News Article: Tyler Wright: The days of leaving kids in the AHL for extended periods is over

theD86

Winging it
Jun 23, 2007
787
2
Columbus, Ohio
It's a young mans game. The Blue Jackets had 5 rookies on their roster and made the playoffs.
Not saying that will happen. But, you have to know what you have. Stick them in a let them go.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
To me the point is to have support when/if your young players take a leap and become your core guys. I look at Toronto, and sure they had a massive improvement. But what if they had some solid veterans? Some more depth? Could have gone on a long playoff run. ELC/RFA years is when you wanna compete. There's also the whole leadership/mentor aspect to consider and just having veterans to hold accountable (like you and this entire board does) instead of all the blame falling on the young players.

I don't like Abby's contract much but I think it's a red herring when it comes to this team. When a team sucks, all contracts look bad. Not even Sheahan lived up to his deal this year.

now i agree wholeheartedly about needing veterans to show young players the way, but how many and which ones?

to me the ONLY vets we need are zetterberg, kronwall and green so far as to provide leadership with franzen hanging around as well.

and who could forgot our front office is full of ex red wing players

i dont think we need helm or abby to provide that linkage

as far as toronto and solid veterans i agree, but its the recchis, guerins and gonchars that help young stars exceed, not 30 year old career depth players signed to retirement deals simply because and for no other reason then because, why not..

example, i could see the oilers or preds signing guys like marleau or thronton this july to 1-3 year deals to help them with their young stars and get them over the hump

but we're no them, therefore we dont need such players rigt now
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
Its a young man's game IF the young men are good enough and you have enough of them. There is no way this team will be competitive when anyone currently signed is still on an ELC. Ultimately, it will be the next 3-4 drafts that will determine whether this team can truly have a great run again.

In general I agree with only prioritising the retention of players past their early 30s if they are have been of sufficient level at their peak to still be impactful upon their decline.

That said, I'm not sure there is much merit in gutting too much of our current roster as stands because we are likely to have mid round or better picks for the next few years anyway, and it not only takes the pressure of some our better kids that will be coming up, but also, frankly, keeps their salaries slightly lower for their post ELC and 3rd pro contracts, which will be relevant by the time the team can compete again.
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
If you believe the bolded to be true... I hope you are ready for a long ass re-build.

I really have a hard time undrstanding this logic, as well. Bottom 6 forwards or bottom 4 defenseman aren't exactly hard to find. Yeah it's nice to have cheap bottom 6 forwards and bottom 4 defenseman, but that's really only a need if you have to do that in order to afford star players.

What's even the drawback to going for boom or bust skilled players in the draft when you are a re-building team? I understand the drawback when you are re-building on the fly, but what about when you have bottomed out and need a new core? If you're not going to embrace picking top 5, then you have to swing for the fences with the picks you get. I don't think Rasmussen is a terrible pick, if you are planning on having some top 5 picks over the next few years. But Holland is talking about being a playoff team and we are talking about signing some 30+ year old guys in free agency right now.

I didn't say it was what I would do, but rather what I think the organisation was thinking in a draft so full of uncertainties.

Maybe they feel that next year is a better one to be taking risks on? Maybe it was influenced by the fact that our prospect pool has been significantly shallowed by the greatest influx of rookies or near rookies into the the roster in a generation over the last couple of years? Maybe recognising where the organisation is at they want to find replacements for Helm, Abby and others as soon as possible to allow themselves to part with those players before the best kids get paid big bucks? Maybe they just wanted to stockpile tradeable assets to help move on bad contracts in future years? Maybe they tried to combine high floors with perceived 'good character' in the hope that some of these 3rd and 4th line looking picks will turn into rather more than that? Or maybe, as they said, they just prioritised getting harder to play against?

I don't mind the model of picks they have gone for as long as this doesn't become a long term template. Mostly they went for late risers or people who had shown significant progression over the prior year. I confess, I am no position to know enough about player development to critique this approach positively or negatively.

I think (unsurprisingly) you are being too negative about the Rasmussen pick, and what the organisation views it as. Just because some are saying he peaks out as a more offensive but less defensively sound Hanzal doesn't make it true. While he might not be the flashy playmaker you or I wanted (I really wanted Pettersson or Glass, but both were gone), he is an intriguing prospect because the 3rd liner narrative people are giving is probably his likely floor unless something goes very wrong in his development...but more because while never being a true playmaker, he could be an absolute beast in the Ozone. The playmaking center and scoring winger combo isn't the only way to do it, and he strikes me as the kind of center that would make a Gus Nyquist very happy indeed unless his progression stalls badly.

Re the others, we just don't know enough about the D-men on the whole to comment fully. None seem like obvious 1st line guys...but then neither do a decent percentage of top 2 d-men when drafted. The other forwards seem like mostly bottom six-ers, but frankly in those rounds, any NHL-er is a success, so I can see the logic.

As for Holland talking about being a playoff team now, he's in the last year of his contract, he's got a new arena, he's got the final day of Z...should he really throw in the towel publicly in June? As long as he doesn't sacrifice future assets, doesn't sign any contracts more than 2 years to anyone over 30, and flips UFAs (and maybe some other older roster players) for picks at the deadline assuming we are on the outside looking in, he can say what the hell he likes. There are quite enough actions and voices from others in the organisation that evidence that the organisation realises the window is closed to suggest that the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about KH's delusion is perhaps an over-reaction.
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
Subban is also a defenseman, which aren't the same as forwards. And as a matter of fact he actually had a pretty good D+1 but a rough start made it look worse than it was. His playoffs were pretty great though and in totality his scoring output increased.

And a second round pick not know for his offense. God, that just shows the terrible drafting mentality of this team.

Know who were 2nd round picked known for their offence in pre draft? Phillipe Audet. Yuri Butsayev. Corey Emmerton and his 90 points in 60 odd games. Dick Axelsson. Landon Ferraro. Tomas Jurco. Marty Frk.

The only second round offensive successes by the wings in the last two decades are Hulder and Tatar.

This partly reflects our trading away of 2nds and our poor drafting under Nill and McD. And Grigorenko's injury. But Howard, Abby and possibly Little Bert and Oulette have been pretty good 2nd rounders.

There is no reason a 2nd rounder needs to be known for their offence if they offer enough other skills. If Smith makes the improvements to make it the NHL he'll prove very popular on these boards cos the kid is strong as an ox and doesn't mind using it.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
I think (unsurprisingly) you are being too negative about the Rasmussen pick, and what the organisation views it as. Just because some are saying he peaks out as a more offensive but less defensively sound Hanzal doesn't make it true. While he might not be the flashy playmaker you or I wanted (I really wanted Pettersson or Glass, but both were gone), he is an intriguing prospect because the 3rd liner narrative people are giving is probably his likely floor unless something goes very wrong in his development...but more because while never being a true playmaker, he could be an absolute beast in the Ozone. The playmaking center and scoring winger combo isn't the only way to do it, and he strikes me as the kind of center that would make a Gus Nyquist very happy indeed unless his progression stalls badly.

Had to go personal, ok....

Well, unlike the people who would have supported the pick whether it was 1 of 10 people, or some guy off the street. I actually have my own opinion of these prospects and posted those before they were picked, and have stayed consistent to those views here thereafter.

So this narrative that people like me waited for the Wings to pick someone, and were going to be pissed at whoever Detroit takes is just complete ******** and makes me want to stick to the prospect board and avoid the circle jerk ******** our board has become.
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
Zetterberg is on a bad deal, but he just had a great season, so I give him a pass, at least for now. But that still leaves:

Howard
DeKeyser
Kronwall
Abdelkader
Helm
Ericsson
Franzen
Weiss

That's EIGHT bad deals, totaling over $33 million in cap hit for this season. So even if you want to argue away one or two of those, Detroit undeniably still has significantly more bad deals than the average team.

You do love to accentuate the negative at all times don't you?

I'd despute that Franzen is a bad deal. Guy was worth a good deal more than his contract until he eventually suffered one too many occasion of the NHL's refusal to implement its own rule system competently. He's on the LTIR so doesn't do much harm in real terms. And when he could play, even when he only lasted a few games the last time he tried he put up points.

Kronwall? It was a great deal, now its not. Every team has players who were good value who've deteriorated due to age/injury. Dekeyser? Jury's out...if he can return to being the very solid 2nd line d-man he was when he signed its a fair deal. Remember Smith just got $4m+ for being less defensively solid and putting up less points, because he skates better and has better analytics.

Even Howard isn't that bad. When he's not injured his play, though inconstant, has been worth it on average.

Abby, Helm & Ericsson were all overpaid a little (but not as much as this board thinks, as most would have done as well or better on the open market), but hurt us more than they should because of other failings, like not enough good drafting in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

I always hated the Weiss deal, even before he turned up injured. That said, I'm not sure I'd have bought him out in Detroit's position, and I would have used him more when he came back. It surprises me he hasn't got a gig anywhere else, given that he scored at 0.5 ppg in his last season, and not with big minutes. But he turned down PTOs. Babs partly killed his career, which is odd considering how he was the one who canvassed hard to an unconvinced KH to sign him. Would he have been much worse than Richards? Or even Nielsen?

To think, he turned down more money from the blues to sign with us!
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
PHP:
Had to go personal, ok....

Well, unlike the people who would have supported the pick whether it was 1 of 10 people, or some guy off the street. I actually have my own opinion of these prospects and posted those before they were picked, and have stayed consistent to those views here thereafter.

So this narrative that people like me waited for the Wings to pick someone, and were going to be pissed at whoever Detroit takes is just complete ******** and makes me want to stick to the prospect board and avoid the circle jerk ******** our board has become.

Whoa! I don't know who urinated in your Cheerios, but that wasn't what I meant - I was referring to the overall reaction being too negative and yours concurring with that. Perhaps you have oft been criticised for being too negative and are sensitive? I don't know and don't know enough about you to care either way.

And guess what, we all have our own opinion...otherwise we wouldn't be posting on here! I've stated in this post, elsewhere in this thread and elsewhere on the board, that i wouldn't have done what the organisation did. I had other preferences. The ones I really wanted were off the board, but I still had a couple of other options I liked more, largely for stylistic reasons. My views have remained consistent. Out of those guys who weren't going top 2, I had Rasmussen about 10th on my list. Most of that list had gone before the time came, but a couple hadn't.

BUT - I still think its a pretty good pick, and one that I can't get upset about because I can see WHY the organisation chose him and think he has a lot more upside than people have been willing to give him credit for.

As for 'this narrative' you refer to, I have no idea what you are talking about, and even IF it is a thing, wonder why you are so upset about it. It strikes me as fairly implausible to seriously exist in earnest, and if it does, why do you care, as its clearly stupid.

I do know that you post on here a lot, so assume you have your own opinions.

But there are others more obsessively critical than you that spring to mind as far as I'm concerned
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
My very thoughts exactly. Things will never truly change, unless somebody competent enough, is put into that position, as well.

I agreed with this 100% until the TDL, where I saw some improvements. Lets hope the streak's end lets him be more like the coach we saw in the AHL than some crap version of babs...
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
'Recapture' is still the biggest crock of **** I have ever seen.

Agreed. But then the NHL is a franchise system and thus can make things up as they go along regardless of fairness, morality or logic. But then Bettman is the closest thing to Grimer Wyrmtongue I've seen in reality.
 

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
Zetterberg and kronwall are good deals

Franzens was always bad, too long for a guy who had not earned it

Helm, Howard, Abby and Ericsson all bad the second the ink was dry

Don't know how you can argue that for Franzen. Under 4m a year for a guy who'd just had 2 great years including a franchise record playoff run, and who then went on to immediately have another brilliant playoff run, before another the following year and scoring at between 0.6 & 0.75 ppg for the next 6 seasons whenever fit (which was more often than not) before that final dirty hit finished him.

The whole idea of punishing teams for contracts given to healthy players when they get career ending injuries off bad hits (or even clean hits to be honest) is just ridiculous and anywhere outside of a NA franchise system would not be allowed to happen. Its a farce.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
Don't know how you can argue that for Franzen. Under 4m a year for a guy who'd just had 2 great years including a franchise record playoff run, and who then went on to immediately have another brilliant playoff run, before another the following year and scoring at between 0.6 & 0.75 ppg for the next 6 seasons whenever fit (which was more often than not) before that final dirty hit finished him.

The whole idea of punishing teams for contracts given to healthy players when they get career ending injuries off bad hits (or even clean hits to be honest) is just ridiculous and anywhere outside of a NA franchise system would not be allowed to happen. Its a farce.

I specifically referred to the length of franzens deal

Too long I said and it was and is
 
Aug 6, 2012
10,752
5
Zetterberg is on a bad deal, but he just had a great season, so I give him a pass, at least for now. But that still leaves:

Howard
DeKeyser
Kronwall
Abdelkader
Helm
Ericsson
Franzen
Weiss

That's EIGHT bad deals, totaling over $33 million in cap hit for this season. So even if you want to argue away one or two of those, Detroit undeniably still has significantly more bad deals than the average team.

That's not even counting Nielsen who's making 5.25 for the next 5 years...
 

Boomhower

Registered User
Aug 23, 2003
5,169
1
Ontario
Visit site
That's not even counting Nielsen who's making 5.25 for the next 5 years...

Nielsen's deal is maybe the worst of all.

That Datsyuk trade was like an ACL tear for the franchise.
-Lose Datsyuk to KHL
-Trade away the rights to draft Chykhrun to clear his cap
- Sign Nielsen to awful deal with extra cash.

Could you imagine If Detroit currently had Chykhrun and did not have Nielsen's anchor of a contract
 

Dotter

THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Jul 2, 2014
8,439
2,880
Imprisonment, TN
goo.gl
I didn't say it was what I would do, but rather what I think the organisation was thinking in a draft so full of uncertainties.

Maybe they feel that next year is a better one to be taking risks on? Maybe it was influenced by the fact that our prospect pool has been significantly shallowed by the greatest influx of rookies or near rookies into the the roster in a generation over the last couple of years? Maybe recognising where the organisation is at they want to find replacements for Helm, Abby and others as soon as possible to allow themselves to part with those players before the best kids get paid big bucks? Maybe they just wanted to stockpile tradeable assets to help move on bad contracts in future years? Maybe they tried to combine high floors with perceived 'good character' in the hope that some of these 3rd and 4th line looking picks will turn into rather more than that? Or maybe, as they said, they just prioritised getting harder to play against?

I don't mind the model of picks they have gone for as long as this doesn't become a long term template. Mostly they went for late risers or people who had shown significant progression over the prior year. I confess, I am no position to know enough about player development to critique this approach positively or negatively.

I think (unsurprisingly) you are being too negative about the Rasmussen pick, and what the organisation views it as. Just because some are saying he peaks out as a more offensive but less defensively sound Hanzal doesn't make it true. While he might not be the flashy playmaker you or I wanted (I really wanted Pettersson or Glass, but both were gone), he is an intriguing prospect because the 3rd liner narrative people are giving is probably his likely floor unless something goes very wrong in his development...but more because while never being a true playmaker, he could be an absolute beast in the Ozone. The playmaking center and scoring winger combo isn't the only way to do it, and he strikes me as the kind of center that would make a Gus Nyquist very happy indeed unless his progression stalls badly.

Re the others, we just don't know enough about the D-men on the whole to comment fully. None seem like obvious 1st line guys...but then neither do a decent percentage of top 2 d-men when drafted. The other forwards seem like mostly bottom six-ers, but frankly in those rounds, any NHL-er is a success, so I can see the logic.

As for Holland talking about being a playoff team now, he's in the last year of his contract, he's got a new arena, he's got the final day of Z...should he really throw in the towel publicly in June? As long as he doesn't sacrifice future assets, doesn't sign any contracts more than 2 years to anyone over 30, and flips UFAs (and maybe some other older roster players) for picks at the deadline assuming we are on the outside looking in, he can say what the hell he likes. There are quite enough actions and voices from others in the organisation that evidence that the organisation realises the window is closed to suggest that the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about KH's delusion is perhaps an over-reaction.

very logical and well thought post. Thanks for posting this.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Nielsen's deal is maybe the worst of all.

That Datsyuk trade was like an ACL tear for the franchise.
-Lose Datsyuk to KHL
-Trade away the rights to draft Chykhrun to clear his cap
- Sign Nielsen to awful deal with extra cash.

Could you imagine If Detroit currently had Chykhrun and did not have Nielsen's anchor of a contract?
Unfortunately, is I'd imagine that Chykhrun would have been kept in GR the vast majority of the season, and a different free agent veteran forward would've been signed in Nielsen's place, for more AAV and/or term than warranted. It's kinda the trademark of this franchise these days.
 

Boomhower

Registered User
Aug 23, 2003
5,169
1
Ontario
Visit site
Unfortunately, is I'd imagine that Chykhrun would have been kept in GR the vast majority of the season, and a different free agent veteran forward would've been signed in Nielsen's place, for more AAV and/or term than warranted. It's kinda the trademark of this franchise these days.
Both Would have been impossible if Datsyuk trade never happened.
-Datsyuk cap hit would have used more cap space then Nielsen's... handcuffed Holland. We wouldn't have even been able to afford Vanek.
-Chykhrun would have been Sarnia or NHL
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
Don't even think we would have drafted Chychrun at #16. Time to let him go. Still time for Cholo and/or Hronek to become every bit as good.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Don't even think we would have drafted Chychrun at #16. Time to let him go. Still time for Cholo and/or Hronek to become every bit as good.

Considering we passed on Chychrun who is already playing well in the NHL, Cholo and/or Hronek have to end up being better.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
That "well-playing" is very very far-reached.

For an 18 year old playing on a terrible team? He had a good rookie season. We all would have been happy if we had an 18 year old playing the well he did for stretches of games. If either Hronek or Cholo puts up 20 points on a terrible offensive team, I'd consider that a success, especially since our last drafted defenseman to put up 20 points is... who exactly? Kronwall who was drafted 20 years ago?
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
Not to be difficult here but can't that be said for every player ever?

Sure, but what difference does that make. Abdelkader was that guy, then last year he was not. If he gets back to what he was, he'll earn the deal.

He may earn the salary but doesn't deserve the term

Enh. The term made the salary possible, and if he earns the deal in 4 or 5 of the years I'm not going to freak out about the couple he struggled in.

Now, if he struggles in the first two or three of the years, huge problem.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->