Trevor Daley... 3 years $3.17M a year

[WingedWheel1987]

In 14-15 Detroit had 100 points. Here are the roster changes from that team, to today's roster:

Out: Datsyuk, Quincey, Smith, Weiss, Franzen, Andersson, Jurco.
In: Nielsen, Green, Daley, Mantha, Larkin, AA, Ouellet.

Someone can think Datsyuk was Jesus on skates and still not be able to form a rational argument how group 1 is better than group 2.

If Mrazek bleeps the bed again Detroit's in trouble because Howard can't play 60 games, but Detroit has a roster of players who can get to the upper 90's as long as they don't suck and Blashill gets out of them approximately what Babcock did.

There's not a big ceiling to this team, but I think we've already seen it's floor.

You are gonna be really disappointed if you seriously think we have seen the Wings floor. We are currently at around ground level without about 43 sub basements to go. Once Zetterberg retires or declines just a little bit more, then boom goes the dynamite.

Group 1 is better because it had game changing talent that didn't require other talented players to produce. Group 2 is all passengers with nobody to drive them.

Datsyuk made everyone around him better and even the players that didn't share the ice with him. He was the priority that all other teams game planned against. Take him away and you are left with a roster that only has one line that can consistently generate offense or maintain possession of the puck.

 

[HockeyinHD]

But it's not nearly just the difference between Group 1 and Group 2.

Not just, but certainly mostly.

Guys like Kronwall and Ericsson don't nearly have the health they did a few years ago.

Stop it with the Ericsson stuff. People here have hated him for years now.

And guys like Abdelkader, Helm, DeKeyser, and Sheahan have gone from solid contributors to ghosts of their former selves

Yes, that's what I said. Most of the guys on this roster were there for a 100 point season and they've played individually less well lately, including awfully last season.

If they play as they have even in 15-16, Detroit's right there in the mix for the playoffs.

Datsyuk drove even more of the possession numbers than he was given credit for by some fans, but the roster has also fallen apart in several other areas.

Nah. The roster is actually deeper and better pretty much everywhere on the ice except for Datsyuk's spot. Mayyyybe Kronwall's spot, but I think he's tended to be overrated. What killed the Wings last year is a whole cadre of players underperforming and Mrazek being apocalyptically awful.

If you're proceeding under the assumption that all the guys who had career lows or the kids who took steps back will duplicate those while Mrazek will also be awful again... sure, Detroit's going to be bad again.

IMO we're going to see some growth out of most of the kids and the Helm's, Abby's and Sheahan's of the world won't be galactically awful. They won't be awesome, but much closer to their typical expectations.

The real wildcard here is Mrazek.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Had he used those picks on players that I thought made sense, it would've been a net win. But to exaggerate the point, adding 200 picks, then using each one on a bag of pucks, doesn't help the franchise.

Now do that after looking at Holland's success with landing NHL players.

But you're right in saying it's moot overall. This franchise is currently incompatible with being entertaining, at least with this front office.

Some people are fans of winning hockey, some are fans of hockey.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

So what's your excuse gonna be when the Wings replicate last years performance? Cause it's gonna happen. 70-80 point season is all this roster is capable of anymore.

Unlucky two years in a row?

A team full of depth players and no stars means you have no depth or star players.

 

[Frk It]

Not just, but certainly mostly.



Stop it with the Ericsson stuff. People here have hated him for years now.



Yes, that's what I said. Most of the guys on this roster were there for a 100 point season and they've played individually less well lately, including awfully last season.

If they play as they have even in 15-16, Detroit's right there in the mix for the playoffs.



Nah. The roster is actually deeper and better pretty much everywhere on the ice except for Datsyuk's spot. Mayyyybe Kronwall's spot, but I think he's tended to be overrated. What killed the Wings last year is a whole cadre of players underperforming and Mrazek being apocalyptically awful.

If you're proceeding under the assumption that all the guys who had career lows or the kids who took steps back will duplicate those while Mrazek will also be awful again... sure, Detroit's going to be bad again.

IMO we're going to see some growth out of most of the kids and the Helm's, Abby's and Sheahan's of the world won't be galactically awful. They won't be awesome, but much closer to their typical expectations.

The real wildcard here is Mrazek.

So you think it's a given Zetterberg is that effective again and that he stays healthy at 37 with over 1100 games played?

Ballsy.

He's the one that drives whoever they put on his line, even still FYI

 

[RedHawkDown]

I really want to suck again so we can get Dahlin or Svechnikov, please

 

[ShanahanMan]

I really want to suck again so we can get Dahlin or Svechnikov, please

Holland would just trade down for a bunch of 2nd rounders.

 

[jkutswings]

Nah. The roster is actually deeper and better pretty much everywhere on the ice except for Datsyuk's spot.

And now we get to the heart of the matter.

A roster that oozes depth, but has little to no core, is a steaming pile of garbage. And, at the moment, an expensive one at that.

But I'm willing to bet that when next year is basically a repeat performance, the argument will change again, and the approach will be defended again, whether it's by blaming the whole thing on Mrazek, and running him out of town, or by spinning some other yarn to turn a horse into a zebra, and deny the simplest explanation for what's going on:

The Detroit Red Wings are simply a bad hockey team, with a bad strategy for getting out of the rut they've steadily sunk into.

 

[Classicnamesup]

Holland would just trade down for a bunch of 2nd rounders.

The nice thing about second rounders is it takes us longer to realize they are busts.

 

[jkutswings]

The nice thing about second rounders is it takes us longer to realize they are busts.

LOL, there's some truth to that. Especially when they get the Super-duper Over Ripe Treatment.

 

[Wood Stick]

Last couple of second rounders have brought us Tyler Bertuzzi, Filip Hronek, Calle Jarnkrok along with Nasty and Frk. They definitely have value. Even if they're not stars, it also brought regular NHLers in Xavier Ouellet, Ryan Sproul and Tomas Jurco. Tomas Tatar was also a second rounder. Detroit's done fairly well in the second round.

I'm still absolutely not a fan of that Smith pick last year. I wanted Girard.

 

[Bench]

A roster that oozes depth, but has little to no core, is a steaming pile of garbage. And, at the moment, an expensive one at that.

What more do you need to know other than the Wings expansion poach was Nosek. The depth can't be that good if you're leaving a bunch of character veterans dangling out there and Vegas knows they either don't want them on their roster or can't flip them for anything of value.

Kronwall, Ericsson, Sheahan, Helm, and Glendening all passed over. Over 20% of your salary cap is literally spare parts you couldn't give away. But hey, that's just code for depth.

Doesn't even get into Mrazek and Howard. And that Abdelkader and Nielsen probably wouldn't need protecting, but hell, you have to pick SOMEONE to protect. And we're assuming DeKesyer plays anywhere near his contract, but again, they had to protect somebody on the blueline. When Nick Jensen is getting a protection slot, you defense is pretty iffy.

That expansion draft was very depressing, is what I'm trying to say.

 

[taylorjonl]

Holland would just trade down for a bunch of 2nd rounders.

More likely he would just pick a low ceiling, high floor player like he did this year.

 

[vladdy16]

From what I remember reading at the time, the Wings had tried to re-sign Smith before they dealt him. I think the one who moved on was Smith. I don't think an actual rebuild is starting here.

They pretty much offered the same contract to Smith that they offered Daley. Well,I don't know if they ever offered the contract or not. There was a tweet on July 1st on one of the trade forum threads that Holland wanted to re-sign Smith for 3 years at a little under 4 million.

I think these quotes support my claim rather than refute it.

With Daley and his workload, I think his minutes will be manageable as long as everyone stays healthy, and no one outside of Green and Dekeyser will be pushed hard minutes wise. Until guys start getting hurt. Then we'll see whatever vets are left get pushed a little harder with the younger guys getting only slightly more minutes.

I don't think you can have this one both ways. Either we're heading into the year with too many d or too few.

You can't say adding Daley is unneeded depth, and then turn around and say our depth is so poor that the D will breakdown.

Bringing Daley in just makes it all the more unlikely that we're going to see one of the current crop of "kids" (Jensen is 26, Russo is 24, and XO is 23...really hard to call them prospects/kids but they are for this club) get a good look and maybe exceed expectations. Injuries should be expected with every season, but it has long seemed as if the Wings hope injuries force us to put our best team on the ice rather then giving us something to weather until our better players are healthy again.

I think the hope should have been that we put guys like Jensen, Russo, and XO out there a lot now with the hope that they can be the steadying influence for when the next group comes up. And if they aren't, we could probably sign a Trevor Daley equivalent every summer.

This I think is the crux of the argument, and I feel you sidestepped my most important question and subsequent point on the topic. I'm going to dismiss XO because he played a ton last year and doesn't fit with the narrative there.

So Jensen(who's already slated to play), Renouf, Russo, who else? These are D level prospects no? Why not add Lashoff to the group, he's the same age as Jensen.

I think out of all the players we've passed on at D, Sproul has the best chance at improving to an everyday level, and in no way do I think spending 82 games in the top 6 next year is the best way for that to happen. I don't think you guys are giving the level of competition in the National Hockey League proper respect. It's not an environment for development.

I play the UFC video game sometimes, and when I do, I only play head to head online. So learning as I go. I think there are 8 divisions. You start at 1 and work you're way up depending on record. If I started playing in division 8, not knowing any of the moves or controls, I would never learn the moves or controls.

And beyond that, you still have the nature of d-pairings to consider. Imagine Robbie Russo works his but off, improves his agility, and you'd like to see if his skating is good enough now where he can use his puck moving abilities at the NHL level.

Which is a more fair scenario...

a) you call him up and he plays 40 games with a D level prospect, or a broken old man

b) you call him up and he plays 40 games with an experienced, consistent player that offers you a reliable baseline?

Option b is way more fair to the prospect.

I feel like if we were to be real in this thread, the only argument being made, is the same argument that's been made the last 2 years, and that's that the Red Wings aren't as good as you'd like them to be, so in that case you want them to lose as much as possible and go from there.

 

[HockeyinHD]

And now we get to the heart of the matter.

A roster that oozes depth, but has little to no core, is a steaming pile of garbage. And, at the moment, an expensive one at that.

Enh. A) It's not our money. B) They might make the playoffs, which is their goal, apparently.

But I'm willing to bet that when next year is basically a repeat performance, the argument will change again, and the approach will be defended again,

You guys do this all the time. Who's 'defending' it? All I'm doing here is telling you why they are doing what they are doing.

Seriously, it's like you guys walking outside, getting wet, and then after I point out you're all wet because it's raining accusing me of defending the rain, and being in full support of you standing there like a bunch of wet dopes.

No, silly, I'm just saying you're wet because you're standing in the rain.

Detroit wants to make the playoffs, and the moves they make are in line with that goal. You, personally, can want other goals. Great. Have a ball with that. Buy a hockey team and someone will give two poos. Until that glorious day comes, however, we're all just going to have to live in this dark and dreary world wherein our own personal desires aren't downloaded directly into the heads of other people and used to overwrite their ids.

Go talk to a Lions fan. They've got a lot of practice.

If not being utterly simpatico with a front office makes watching the on-ice product an unbearable chore for you, hey, outside of the possibility of a spectacularly cruel roommate nobody is exactly twisting your arm to do so. There's all kinds of hockey to watch. And if hockey in general isn't as fun as watching winning hockey with a rooting interest, there are sports on TV positively packing the airwaves.

whether it's by blaming the whole thing on Mrazek, and running him out of town, or by spinning some other yarn to turn a horse into a zebra, and deny the simplest explanation for what's going on:

The Detroit Red Wings are simply a bad hockey team, with a bad strategy for getting out of the rut they've steadily sunk into.

Nah. They've selected a strategy you don't like, with a goal you don't agree with. You're making the fairly common error of thinking your opinion is the right one, and the only right one, and the only important one. 0 for 3.

They may succeed in their efforts, or they may not. The NHL's a pretty tough league to put much together in, really. I think we're done seeing the Wings ever put together anything remotely resembling what they did even just in 06-09, much less the 20+ years before that.

 

[HockeyinHD]

So you think it's a given Zetterberg is that effective again and that he stays healthy at 37 with over 1100 games played?

He might, he might not. There are only about a million different permutations how individual guys play out the 18 season.

My general point is that I think the veterans as a group will play better than they did last year, given the sheer number of them who had atrocious seasons.

I mean, let's say Z goes back to a 13 goal, 37 assist guy like he was in 15-16. If Abdelkader gets back into the 18 goal range while Sheahan scores a few before Spring... isn't that a net positive for the forwards? That's what I'm talking about.

I don't think every player will be better than they were last year, I think that as a group they will be. I have no idea how healthy Howard will be, or how well he'll play, or how well Mrazek will play... so that's why I view the goalies as the real wildcard here. If they're collectively bad any degree of moderate improvement from the skaters will get washed.

He's the one that drives whoever they put on his line, even still FYI

Z's top 5 ES linemates last year were Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Abdelkader, and Sheahan.

Are you absolutely sure you want to credit Z with how those 5 collectively did last year?

 

[Bench]

Z's top 5 ES linemates last year were Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Abdelkader, and Sheahan.

Are you absolutely sure you want to credit Z with how those 5 collectively did last year?

Why is that bad? Tatar and Mantha were #1 and #3 in goals, respectively. Zetterberg tied for 3rd himself. Easy to imagine Mantha at #2 if he actually played all year. These things are relative. Zetterberg isn't a top offensive threat in the NHL anymore, but he's still the closest thing we had last year... thus the awful finish.

And blaming Z for Sheahan and Abdelkader is a stretch. Not sure how he's responsible for making sure 5 players all hit their potential.

 

[jkutswings]

Enh. A) It's not our money. B) They might make the playoffs, which is their goal, apparently.



You guys do this all the time. Who's 'defending' it? All I'm doing here is telling you why they are doing what they are doing.

Seriously, it's like you guys walking outside, getting wet, and then after I point out you're all wet because it's raining accusing me of defending the rain, and being in full support of you standing there like a bunch of wet dopes.

No, silly, I'm just saying you're wet because you're standing in the rain.

Detroit wants to make the playoffs, and the moves they make are in line with that goal. You, personally, can want other goals. Great. Have a ball with that. Buy a hockey team and someone will give two poos. Until that glorious day comes, however, we're all just going to have to live in this dark and dreary world wherein our own personal desires aren't downloaded directly into the heads of other people and used to overwrite their ids.

Go talk to a Lions fan. They've got a lot of practice.

If not being utterly simpatico with a front office makes watching the on-ice product an unbearable chore for you, hey, outside of the possibility of a spectacularly cruel roommate nobody is exactly twisting your arm to do so. There's all kinds of hockey to watch. And if hockey in general isn't as fun as watching winning hockey with a rooting interest, there are sports on TV positively packing the airwaves.



Nah. They've selected a strategy you don't like, with a goal you don't agree with. You're making the fairly common error of thinking your opinion is the right one, and the only right one, and the only important one. 0 for 3.

They may succeed in their efforts, or they may not. The NHL's a pretty tough league to put much together in, really. I think we're done seeing the Wings ever put together anything remotely resembling what they did even just in 06-09, much less the 20+ years before that.

Whether I LIKE the strategy or not, the data suggests that they were near the bottom of the league in all sorts of areas, including the standings. So yes, I can objectively call them a bad team, because going 33-36-13, with only 24 wins in either regulation or overtime, having a goal differential of -37, and lousy possession numbers across the board...

...means they're a bad team.

 

[Squirrel in the Hole]

If the Wings ever embrace the concept of "asset management", Z, Kronwall and Erickson are going to need more "maintenance days" this year (and this doesn't take into account any injuries). If we structure our roster well, we can plug in prospects into those gaps. And, injuries will come....

 

[Oddbob]

Why is that bad? Tatar and Mantha were #1 and #3 in goals, respectively. Zetterberg tied for 3rd himself. Easy to imagine Mantha at #2 if he actually played all year. These things are relative. Zetterberg isn't a top offensive threat in the NHL anymore, but he's still the closest thing we had last year... thus the awful finish.

And blaming Z for Sheahan and Abdelkader is a stretch. Not sure how he's responsible for making sure 5 players all hit their potential.

I respectfully disagree here. He had 68 points on a team that constantly couldn't score. How many times he made beautiful passes and they went by the wayside, because our other scorers, didn't put the puck in the net. Based on how he played last year, if we had more scoring from others, he easily would have had 80+ last year, which is among the leaders in the NHL. At this point, he is still driving our offense, when he should be able to settle into a complimentary piece.

 

[Oddbob]

Whether I LIKE the strategy or not, the data suggests that they were near the bottom of the league in all sorts of areas, including the standings. So yes, I can objectively call them a bad team, because going 33-36-13, with only 24 wins in either regulation or overtime, having a goal differential of -37, and lousy possession numbers across the board...

...means they're a bad team.

Considering where we finished and our bad goaltending, -37 isn't really that bad for 6th worst team in the league.

 

[Squirrel in the Hole]

I respectfully disagree here. He had 68 points on a team that constantly couldn't score. How many times he made beautiful passes and they went by the wayside, because our other scorers, didn't put the puck in the net. Based on how he played last year, if we had more scoring from others, he easily would have had 80+ last year, which is among the leaders in the NHL. At this point, he is still driving our offense, when he should be able to settle into a complimentary piece.

Totally agree. Just wondering how long he can keep it up. He has the heart of a lion.

 

[Mister Ed]

Interesting tidbit here :

10. Trevor Daley's Detroit contract has a unique provision. Daley has a no-trade from now until 10 days prior to the 2018-19 trade deadline. After that, a 15-team list you can't send him to.

LINK

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Interesting tidbit here :

10. Trevor Daley’s Detroit contract has a unique provision. Daley has a no-trade from now until 10 days prior to the 2018-19 trade deadline. After that, a 15-team list you can’t send him to.

LINK

That's not very Ken Holland at all. Neat.

 

[Oddbob]

Interesting tidbit here :

10. Trevor Daley's Detroit contract has a unique provision. Daley has a no-trade from now until 10 days prior to the 2018-19 trade deadline. After that, a 15-team list you can't send him to.

LINK

Really? That is very odd, never heard of one like that before.