Confirmed with Link: Petr Mrazek re-signed, 2 years 4m/year

[Run the Jewels]

$5 million is the going rate for a starting goaltender like Howard. It's only a bad contract now because he got injured numerous times and Mrazek took advantage of the opportunity. It's only a bad situation because Howard hasn't be able to get healthy, otherwise the obvious move would be to trade Mrazek.

The uncertainty around Howard is what's causing this issue in net. They're reluctant to trade Mrazek because they can't rely on Jimmy anymore. It happens, and thankfully the goaltending has been able to step up when there's an injury or someone hits a cold streak.

LOL. Of course Holland would prefer the vet. He preferred Dan Cleary over Gus Nyquist in 2013. No shock there.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

One thing I struggle with understanding though...

How is "he's never stolen a series" used as a cudgel against Howard? By the very nature of it, stealing a series means that your goalie was so much better than the other goalie that even though your team was outgunned, you still won the series.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Howard was been mediocre to awful the last three years and the Wings really ought to be moving on from him by now, but it just always seemed like a subsection of the fanbase was holding him to a ridiculous standard. I mean, Vernon never stole a series in Detroit. Osgood never stole a series in Detroit. Hasek didn't steal a series. In fact, Hasek would have lost us that Nashville series if he stayed in there in 2008.

On the flip side, Joseph nearly did steal us a series against the Flames and he was ridden out of town on a rail. Jimmy came pretty damn close to stealing us one against Chicago (yeah, yeah, Chicago just needed a couple games to wake up... whatever, they were down 3-1 in that series when they were controlling play most of the time.) And in the Anaheim series, they scored 21 and we scored 18 in a 7 game series and we had three OT wins. Clearly the offense carried the day in that series.)

How about you just stick with "Howard has been sub-average in his playing time the last three years"? When he signed the deal he was a damn good goalie. He got hurt and started to suck. That's why it was bad with term, not bad with cap hit.

 

[Heaton]

LOL. Of course Holland would prefer the vet. He preferred Dan Cleary over Gus Nyquist in 2013. No shock there.

Interesting how that rarely ever works and the kid that people want to see is almost always better.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It's pure lunacy. There's no way you give him 6 years @ $5.3 and a NMC that evolves to a modifiend NMC. You do that for a franchise player, not a guy who has never lived up to his projection and has never stolen a playoff series.

You should look around at the terms and the AAVs of other starting goalies who were UFAs. You should also check out the terms of that modified NMC.

 

[HockeyinHD]

that goes without saying, but are the negatives worth the positives?

Are the positives of doing it the other way worth the negatives?

Both of those approaches offer different benefits and drawbacks.

Deals like Zetterberg are an extreme we literally won't see again, but if a player isn't worth the extra million or two, is he worth keeping at all?

Depends. When you do that two or three times you're also asking 'If this player is worth a million or two more, is doing that two or three times worth having those three players instead of three guys with long term deals with lower AAVs plus a fourth we can add via the yearly cap savings?'

I agree about the balancing act, but it doesn't seem as if we're being too choosy about who gets those long term deals. Giving them to older guys who either didn't have high upsides to begin with and/or play games that seem to fall of a cliff rather quickly with age is taking a campfire and throwing cups of gasoline at it.

Nah.

17, 11, 8, 5. That how many guys are under contract through next year (meaning 17-18), the year after, the year after, and the year after. In terms of population it's not bad and that includes the Franzen deal (which was a bad break) and the Zetterberg deal (which he won't finish out).

As far as the individuals getting the deals, there's a case to be made that there are some flaws. I don't like the Helm deal, for instance, and most (all) people don't.

People are also complaining about the Abdelkader deal, right? '7 years is too long' yadda yadda yadda. Ok. The way the salaries break down is that 7 year deal is really a 4 year and a 3 year deal signed simultaneously, to run consecutively. 4 years @ 20.25 mil and then 3 @ 9.5. There's a clear break in compensation levels which expresses this intent.

So, had Holland signed Abdelkader to a 4 year deal it would have been a 5+ cap hit. By rolling up the "second" 3 year deal into this one he saved 1.25, 750k, 750k, 500k in cap in each of the first four. That's the good news. The bad news is he A) costs himself 750k, 1.25 and 1.25 on the last three years caps and B) buys into the long term risk of Abdelkader's health status.

If Holland's primary concern is maximizing the teams' playoff chances in the immediate term (and obviously it is) you like that tradeoff more because it gives you some more flexibility up front, and you can figure out the back end later on. For the posters here who have different objectives, their evaluation of the deal will vary according to those differences.

 

[HockeyinHD]

LOL. Of course Holland would prefer the vet. He preferred Dan Cleary over Gus Nyquist in 2013. No shock there.

He preferred Alfredsson and Weiss over Nyquist in 2013.

 

[jkutswings]

Are the positives of doing it the other way worth the negatives?

Both of those approaches offer different benefits and drawbacks.



Depends. When you do that two or three times you're also asking 'If this player is worth a million or two more, is doing that two or three times worth having those three players instead of three guys with long term deals with lower AAVs plus a fourth we can add via the yearly cap savings?'



Nah.

17, 11, 8, 5. That how many guys are under contract through next year (meaning 17-18), the year after, the year after, and the year after. In terms of population it's not bad and that includes the Franzen deal (which was a bad break) and the Zetterberg deal (which he won't finish out).

As far as the individuals getting the deals, there's a case to be made that there are some flaws. I don't like the Helm deal, for instance, and most (all) people don't.

People are also complaining about the Abdelkader deal, right? '7 years is too long' yadda yadda yadda. Ok. The way the salaries break down is that 7 year deal is really a 4 year and a 3 year deal signed simultaneously, to run consecutively. 4 years @ 20.25 mil and then 3 @ 9.5. There's a clear break in compensation levels which expresses this intent.

So, had Holland signed Abdelkader to a 4 year deal it would have been a 5+ cap hit. By rolling up the "second" 3 year deal into this one he saved 1.25, 750k, 750k, 500k in cap in each of the first four. That's the good news. The bad news is he A) costs himself 750k, 1.25 and 1.25 on the last three years caps and B) buys into the long term risk of Abdelkader's health status.

If Holland's primary concern is maximizing the teams' playoff chances in the immediate term (and obviously it is) you like that tradeoff more because it gives you some more flexibility up front, and you can figure out the back end later on. For the posters here who have different objectives, their evaluation of the deal will vary according to those differences.

At that point, I don't want Justin Abdelkader, either at a $4M x 7 or a $5M+ x 4, and I trade him or let him walk. He's a role player, not a cornerstone.

Having a phobia of ever letting an average player go is a poor negotiation tactic, and the continued "kick the can down the road" approach is resulting in neither short-term playoff success nor long-term championship contention.

 

[jkutswings]

He preferred Alfredsson and Weiss over Nyquist in 2013.

Which turned out to be a mistake.

 

[jkutswings]

You should look around at the terms and the AAVs of other starting goalies who were UFAs. You should also check out the terms of that modified NMC.

Being a starting goaltender is not a digital "yes or no" in terms of salary, where everybody makes the same, regardless of performance. At the time of the signing, Howard had multiple good years, one bad year, and some questions about his overall ceiling. Just because the Joneses sign Player A to Contract B does not mean Detroit should sign Player C to a similar deal. You do what makes sense for your team. If Holland was sold on Jimmy long-term, that's his call, but it was fairly prevalent that Howard was not necessarily a sure thing, even BEFORE the deal was done.

 

[Retire91]

Great to get Mrazek signed is he RFA or UFA at the end of this?

 

[InjuredChoker]

troy brouwer had 43 points twice and 39 points once (last one) the last 3 seasons. 25, 21 and 18 goals.

abdelkader had 28, 44 and 42 points, along with 10, 23 and 19 goals.

brouwer got 4 year contract at 4.5M. as a UFA. when he could negotiate with every team.

abdelkader got 7 years at 4.25M. and abdelkader could only negotiate with the wings and signed during the season, when he hadn't gotten 42 points and 19 goals yet. so his track record was one 20+ and 40+ point season.

holland must be pretty awful negotiator if abdelkader would've gotten 5+M on a 4 yr deal when similar level (i'm being generous to abdelkader) got 4.5M. when he could engotiate with every team instead of one. 3 extra years brought the AAV down by whopping 250K.

also i'm sure if 'weiss and alfie blocked nyquist' is repeated often enough, it will become true... or something like that.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Great to get Mrazek signed is he RFA or UFA at the end of this?

RFA. 1 RFA year left.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Which turned out to be a mistake.

Alfredsson scored 49 points in 68 games in 13/14.
Nyquist scored 43 points in 82 games last year.

But yea I'm sure playing Gus instead of Alfie would have solved all our problems.

 

[19 for president]

Alfredsson scored 49 points in 68 games in 13/14.
Nyquist scored 43 points in 82 games last year.

But yea I'm sure playing Gus instead of Alfie would have solved all our problems.

That is a pretty selective argument. I mean in 13/14 Nyquist 48 points in 57 games. The fact is that the team last year was significantly worse offensively overall vs 13/14. With that said I was fine with signing Alfie, just like i'm fine with signing Vanek this year. High end vets that have the potential to put up big numbers are fine, if you are willing to sit them if they don't work out.

 

[TheOtherOne]

That is a pretty selective argument. I mean in 13/14 Nyquist 48 points in 57 games. The fact is that the team last year was significantly worse offensively overall vs 13/14. With that said I was fine with signing Alfie, just like i'm fine with signing Vanek this year. High end vets that have the potential to put up big numbers are fine, if you are willing to sit them if they don't work out.

So he was roughly equal to Alfie that year and continued to be roughly the same every year after that.

Still don't see how playing one over the other was such a disaster.

 

[jkutswings]

Alfredsson scored 49 points in 68 games in 13/14.
Nyquist scored 43 points in 82 games last year.

But yea I'm sure playing Gus instead of Alfie would have solved all our problems.

I never claimed it would've "solved all our problems". I'm saying that signing average to below average veterans has been an ongoing strategy that has caused more problems (both financial and competitive) than solutions over the last several years.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Great to get Mrazek signed is he RFA or UFA at the end of this?

Still a RFA for 1 more year. He will get his big long term deal after these 2 years.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I never claimed it would've "solved all our problems". I'm saying that signing average to below average veterans has been an ongoing strategy that has caused more problems (both financial and competitive) than solutions over the last several years.

What problem would not signing Alfie have solved?

 

[jkutswings]

What problem would not signing Alfie have solved?

It was part of the collective denial of the need to rebuild, which persists even now.

As far as signings go, the Alfredsson deal in a vacuum was reasonable, but the run was already over, so why add yet another vet to a non-contender?

 

[Flowah]

As far as signings go, the Alfredsson deal in a vacuum was reasonable, but the run was already over, so why add yet another vet to a non-contender?

The most plausible explanation to me is that Holland legitimately thought we had a chance at a cup run and Alfie would help in that.

 

[TheOtherOne]

It was part of the collective denial of the need to rebuild, which persists even now.

As far as signings go, the Alfredsson deal in a vacuum was reasonable, but the run was already over, so why add yet another vet to a non-contender?

Great so just to recap:
You started off with "playing Alfredsson over Nyquist was a mistake."
I argued that it wasn't.
You argue back that it wasn't, but a lot of other things were.

k?

 

[jkutswings]

Great so just to recap:
You started off with "playing Alfredsson over Nyquist was a mistake."
I argued that it wasn't.
You argue back that it wasn't, but a lot of other things were.

k?

No, I'm saying that on paper, the Alfredsson contract was not a bad contract in terms of both AAV and term. Yet even with a financially sound contract, I never would have signed him, because at the time I already wanted them to blow it up and rebuild with the kids. The problem was philosophical, not financial.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

One thing I struggle with understanding though...

How is "he's never stolen a series" used as a cudgel against Howard? By the very nature of it, stealing a series means that your goalie was so much better than the other goalie that even though your team was outgunned, you still won the series.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Howard was been mediocre to awful the last three years and the Wings really ought to be moving on from him by now, but it just always seemed like a subsection of the fanbase was holding him to a ridiculous standard. I mean, Vernon never stole a series in Detroit. Osgood never stole a series in Detroit. Hasek didn't steal a series. In fact, Hasek would have lost us that Nashville series if he stayed in there in 2008.

On the flip side, Joseph nearly did steal us a series against the Flames and he was ridden out of town on a rail. Jimmy came pretty damn close to stealing us one against Chicago (yeah, yeah, Chicago just needed a couple games to wake up... whatever, they were down 3-1 in that series when they were controlling play most of the time.) And in the Anaheim series, they scored 21 and we scored 18 in a 7 game series and we had three OT wins. Clearly the offense carried the day in that series.)

How about you just stick with "Howard has been sub-average in his playing time the last three years"? When he signed the deal he was a damn good goalie. He got hurt and started to suck. That's why it was bad with term, not bad with cap hit.

I mean osgood is the reason we won the cup in 2008 and we probably don't win without hasek in 02

 

[Henkka]

I mean osgood is the reason we won the cup in 2008 and we probably don't win without hasek in 02

Partial reasons maybe. There's no single reasons ever.

 

[Run the Jewels]

He preferred Alfredsson and Weiss over Nyquist in 2013.

LOL. No, he chose to add Dan Cleary knowing it would result in Nyquist being sent down the GR. All he said during training camp was that signing Cleary wasn't going to result in Tomas Tatar being lost on waivers. It was clear adding Cleary was done with the expectation of keeping Nyquist in Grand Rapids. If not for injuries that's exactly how the season would have played out.