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

[Leronziia]

Meh. Hronek, Lindstrom and Cholowski will be NHL players when this contract expires.

 

[StargateSG1]

Yeah, I also feel really bad for this guy, who ON IS OWN WILL wanted to join the Red Wings.

Must be miserable job when you get paid 3M per year. Maybe he will depress totally.

He just got a nice 9 million retirement package from Kenny.
Agents have him in their phone under "AARP" nick name.

 

[Bench]

First day of camp he's going to ask if Datsyuk's still too injured to play.

The famous Datsyuk deke silhouette came again Marty Turco and the Stars.

Detroit manhandled Dallas during Daley's years there. I have no doubt some of that shine still exists.

 

[Syckle78]

Except I said yesterday that 4 years was a worst case scenario and I wanted it shorter, so 7 years would definitely have been bad.
10m would also handcuff us a lot, it would be more expensive than Crosby for a player not nearly as good.
The cap is better than I expected and the term is fine. Complaining about a NTC which we don't know the details on when it's a cheap 3-year contract for a type of player we need.. seems like you reeeaaaally need to actively try to be negative if that's a dealbreaker. More than likely he'd accept a trade if we're bad and he has a chance to go to a contender.

34 year old defenseman coming off a year of injuries is the player we need. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[FireBird71]

He"ll join the rest of the wounded D on LTIR at some point

 

[Henkka]

34 year old defenseman coming off a year of injuries is the player we need. You can't make this stuff up.

If the veterans are injured, prospects will play.

THAT MUST BE A HORRIBLE THING.

 

[Pavels Dog]

34 year old defenseman coming off a year of injuries is the player we need. You can't make this stuff up.

Except you did make it up. He's 33 not 34, and I said "a type of player we need" not "the player". Big difference. He's also a Cup-winning D-man for a roster where the only cup winning D is perhaps already done, or at the very least close to it. That's something the youngsters can benefit from being around.

In the wait for THE player we need, I'll take some player types we need.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Meh. Hronek, Lindstrom and Cholowski will be NHL players when this contract expires.

Lindstrom? Really? You must work for the illuminati

 

[Heaton]

Except you did make it up. He's 33 not 34, and I said "a type of player we need" not "the player". Big difference. He's also a Cup-winning D-man for a roster where the only cup winning D is perhaps already done, or at the very least close to it. That's something the youngsters can benefit from being around.

In the wait for THE player we need, I'll take some player types we need.

He'll be 34 when the season starts. I don't think Daley has much to offer the players we have here, but I really liked him during his career year in Dallas.

 

[Leronziia]

Lindstrom? Really? You must work for the illuminati

They work for me.

 

[Dotter]

Kronwall and Ericsson are done or about done. This guy will step in and give the Wings some depth on D. You can't throw the kids to the wolves. You just can't. They need to be sheltered.

 

[Syckle78]

Except you did make it up. He's 33 not 34, and I said "a type of player we need" not "the player". Big difference. He's also a Cup-winning D-man for a roster where the only cup winning D is perhaps already done, or at the very least close to it. That's something the youngsters can benefit from being around.

In the wait for THE player we need, I'll take some player types we need.

How old will he be this season? Ok then.

 

[Pavels Dog]

How old will he be this season? Ok then.

Lol, knew you'd only address the nitpick fact-check and not the major reading comprehension fail of your post.

 

[Red Stanley]

As long as he doesn't get injured for long periods of time, it'll be a good signing.

 

[obey86]

don't really care much either way in all honesty

 

[Syckle78]

Lol, knew you'd only address the nitpick fact-check and not the major reading comprehension fail of your post.

It's not my reading comprehension that makes the rest of your post complete horse crap.

 

[jkutswings]

If the veterans are injured, prospects will play.

THAT MUST BE A HORRIBLE THING.

I'd rather save the money from all these 'quality veteran' contacts, play the kids anyway, and have cap space to take an asset with a bad deal, instead of collecting bad deals of our own, with no extra assets to show for it.

 

[Pavels Dog]

It's not my reading comprehension that makes the rest of your post complete horse crap.

Great argument. Well this discussion was rewarding, as always.

 

[Syckle78]

I'd rather save the money from all these 'quality veteran' contacts, play the kids anyway, and have cap space to take an asset with a bad deal, instead of collecting bad deals of our own, with no extra assets to show for it.

Henkka has been making the same excuse about injuries for 5 years running. Apparently bad veterans getting injured is a good thing it means depth....or something.

 

[Syckle78]

Great argument. Well this discussion was rewarding, as always.

As rewarding as watching a team who should be rebuilding needing 34 year old broken down defensemen.

 

[Oddbob]

This is a fine signing, considering we aren't rebuilding, no problems really with it. Nothing exciting obviously, but if we have basically the same team, at least we have someone we can plug in the top 4.

 

[jkutswings]

Kronwall and Ericsson are done or about done. This guy will step in and give the Wings some depth on D. You can't throw the kids to the wolves. You just can't. They need to be sheltered.

Option 1) The kids are good enough that they don't need an overabundance of veterans clogging up the roster spots. A few older guys help hold the fort, but the kids take the lead fairly quickly.

Option 2) The vets are really good players, who are winning meaningful games, while giving the kids time to grow.

Option 3) A boatload of mediocre veteran players teach the kids to work hard, but have no high-end skills or tricks to pass on, and the team continues to be filled with secondary talent, who will never move the needle, whether sheltered at first or not.

Option 2 was a lot of fun for a long time. But just because that's long gone, doesn't mean that Option 3 is a smart road to travel.

 

[Dotter]

Option 1) The kids are good enough that they don't need an overabundance of veterans clogging up the roster spots. A few older guys help hold the fort, but the kids take the lead fairly quickly.

Option 2) The vets are really good players, who are winning meaningful games, while giving the kids time to grow.

Option 3) A boatload of mediocre veteran players teach the kids to work hard, but have no high-end skills or tricks to pass on, and the team continues to be filled with secondary talent, who will never move the needle, whether sheltered at first or not.

Option 2 was a lot of fun for a long time. But just because that's long gone, doesn't mean that Option 3 is a smart road to travel.

I don't agree with your opinions. I think it's short sighted and reckless, and no way to run a rebuilding franchise.

 

[jkutswings]

I don't agree with your opinions. I think it's short sighted and reckless, and no way to run a rebuilding franchise.

You're right. Edmonton and Toronto sure are suffering for letting talented youth take the lead.

 

[lomekian]

You're right. Edmonton and Toronto sure are suffering for letting talented youth take the lead.

Love your logic - comparing us to Toronto and Edmonton is farcical and makes a mockery of your argument.

Toronto and Edmonton are stack full of top 10 first round picks including some of the best young talent of the last decade and at least 1 generational player, and possibly 2.

The wings have had their first top ten pick in 26 years a few days ago. Implying the talent levels of the wings prospect pool is comparable to Toronto's and Edmonton's or can be implemented in the same way with the same success is the mother of all stretches.

As it happens, both Toronto and Edmonton would probably benefit from Trevor Daley on their back line.

Except for the tank for Dahlin argument, I don't see how anyone can be too upset by this. A reasonably priced 2nd line d-man with a declining contract that will be tradeable in the 3rd year (unless his game drops off a cliff) at a time when our most experienced D is unlikely to be able to play much more than half the games this year and our best offensive D is very likely to be traded come the deadline.

Add in the fact that our only young unestablished D man remotely physically ready to step up to the NHL is both wildly inconsistent and on IR AND the fact that Daley is a better puck mover than 2/3 of our existing D, I don't see how this hurts us. I might have preferred Del Zotto or Hainsey, but its pretty marginal.