Speculation: Gostisbehere placed on waivers by Philly

[BinCookin]

......it's Yzerman's responsibility to get those pieces. It's not his job to just leave the building of the wings to fate and chance. It's his job to build it.

I also think some sort of timeline is a necessity.

I am not sure what you are saying here? Lets go back to my example of acquiring 9-13 good players.

Are you looking for Yzerman to tell you how many years you should wait until this happens?
Do you want him to lay out HOW we will get that list up that high?
Because we all know the answers to that question.... No one knows how long it will take.


OF course... There is a way to do it... On time if we name a timeline.
Lets say we said 3 years. So its 20-21 season now, So 23-24 Season.

Lets say it turns out we get up to 7 players. In 22-23 and off season. We should sign 4-5 UFA's right?
I mean we may have to pay them more than they are worth (Bidding wars), (UFA's cost more that homegrown talent).
Then we will be "competitive". But what if we have to sign players like Gusev and Gostisbehere to fill that list?
I mean we get 9-13 good players signed for that year... But are we competitive? Are we one of the better teams in the NHL? I would say if we did that... We might be a bubble team? No one knows. It all depends on how our players do, and who we sign.

I actually think setting a timeline is a bad thing. It forces management into a situation where the fans will now DEMAND, that you live up to your timeline. So if a few players we thought were on the list, don't make it, or regress. Well we are forced to sign people around them, and we end up "finishing" the rebuild. But we don't necessarily have the team we wanted. Then fans will be even more upset, that they had to wait out a 5-7 year rebuild "For this?!" (Good example here... Time was running out on Buffalo so they signed Hall/Staal this year).


Knowing this, I fully expect Yzerman to NEVER list a timeline. Here is what he may do// will do:

1) Continue to trade expiring contracts and whoever we can for more draft capital or prospects or players under age 28.
2) Continue to sign players to short term contracts (show me contracts, or contracts to be used for step 1).
3) Collect picks, and use them at the draft. "Scouting and developing" etc etc.
4) Use any and all means to complete step 3, including taking on cap dumps, or retain salary. This step will effectively hurt the teams current team, and is the closest step to "tanking" that I define. As you are actively taking on other teams problems for draft picks.
5) We will adapt UNTIL we get that list up to about 8-9 Players. Then we will sign the final 3-4 pieces by UFA.


Who will be on the list?? We don't know
Which prospects will work out?? We don't know
HOW LONG WILL THIS TAKE???? (If you can answer the first 2, THEN I could answer this)

I take nothing for granted. Maybe a player like Svechnikov breaks out, and becomes the player we always hoped. Maybe Seider for all his promise becomes nothing more than a #4 D man. We have no idea how any of these prospects will work out. Maybe Mastrosimone is going to be our Brad Marchand.. Or maybe we have drafted like the oilers after round 2. No one knows. We have to just wait and see.

It sucks that our team sucks. I get it. But what do we want here? There is no real shortcut to this system, except to start signing UFAs too early when we don't really have a core team.

 

[Winger98]

I am not sure what you are saying here? Lets go back to my example of acquiring 9-13 good players.

Are you looking for Yzerman to tell you how many years you should wait until this happens?
Do you want him to lay out HOW we will get that list up that high?
Because we all know the answers to that question.... No one knows how long it will take.


OF course... There is a way to do it... On time if we name a timeline.
Lets say we said 3 years. So its 20-21 season now, So 23-24 Season.

Lets say it turns out we get up to 7 players. In 22-23 and off season. We should sign 4-5 UFA's right?
I mean we may have to pay them more than they are worth (Bidding wars), (UFA's cost more that homegrown talent).
Then we will be "competitive". But what if we have to sign players like Gusev and Gostisbehere to fill that list?
I mean we get 9-13 good players signed for that year... But are we competitive? Are we one of the better teams in the NHL? I would say if we did that... We might be a bubble team? No one knows. It all depends on how our players do, and who we sign.

I actually think setting a timeline is a bad thing. It forces management into a situation where the fans will now DEMAND, that you live up to your timeline. So if a few players we thought were on the list, don't make it, or regress. Well we are forced to sign people around them, and we end up "finishing" the rebuild. But we don't necessarily have the team we wanted. Then fans will be even more upset, that they had to wait out a 5-7 year rebuild "For this?!" (Good example here... Time was running out on Buffalo so they signed Hall/Staal this year).


Knowing this, I fully expect Yzerman to NEVER list a timeline. Here is what he may do// will do:

1) Continue to trade expiring contracts and whoever we can for more draft capital or prospects or players under age 28.
2) Continue to sign players to short term contracts (show me contracts, or contracts to be used for step 1).
3) Collect picks, and use them at the draft. "Scouting and developing" etc etc.
4) Use any and all means to complete step 3, including taking on cap dumps, or retain salary. This step will effectively hurt the teams current team, and is the closest step to "tanking" that I define. As you are actively taking on other teams problems for draft picks.
5) We will adapt UNTIL we get that list up to about 8-9 Players. Then we will sign the final 3-4 pieces by UFA.


Who will be on the list?? We don't know
Which prospects will work out?? We don't know
HOW LONG WILL THIS TAKE???? (If you can answer the first 2, THEN I could answer this)

I take nothing for granted. Maybe a player like Svechnikov breaks out, and becomes the player we always hoped. Maybe Seider for all his promise becomes nothing more than a #4 D man. We have no idea how any of these prospects will work out. Maybe Mastrosimone is going to be our Brad Marchand.. Or maybe we have drafted like the oilers after round 2. No one knows. We have to just wait and see.

It sucks that our team sucks. I get it. But what do we want here? There is no real shortcut to this system, except to start signing UFAs too early when we don't really have a core team.

I'm not looking for Yzerman to tell me anything, though I'd appreciate if he was even occasionally asked why the Wings do/don't pursue different players, trades, etc. A certain level of public scrutiny isn't the worst thing.

A thread that I keep seeing in these discussions is that we can't do this or that until we have this other piece, and the method for getting that piece is always, "well, we have to draft it." But we don't. We can trade for Piece X, we can sign Piece X, maybe we can secret Piece X out of a lab in Canada (and maybe get adamantium claws thrown in to boot). Continually going back to saying we need Piece X so we may as well suck until we can draft Piece X is just another way of saying the Wings have no actual say in the matter and absolving them of responsibility to act. Which I find to be bull.

With the timeline, I'm saying there needs to be some sort of timeline in place because that helps dictate what moves you make and when. For instance, if your timeline is 5+ years out then dealing larkin/bert/mantha/Hronek becomes a much more likely option than if your timeline is three years out. we know that hockey players have a limited window where they are at or near their peak, and after that...well, we have a bunch of people griping about contract value. I'm not saying Yzerman has to come out and tell us what his timeline is, I'm fine saying what I think the timeline should be But I am saying that a timeline is inherently necessary when making moves to build the team.

Yeah, some guy could always surprise (good and bad) and if the surprise is big enough they could maybe shift that timeline. But that timeline is there and it helps dictate trades, assignments, call-ups, etc. Every time someone says, "well, we should sign that guy because we'll stick suck throughout the contract," they're using a timeline.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I'm not looking for Yzerman to tell me anything, though I'd appreciate if he was even occasionally asked why the Wings do/don't pursue different players, trades, etc. A certain level of public scrutiny isn't the worst thing.

A thread that I keep seeing in these discussions is that we can't do this or that until we have this other piece, and the method for getting that piece is always, "well, we have to draft it." But we don't. We can trade for Piece X, we can sign Piece X, maybe we can secret Piece X out of a lab in Canada (and maybe get adamantium claws thrown in to boot). Continually going back to saying we need Piece X so we may as well suck until we can draft Piece X is just another way of saying the Wings have no actual say in the matter and absolving them of responsibility to act. Which I find to be bull.

With the timeline, I'm saying there needs to be some sort of timeline in place because that helps dictate what moves you make and when. For instance, if your timeline is 5+ years out then dealing larkin/bert/mantha/Hronek becomes a much more likely option than if your timeline is three years out. we know that hockey players have a limited window where they are at or near their peak, and after that...well, we have a bunch of people griping about contract value. I'm not saying Yzerman has to come out and tell us what his timeline is, I'm fine saying what I think the timeline should be But I am saying that a timeline is inherently necessary when making moves to build the team.

Yeah, some guy could always surprise (good and bad) and if the surprise is big enough they could maybe shift that timeline. But that timeline is there and it helps dictate trades, assignments, call-ups, etc. Every time someone says, "well, we should sign that guy because we'll stick suck throughout the contract," they're using a timeline.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

So much is predicated on scenarios that may/may not, or partially may/may not play out. Nobody knows when & even SY doesn't know How. He has a very good idea(s) on the How, but all is subject to change at a moments notice, causing a compounded ripple effect. Too many unknowns & variables to start labeling & setting concrete times/dates etc. Until we have another 1C or very good 2C + 2 more Top4 D, we're extremely fluid. By then it'll be easier to give a quasi-realisitic time frame & a glimpse into a plan. It's NHL poker & SY is the best at it.

 

[14ari13]

Has any team picked him yet?

 

[TCNorthstars]

Has any team picked him yet?

Nope, he cleared waivers. He is still a Flyer.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

It's quite possible SY hands are tied financially right now

I'm sure he is privy to more info and intel regarding these sorts of players, but, I'm also certain he knows some are better than guys we're currently deploying.

So either he truly believes we're at least 3 more years away from any semblance of credibility, or, his hands are tied.

Because incremental steps forward are at least just that..

 

[MBH]

People seem worried that if we get too many good players, we'll take ourselves out of the running for some kind of future draft pick.
We've got enough holes that we're not going to be a playoff team for some time.

Seider's going to take some time before he becomes a true impact guy.
Zadina... same deal, if he does.
Raymond is probably, what? Not playing next year. Rookie n 22-23 likely. And do you think he just steps in and is a stud?
We don't even know if Rasmusen is going to grow into an NHLer

I think even if we go out and get a couple solid players, it's going to be at least 23-24 before this team has a good chance at making the playoffs.

Personally, I'd like to give these kids a better supporting cast than Bobby Ryan, Sam Gagner, Jon Merrill, and Troy Stecher.

 

[14ari13]

Nobody took him. Is he bad or is his salary huge?
Or both?

 

[MBH]

Nobody took him. Is he bad or is his salary huge?
Or both?

He's not bad.
Salary is too much.
But in Detroit, he'd probably be our best PP option and produce at his salary level.

 

[14ari13]

He's not bad.
Salary is too much.
But in Detroit, he'd probably be our best PP option and produce at his salary level.

He might not be bad, but he might be bad for the money he makes.
Nobody took him.

 

[evolutionbaby]

I know Ghost and Deangelo have their warts (one waaaay more than others as he’s not even playing) but personally, as a fan, I’d much rather watch a team with those two and Gusev than the stuff we trot out there. Why have defensive guys that can’t play defense when we could at least have some legitimate talent that can’t play defense? ‍

 

[MBH]

He might not be bad, but he might be bad for the money he makes.
Nobody took him.

He's on a 40-point pace.
His powerplay production is very solid in limited minutes. (5.7 points/60). Comparable to his good years.
5 on 5 production not so hot, other than the goals department.

 

[jaster]

Nobody took him. Is he bad or is his salary huge?
Or both?

Excellent offensively, terrible defensively, and overpaid with too much term.