheme. Multi-level marketing. All the same when it comes to what Amway does to people's lives. They were "bodysnatchers" when they were based on a pyramid scheme and they're "bodysnatchers" now that they're based on multi-level marketing.

I personally do not want to constantly be reminded of the many close friends that have had their lives devastated on so many levels by the disgusting cult of Amway while I watch the team I've loved since I can remember with the little bit of free time I have. Amway is literally one of the only words in this world that just instantly incites anger in me upon hearing the name.

I'm not trying to single anyone out here or be critical, but I don't think anyone who's defending Amway has really seen how ugly it can get.

I don't think they know people who have lost loads of money, countless friends and severed relationships with family.

I really do not believe that they've dealt with people in situations like these that I have unfortunately dealt with numerous times.

I don't think they know people who worked over 80 hours a week to make just enough money to buy their Amway/Quixstar products and books. All the while, bear in mind, these are at real jobs. They're not making any money at Amway. "Yet," they would say at best in acknowledging this simple fact. "I'm making an investment in my future because I want what's best for me and my family. You don't understand. You're ignorant and have no ambition." Heard variations on that too many times.

Worse though, I don't think any Amway defender has dealt with people who no longer will speak to their parents, siblings and friends because their new Amway family says to cut anyone or anything out of their life that questions or speaks negatively about Amway and their business. I've seen this way too many times, and it's just plain sad for all of those affected. It's like losing someone to a cult. No, it is losing someone to a cult.

And all the while usually the family in particular is just trying to help stop the blatantly-obvious financial bleeding that's taking place. They're just doing the simple math; tons of money going out, no money coming in, countless hours spent working. Simple stuff for most people; tougher for people trapped in a cult.

Again, I'm planning on calling and writing to the Red Wings to express my distaste. I would recommend that the many here, seemingly the vast majority, who are upset over this news do the same.


#2200922 Kris Draper announces retirement

Posted by gcom007 on 25 July 2011 - 02:21 PM

Hell of a career by Kris Draper. It'll be sad to see him go. Only one guy left from the 90's era now...sad off-season in many ways, but I'm excited for the future of this team. I'm also glad that we keep guys like Draper, Osgood, Maltby, etc. in the organization.

this offseason just gets better and better.


Congratulations on receiving the first negative I have ever bothered to give out.


#2199135 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by gcom007 on 18 July 2011 - 07:09 PM

Osgood did not do well in game seven. He failed to position his stick correctly on the first goal and completely lost his angle on the second.


We also only scored 1 goal. Last I checked, giving up 2 goals isn't exactly evidence for "not playing well" Usually the 1-2 goal range is what we ideally want out of a goalie in a realistic world to "give the team a chance to win." He wasn't perfect and you could say it wasn't his best game, but it's a stretch to say he didn't play well. He wasn't the only one who dropped the ball on the plays either.

The bottom line with that run was that our stars were too beat up to push us over the top. A 2-1 loss with a battered lineup is a tough loss to swallow on so many levels and it's easy to look at the goalie when they don't pull out the shutout or the 1 goal effort...but Osgood didn't exactly pull a Luongo either. What happened with Luongo this year was truly "not playing well" in game 7.


#2199121 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by gcom007 on 18 July 2011 - 06:36 PM

Including Ozzie. On that breakaway goal he had such terrible position that you could tell just by the camera angels. I still don't and never will buy in that he was the Conn Smythe worthy during that run.


Are you kidding me? So we should focus on the few isolated mistakes as opposed to the majority of his play which was nothing short of outstanding? He in many ways carried the team through the playoffs as we battled injuries throughout to our biggest stars. Even Lidstrom missed games! There was no way in hell anyone was going to win the Conn Smythe over him that year. Zetterberg finished the playoffs strong but was not a force throughout; and he was the only one close. Osgood's strong, consistent play was the highlight of that run. He had a great run in '08, better as far as stats are concerned I believe, but there's no question that he was a better overall goalie and a much bigger part of our success on the '09 run. It's a shame we couldn't pull it all off. Then we'd have another Cup and one less stupid argument.


#2199092 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by gcom007 on 18 July 2011 - 04:26 PM

And let's be straight, in the context of their careers, a healthy Osgood is a MUCH better option than anyone else on the market. Conklin had a good year with the Wings. He's had lousy years since. And we're talking about a career backup with an isolated good year verses a 400-win, 3-time Stanley Cup champion. If he's healthy, this will be a great move. If he can't stay healthy, it won't be the end of the world at all because Macdonald isn't the worst 3rd choice.


#2199084 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by gcom007 on 18 July 2011 - 04:17 PM

Anyone who thinks Ozzie sucks is clearly delusional. At the same time, anyone that isn't even the slightest bit concerned for stability at the number 2 spot given his health concerns is no different.


Yep. I'm pretty indifferent about it considering we've got Macdonald, but I'm honestly still surprised. I think Osgood is still capable of playing well if he can stay healthy, but we'll see. If Holland is comfortable with it, I'm comfortable. They wouldn't bring him back for charity.


#2196276 "We feel good with the people we have," Holland said

Posted by gcom007 on 04 July 2011 - 09:22 PM

There's no reason to leave $7M for the trade deadline. $3M is plenty so we basically will have $4M to sign a backup and make another move.


No reason to spend it just to spend it either. The Wings are obviously not opposed to spending up to the cap, but they're not just going to sign guys just to sign them. It makes no sense. There's no way we sign anyone new at this point sans a backup goalie at what will likely be less than $1 million.

At this point, signing anyone else means more press box rotation for guys who shouldn't be in the press box. If anything is to happen, I'd expect that we'll see a package that sends Flip, Hudler, a defenseman (probably Ericsson) plus picks out for a 2nd/3rd line forward and a bonafide top-4 defenseman. I don't see Hudler getting dealt outside of a package with someone actually valuable like Flip. I just can't imagine Hudler/Ericsson/picks would be enticing enough for anyone to move a legit top-4 defenseman. You need someone who's proven to be a valuable asset to get anything of value and the only guy we have like that that's tradable is Flip.

I don't like speculating too much on this stuff though, and I honestly don't really think much if anything will happen. Holland's proven himself to be more cautious with trades lately and while our defense is far from perfect, it's got plenty of potential. In my mind, nothing is going to happen if it doesn't make all the sense in the world to Holland. That won't be easy.


#2196254 "We feel good with the people we have," Holland said

Posted by gcom007 on 04 July 2011 - 07:02 PM

“We like our team, but we’re ready to make another move or two—whether it’s a signing or a trade—to make our team better this summer,” Holland said.

http://www.kuklaskor...-up_goaltender/

He's not going to say "Damn we're in need of a top-tier d-man that I hope to get via trade." You know... because he doesn't want to get rail-roaded by the team he wants to trade with.


Yep.

I still don't like the Ericsson deal at all, but I like the White deal a lot and I'm at least neutral on the Commodore deal all things considered. The defensive coach is probably more important right now if we end up not making any more moves this summer.

And of course, I'm very happy with getting Eaves and Miller signed up again for a bit here. I think Eaves has a lot of untapped potential that we've yet to fully see. I'm thinking this year Hudler will be out of the way more one way or another (via trade or he simply won't get any benefit of the doubt if he doesn't produce...) and that could translate to a real opportunity for Eaves to jump up and make an impact. He's got some solid skill, a terrific work ethic and he's tough to play against on every shift. I could see him turning into a Dan Cleary type of guy in terms of development. And with Miller, he's got skill too and he proved that he can contribute last year despite being really frustrated, so hopefully he goes out and makes a splash this year. Those two deals are rock solid.

I'm expecting Osgood back at this point. They wouldn't do it if there were still serious concerns about his health, so I'm fine with it. I tend to think it wasn't nearly as big of an issue as it appeared so much as he was just pushing it too fast and too soon to try and get back when Howard was struggling. If Osgood can play, I don't think there's a better option because he's still a great mentor to Howard and you know he'll be dirt cheap and bring zero locker room issues. If Howard hadn't had such a strong playoff outing, I'd rather see them take a (huge) chance on signing Emery (into the Lidstrom school of Obedience, Discipline and Composure). But between the option of say Conklin and a healthy Osgood, I'd prefer Osgood.

As far as future deals this summer, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sure Holland would like to make a move or two and will try to, but I'm not holding my breath. He's definitely not going to shout it to the heavens either way. I think he'll make a deal at some point though to improve the defense and perhaps even the offense, but I think it'll come in the November-December time-frame when a few teams start pulling out of the playoff race. He'll try to get in before there's all the deadline demand playing into things. He's got Hudler, Flip and E that he can afford to move if you ask me. Huds is all but worthless, E has a "rest of the NHL-friendly" contract and Flip would simply be a great addition to any team lacking disciplined, solid two-way centers.

We'll see...


#2193914 Wings re-sign Ericsson to 3-year, $9.75m contract

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 01:01 PM

So what you are saying is it's absurd for anyone to think Ericsson will ever become the caliber of player as a Datsyuk? Well...duh! Lol.

People were outraged at Datsyuk and Kronwall's contract at first, now they are playing above their potential, that's the point.

Ericsson will never be more than a #3 guy at best. But he will become a solid #4 and may even QB the 2nd unit on the PP in the near distant future. $3.25 is a bargain (in this current salary cap world) for a #4, potentially a future #3.

27 is young for a defenseman, people act like he's on the downside of his aging career. Lidstrom didn't even peak till age 30. Chara didn't even start putting it together til his 6th or 7th year in the NHL. Ericsson has played 2 seasons.

You act like everyone knew Kronwall was going to be a future 1-2 dman. It was projected, but nobody on LGWs believed it. NOBODY! - The forum was outraged.


Datsyuk and Kronwall both had done more to earn their pay day. They had leverage in their negotiations based on their performance AND their potential. Ericsson has surrendered leverage to Holland because of his poor performance and is getting a payday based solely on the hope that he might live up to some potential and maybe give them reason to think that he's not just a 5-6 defenseman. He will never be a #4 guy if he doesn't seriously improve his mental game and thus far, he has done nothing to suggest he'll magically get it together.

I don't know if you're just a big Ericsson fan, but you just seem incredibly biased here. You're bring all these other names into it but ignoring that while they were young, they actually were well on their way to performing at a level demonstrative of their potential. Ericsson hasn't come anywhere remotely close to doing that since joining this team as a regular. He's done nothing but struggle.

Now I full admit that I think he does have potential and I think he still has a chance to live up to it, but I think this signing is completely out of characteristic for the Wings and sets a terrible precedent. Better players have walked for less in years past. If E wasn't willing to take $1.8-2 million to be a Red Wing, Holland should have let him walk.

Holland should have made Howard the bar especially after his outstanding playoff performance. Howard's your starting goalie and he took a team-first contract, signing for less to stay and in return getting a chance to prove himself on an elite club. That's exactly what should have been put on the table for Ericsson. I would be 100% fine with a deal like that. And that's generous considering even with Howard's struggles, he's still had far more positive moments than negatives thus far in his career.

But a 3-year deal worth almost $10 million? That's just a stupid deal for the Detroit Red Wings. They never cared about the open market and it's served them well. If you're not willing to play ball within the system, go find a payday somewhere else. Better, more proven players have left for less than Ericsson signed for, even proportional to the changing cap. That's why this deal is a joke. It's less about Ericsson and more about setting terrible precedents.


#2193808 Wings re-sign Ericsson to 3-year, $9.75m contract

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 12:34 PM

Kronwall and Datsyuk were overpaid too. Kenny you mad man!!!!11


This is so profoundly off the mark, even if you take every slappy into account and double the amount of absurdity flying around back then.

Can you really not see the difference between a superstar like Datsyuk, a future number 1-2 defenseman in Kronwall and then Ericsson, a guy who's done nothing but struggle, play sloppy hockey and underperform on every front on his way to the number 5 spot?


#2193662 Wings not offering contract to Jagr

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 11:45 AM

Any source?


http://www.freep.com...gr-sweepstakes-

It'll be really interesting to see what happens at this point. Strangely enough, I think it may almost be more likely that he signs with the Wings now than before we were "out." The Pens being out is a much bigger deal and when he stops to really reevaluate, a Detroit offer might look pretty good.


#2193184 Patrick Eaves Watch Thread.

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 03:19 AM

I know Eaves will sign, I just want to know for how long and what kind of money. I'm betting shorter term again. Probably 2 years. He wants a bigger role, a chance to prove himself. If Holland has any negotiating poise left, he'll leverage that into a cheaper short term deal that allows him to play for his next contract.

Whatever though. All I care about is getting him signed. I want this guy to retire as a Wing.


#2193182 Wings re-sign Ericsson to 3-year, $9.75m contract

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 03:05 AM

Only one of Franzen or Hossa was going to be resigned.


Says who? You might want to get your facts straight before calling me out. Holland had a deal on the table for Hossa up to the moment he signed with Chicago. He absolutely wanted to and tried to sign both players. The only debatable element is how hard did he try to do so?

Franzen agreed to terms, Hossa did not (nor did I ever hear about him saying he'll take a discount).


He absolutely went on the record numerous times saying he would take a steep discount. I believe the cap hit he and his agent wanted was around $5 million from the Wings, though I'm too tired to search for sources now. But after all, he ended up signing in Chicago for $5.5 million cap hit, so $5 million certainly isn't a logical stretch, and it'd be a phenomenal number to have a superstar like Hossa signed for.


It was Franzen who stopped us from getting Hossa, not Flip. If you're going to bring things up at least get your facts straight.


Neither of these things are true. Franzen didn't stop us from getting Hossa. He signed first but Holland didn't stop negotiating with Hossa. Flip has always been the most logical guy to move to clear cap space. He'd net the best return for the Wings and he's never played up to his contract in the context of the Wings system (though he'd be underpaid on many other teams, he's a good player, just very dispensable in the Wings system). Holland wanted to sign them both, but he wanted them both for the amount that Franzen signed for. While Franzen shouldn't have and didn't blink an eye at it considering the relative newness of his stardom, Hossa is a career elite player with a complete game worth $8-9 million a year if not more on the open market. Holland could've said goodbye to Samuellson and Hudler before they got the chance to say goodbye first and focused on getting Hossa signed for around $5 million. Then he could have traded Flip for some solid picks and have a bit of cap space to play with to bring in guys like he eventually did such as Bertuzzi and Eaves. He then has to deal with cap hell for 1 year before it all opens up again, and he'll have weathered the storm and come out alive with Hossa signed to an outstanding contract.

But he didn't want to take the risk. Not just with Hossa, but with anyone. He signed Franzen and then half-assed everything else and watched all of his free agents walk away. He admitted himself that he was taken by surprise. He didn't play it write. He didn't focus on what he so often preached which is "VALUE." The best move he could have made to get the most value out of his money was focusing on getting Hossa signed, letting Huds and Sammy walk, dealing Flip for picks. Then he could've used his greatest talent in finding under the radar guys and older guys with something left to prove to fill out the roster, much as he had to do anyways after he was left with nothing because he didn't put any real effort into anything.


On topic: This deal is terrible. Like others have said, it sends the wrong message to not only players on the Wings, but to other players around the league. In my opinion he didn't even deserve the 2 mil he was originally offered. I'm hoping Holland has something up his sleeve, or this could make it onto the worst signings by a GM list.


Agreed. Completely...and some. It'll never top Toronto getting fingered, but at the very least, there's a lot of potential for everyone to forget that they ever hated Lebda because they'll be so consumed with their anger over Ericsson.


#2193181 Wings re-sign Ericsson to 3-year, $9.75m contract

Posted by gcom007 on 01 July 2011 - 02:44 AM

Sorry, gang, but when I joined here people were lambasting Kronner at $3m/year. I don't think that by the end of this we'll be sorry.


I think Kronwall was always a different player though. Kronwall has always had the potential to be a number 1 defenseman and he showed that he was capable of living up and growing into it when healthy. The issue was certainly the injuries, and it's still a reasonable concern heading into his next contract. Plus, the injuries were more out of his control than his development and play on the ice.

Ericsson hasn't had the injuries. Ericsson has had nothing but plenty of opportunities and ice time. What has he done the whole time he's been a regular on this Wings team?

Struggle.

Sloppy mental game. Far more than occasionally terrible in our zone with the puck. He doesn't use his size. His offense hasn't come through as many expected it to.

Even accounting for potential, he has done absolutely nothing to deserve $3.25 million a year on this team. It's a slap in the face to too many guys and it's a message to anyone on the outside that the days of taking a discount to come to Detroit are over. The Red Wing product has been devalued by this deal.

Think about that point from another perspective entirely.

Consider Apple. Yes, the computer company. Their products are expensive, but arguably considered to be among the best in many classes. Apple products rarely if ever go on sale, and it's never for long or for too steep of a discount. Even if you don't like Apple, you cannot argue that there is a huge demand among consumers for iMacs, iPhones, iPads, etc...with that kind of demand, they don't need to have sales, and more and more people don't care because they still are getting the most value for their dollar.

What would happen if Apple had sales every other week and sold $499 iPads for $299? How many people would buy an iPad while priced at $499 when they know that they can get one for $299 if they just wait a little? Suddenly the product is devalued. The willingness to spend top dollar is gone because now they know that they can get the product cheaper. It's now worth $299.

Furthermore, when you devalue your product, you anger your loyal customer base who paid top dollar for the same product. Remember when the iPhone first came out? It was $599. A few months later they marked it down to $399. What happened? Everyone who bought the iPhone at $599 got pissed. Apple ended up issuing them all $100 gift certificates for anything Apple sold in an effort to make amends, and they learned a lot from that mistake and have yet to come even remotely close to making it again.

Apple's smart enough to never devalue their product. They do not compromise on this, and they make no apologies for their higher prices particularly with computers. After all, they make a great product that consumers want, so why devalue it, and in doing so kill your profits all while also adding some serious stank to the exclusivity associated with owning products that are so highly valued? It would make no sense.

So what I'm getting at with all of this is that signing Jonathon Ericsson is a lot like Apple having a sale. When Ken Holland is negotiating with a defenseman in the future, he can no longer point to Brad Stuart as an example of where the Wings bar is at. Holland would point at Brad Stuart like Apple pointing at a $499 iPad one week while the defenseman is going to say, "yeah but..." and go on to point to Jonathon Ericsson like when Apple had the same iPad on sale for $299. This single signing more than any other signing Holland has ever made has surrendered a tremendous amount of leverage to the players. It shows weakness. It shatters exclusivity. How great can this team be if they're stuck having to pay Ericsson $3.25 million? Again, no one's going to be anxious to take a huge pay cut to play here after this signing. Count on it.

And to address the "furthermore" from the Apple example, you have to ask, how does Jimmy Howard feel about this? How does Dan Cleary feel about this? What about Brad Stuart? Guarantee you that each and every one of them scratched their heads and got a little (or a lot...) pissed tonight. Also, what does this say to Eaves and Miller now? What about Helm, Abdelkader and Kindl? Every last one of them is thinking one thing that is the same: next time around, I'm going to get mine too.

More and more it seems that Ken Holland is dragging the Red Wing brand through the mud. This signing is by far the clearest proof of that. If he can't pull it together in the next year, I'm going to be more than ready to join those thinking that it's time for him to move on. He's smart enough to still be effective, hopefully here, though if not, certainly somewhere else. At this point though, I think he may be too entrenched in the familiarity and loyalty that goes along with it to make the right decisions. He's compromising too much when he shouldn't, not moving fast enough when he needs to and he just seems wholly unwilling to take risks or deal anyone away to try and make the team better or set the team up to be in a better position to sign guys to make the team better.

Again, I've never been a Holland basher. I've rarely critiqued deals much past occasionally raising an eyebrow. I've given him the benefit of the doubt time and again. But too many negative patterns have been emerging the last 3-4 years that have brought to the point tonight at which I'm for the very first time questioning whether Holland still has what it takes to manage this team.