News Article: Jimmy D. : "Red Wings won't 'sit back' in attempt to rebuild"

[Syckle78]

No need to be offended, to each their own.

I'm not offended. Your post would need to matter to me for that to be the case. I'm simply saying if you're going to marginalize a large number of posters as being irrational then there's no point discussing anything with you. It's childish political talk tactics.

 

[Invictus12]

So well them at the end of their deals.... That doesn't really do anything for the main point of having cap flexibility during the rebuild. The whole argument is whether or not having cap flexibility and not being up against the cap is more advantageous or than not having flexibility and being against the cap. Is there really a debate here? Really?

Advantageous how? The advocacy for cap space here is pretty much along the lines of save it in order to clog it up later in exchange for picks. Whereas, what's actually been happening is that we clogged it, and now dealing it it for picks. More and more, these deals go away while we fill up the space with younger contracts while also getting more picks... Using your own train of thought here, I'd think we're at the better position here than we would be with what you're proposing.

 

[Syckle78]

Advantageous how? The advocacy for cap space here is pretty much along the lines of save it in order to clog it up later in exchange for picks. Whereas, what's actually been happening is that we clogged it, and now dealing it it for picks. More and more, these deals go away while we fill up the space with younger contracts while also getting more picks... Using your own train of thought here, I'd think we're at the better position here than we would be with what you're proposing.

I just told you how. If we didn't have the long term albatross contracts we could both sign free agents in the off season to trade and sell cap space for assets. More is better,no?

 

[kliq]

I'm not offended. Your post would need to matter to me for that to be the case. I'm simply saying if you're going to marginalize a large number of posters as being irrational then there's no point discussing anything with you. It's childish political talk tactics.

If you're trying to prove my emotional theory wrong, coming back at me with an emotional post saying that I don't matter, and that I "marginalized" you does not help your case. I'm giving my view point, there is no need to get upset, that's what this board is for.

 

[Invictus12]

I just told you how. If we didn't have the long term albatross contracts we could both sign free agents in the off season to trade and sell cap space for assets. More is better,no?

Where do you see more exactly? There is a reason why Vanek has a NMC... There is a reason why Green has a NMC.. Players aren't idiots you know? They know very well the position Detroit is in and they're not going to sign just to be a trading chip. They have other options you know? And the ones that don't you won't be finding buyers for them come deadline. In other words, if you want the signed up, you'll have to let them have a say in what their future holds.

 

[Winger98]

Where do you see more exactly? There is a reason why Vanek has a NMC... There is a reason why Green has a NMC.. Players aren't idiots you know? They know very well the position Detroit is in and they're not going to sign just to be a trading chip. They have other options you know? And the ones that don't you won't be finding buyers for them come deadline. In other words, if you want the signed up, you'll have to let them have a say in what their future holds.

I'm not sure I'd miss Vanek at all if he hadn't signed here. I don't think it's just from the player's side, though. I think Holland gives them out knowing he probably won't deal them, but that's just my guess. It's why Helm and Gator have deals structured where their ability to block a trade is weakened late in the deal. Holland didn't have a problem not dealing them in the short term but, if he were to move them, he expected from the start that it would be three or four years after signing them.

 

[Invictus12]

I'm not sure I'd miss Vanek at all if he hadn't signed here. I don't think it's just from the player's side, though. I think Holland gives them out knowing he probably won't deal them, but that's just my guess. It's why Helm and Gator have deals structured where their ability to block a trade is weakened late in the deal. Holland didn't have a problem not dealing them in the short term but, if he were to move them, he expected from the start that it would be three or four years after signing them.

I wouldn't miss Vanek myself but I see the reasoning behind it. A lot of youngsters were up in the air and it was pretty much a decision at the last minute on who makes it and who doesn't. For all the crap Helm, Gator and Glenny get on here, in a world where you can't stack your entire 12 man roster with team Canada, they have actually proven to be a need for every team out there. You need your PK specialist, your pests... The guys that do the dirty work, so to speak. So I do definitely think he signed them for the transition period and ultimately hopes to replace them from within. The only way he doesn't deal them for futures is that we don't have as good players replacing them (Actual defensive guys) while also in a playoff hunt. In which case we might lose them for nothing or find ourselves signing them for short term deals.

 

[Reddwit]

cant believe people are talking about making the playoffs lmao

Yeah, Detroit came into the season expected by all to be a bottom feeder. Then they went 1-7-2 through the first 10 games including high-profile back-to-back blowouts. That's not going to earn you a reputation as a club that the opposition needs to take seriously, yet we're still barely eking out wins against average teams.

I think we've done enough recently to make teams think twice about taking the night off against us so it'll be interesting to see how we handle that. I wouldn't hold my breath. I expect we'll be back in trouble shortly.

 

[The Zermanator]

Except you can actually play it in reverse... Instead if taking on cap dumps for picks, we sell the players we signed for picks. As we have been doing. Very odd proposition given that you literally prefer to take on cap dumps to clog up the cap space but won't clog it for what you'd probably refer to as 'warm bodies'?... Which can and have been moved for picks later on? And while yeah, you can offer-sheet Nylander, you'd also have to seriously over pay, in which case you lose your top picks for one and taking on the same risk everyone is always complaining about.
Except again you actually lose picks here on top of it. Now, free agents are a problem in a sense that you won't have money to sign them. That said, you're also forgetting that the reason we signed the guys we signed was because the free agents that were initially sought wouldn't sign. Again, unless you want to ice an AHL team, you need to get the next best thing.

How much do you really get in return for trading the Vanek types as trade deadline rentals though? A 3rd round pick? A late 2nd if you're lucky? Carolina got Teravainen in exchange for taking on Bickell's contract.

Teams who want to challenge for the Cup are much more likely to get desperate and give up better assets so that they can afford to re-sign their important players. So they do things like lose Teravainen just so they can get rid of Bickell's contract and be able to afford their stars. No one is ever gonna pay much at all for players like Vanek (at this point in his career), or Daley, etc.

Better to have the cap space available so that if a team is in a desperate situation due to the cap we have the leverage to bend them over the barrel, so to speak. In other words, go for the big fish, not the small ones. The midround picks you get for the warm bodies are peanuts compared to what desperate teams will do to save a few million.

The criticism towards Holland about cap space is more so about the optics then anything else. People don't think rationally when it comes to him, if Yzerman came and spent to the cap, nobody would care.

Except over the last let's say 7 years Yzerman has built a track record of signing players to very team friendly, below market deals. Holland just the opposite. I don't see how the two can even be compared when it comes to contracts.

 

[Pavels Dog]

What has spending to the cap done to help this team's fortunes over the last 5 years?

I don't see us trading Tatar if we don't have guys like Abby, Nielsen, Nyquist etc. signed. If we were forced to insert Meagan, Witkowski, etc. as regulars a guy like Tatar would simply be too important to trade, even as a bad team.

That's one example. Tbh I'm one of few people who really enjoyed watching the 100 point season where our PP was beastly, that's one year where at least I got tons of enjoyment from the team in large part because they did spend money instead of fast-track the road towards being bad.

How can it not matter? You're eliminating flexibility. You can take someone's cap dump for assets or be a third party to help facilitate a trade between two Cao strapped teams. Furthermore should someone of value pop up that fits the time line you can take a run at them. For instance you could get in on the bidding to trade for a nylander or even send out an offer sheet.

You're valuing taking on a cap dump higher than actually dealing from a position of having assets to sell yourself. I can't agree with that. In the "flexibility" category, how can it be more flexible to be dependant on other teams becoming desperate for you to possibly get an asset? And there will always be a couple of teams more desperate to take on cap dumps than a "rich" team like the Wings will be. Competing in the cap dump market is simply a bad idea for the Wings when they have the ability to spend money, gathering assets, and then having options and flexibility in terms of who to sell, when to sell, and for what to sell. THAT is flexibility.

Much, much easier to sell off assets and clear cap space than it is to conjure up cap dump trades out of nowhere. There's a select few examples of teams getting valuable assets out of cap dump trades in the entire history of the cap era. Heck, one of the big ones that was seen as a brilliant cap dump trade was when Arizona got Chychrun and Datsyuk instead of Cholowski and Hronek. I just say LOL.

 

[Syckle78]

Why not both? But hey apparently less cap space is better than more. How can I possibly argue that? Lmao

 

[Winger98]

I still think losing the flexibility of filling these roster spots with either cheaper or shorter deals hurts us. It limits our trade options, it even limits our roster options as we've had moments the past couple of years where we weren't able to move guys up from GR because we didn't have cap space. Unless Holland goes out and blows his current cap space on more crap contracts, though, I'm not sure how important any of this is any more.

Hopefully Holland continues to work his way out from the hole he dug himself and doesn't repeat some of these mistakes, minor or otherwise.

 

[Invictus12]

How much do you really get in return for trading the Vanek types as trade deadline rentals though? A 3rd round pick? A late 2nd if you're lucky? Carolina got Teravainen in exchange for taking on Bickell's contract.

Teams who want to challenge for the Cup are much more likely to get desperate and give up better assets so that they can afford to re-sign their important players. So they do things like lose Teravainen just so they can get rid of Bickell's contract and be able to afford their stars. No one is ever gonna pay much at all for players like Vanek (at this point in his career), or Daley, etc.

Better to have the cap space available so that if a team is in a desperate situation due to the cap we have the leverage to bend them over the barrel, so to speak. In other words, go for the big fish, not the small ones. The midround picks you get for the warm bodies are peanuts compared to what desperate teams will do to save a few million.



Except over the last let's say 7 years Yzerman has built a track record of signing players to very team friendly, below market deals. Holland just the opposite. I don't see how the two can even be compared when it comes to contracts.

Well we got a 3rd for Vanek. Without looking too deep into it, I'd venture a guess that Tervainen was also shipped out for cap reason to some extent from Chicago's point of view. And while it worked out very well for Carolina, how often does that happen? Probably no more often than a 3rd ending up as good as Teravainen. Although, yes, a bird in hand is better than 2 in a bush. (Given that Carolina gave up two pick for him) At the same time, it was hardly conclusive that Tervainen would become what he became at the time of the trade. You know, we do actually have a very good example in this with Arizona and ultimately, they've been getting nowhere.
Yes, teams can get desperate and try and pay to unload salary but they can also get desperate if injuries hit and they need someone like Daley... Or Green or Helm or Abby or Glendening or Vanek. Since you recognise that circumstance will dictate the price, why don't you recognise it on this? Do I need to remind you the return we received for Smith? Do you think as a rental he's better than Daley? Or you just want to roll with Vanek because he's about the only favorable example you have?

 

[Invictus12]

I still think losing the flexibility of filling these roster spots with either cheaper or shorter deals hurts us. It limits our trade options, it even limits our roster options as we've had moments the past couple of years where we weren't able to move guys up from GR because we didn't have cap space. Unless Holland goes out and blows his current cap space on more crap contracts, though, I'm not sure how important any of this is any more.

Hopefully Holland continues to work his way out from the hole he dug himself and doesn't repeat some of these mistakes, minor or otherwise.

Who are we going to trade though? If the beat is to rebuild, that means we either get draft picks or prospects in return. Neither command much or any salary at all. And if we're trading, we're trading those players that are already getting paid some. Tatar and possibly Nyquist. That's salary coming of and none coming back... Except possibly in the form of a free agent... Whom we'll probably end up trading for picks again.

 

[Invictus12]

Also, this here is actually a good example that most folks here are just looking to complain about something. Before, the excuse was that all this salary would hamper us in signing the kids. Now that it has actually, in practice, failed to be an issue... We go to something else... It's kind of like debating the existence of god here. You can always move goal posts on something non-existent.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Why not both? But hey apparently less cap space is better than more. How can I possibly argue that? Lmao

Taking on bad contracts simply isn't a smart strategy if you have better options. There's a reason the only teams that do it are budget teams.

I still think losing the flexibility of filling these roster spots with either cheaper or shorter deals hurts us. It limits our trade options, it even limits our roster options as we've had moments the past couple of years where we weren't able to move guys up from GR because we didn't have cap space.

We've moved to more and more short-term deals. We have just 4 players under contract for the 21-22 season. Essentially like 7 players for the 20-21 season.
I guess you could always want cheaper deals, no matter what. But hurts us? I don't see it. We are getting tons and tons of draft picks so it's not like we're missing out on futures.
Don't see much relevance in harping on the infamous few weeks of Nyquist being in GR a little too long either. It's been years and years. History has pretty well established by now that no one truly important was kept down for too long, and the emergence of Larkin, Rasmussen, Cholowski etc. should show that this is not a problem anymore.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Why not both? But hey apparently less cap space is better than more. How can I possibly argue that? Lmao

last time this was argued here, i was told that abby, helm, ericsson etc are ASSETS but guy like teräväinen does nothing for us.. of course we can't sell those assets for 2-4 more years and we can't use that cap space to sign UFAs to short-term deals and sell them every year or two bc.. well i dunno, but kenny knows.

edit. also these same people also have these same disproven arguments like 'only budget teams take cap dumps'.. sure if the leafs are a budget team.

 

[Syckle78]

last time this was argued here, i was told that abby, helm, ericsson etc are ASSETS but guy like teräväinen does nothing for us.. of course we can't sell those assets for 2-4 more years and we can't use that cap space to sign UFAs to short-term deals and sell them every year or two bc.. well i dunno, but kenny knows.

edit. also these same people also have these same disproven arguments like 'only budget teams take cap dumps'.. sure if the leafs are a budget team.

You would think that if there's one thing we could all agree on its that cap space is more beneficial than no cap space. But apparently some are so dug into their side it's like arguing partisan politics. I give up.

 

[Reddwit]

He wasn't calling him a FA add. Konstantinov is the 2nd best D man that the Wings have had in the last 30 years.

Also, the best defensive FA add is Brian Rafalski. If we get Karlsson, it will be at a very unpalatable salary for a very unpalatable term. Rafalski was a top pairing guy that we got for 6M (against a 56M cap (or a little over 10% of the cap) for 6 years. IF we were to sign Karlsson, it would be probably 12M x 7 minimum against an 80M cap. or roughly 15% of the cap. Or in dollar terms, we got Rafalski for 36M for 6 years and would be paying Karlsson roughly 84M for 7.

Hell, Brian Rafalski might be one of the best UFA signings in the history of the NHL.

The cap was $50.3M for the 1st year of Rafalski's deal. He cost 11.9% of the cap and he was 34 years old to start the deal. The equivalent deal today would be worth $9.46M per season. Until the age of 38.

 

[Invictus12]

last time this was argued here, i was told that abby, helm, ericsson etc are ASSETS but guy like teräväinen does nothing for us.. of course we can't sell those assets for 2-4 more years and we can't use that cap space to sign UFAs to short-term deals and sell them every year or two bc.. well i dunno, but kenny knows.

edit. also these same people also have these same disproven arguments like 'only budget teams take cap dumps'.. sure if the leafs are a budget team.

And what happens when the reality is just about anyone and everyone will look for long-term security? Players that sign for 1 year don't tend to have options and consequently, probably won't be sought after come trade deadline.

 

[Ezekial]

You would think that if there's one thing we could all agree on its that cap space is more beneficial than no cap space. But apparently some are so dug into their side it's like arguing partisan politics. I give up.

It's not, but acting like cap space is a big issue for this team right now is laughable. We're shedding some bad contracts over the next few years, who cares. By the time we can realistically sign a high end FA we will have cap, and by that of course, I mean next summer.

 

[Syckle78]

It's not, but acting like cap space is a big issue for this team right now is laughable. We're shedding some bad contracts over the next few years, who cares.

I don't know if anyone is acting like cap space is a big issue,i certainly wasn't. It wasn't the question we were talking about. I read someone say that cap space didn't have value and thought it was mind boggling.

 

[Invictus12]

You would think that if there's one thing we could all agree on its that cap space is more beneficial than no cap space. But apparently some are so dug into their side it's like arguing partisan politics. I give up.

When you fail to show that at the very best, in your proposed scenario, we are nowhere ahead than we are now, it seems like you're the one that's dug in. You walking away from points made to counter yours and simply refer back to your punch line, does very little to convince anyone who doesn't see it the way you. Infact, it make me believe you realise you didn't examine your own argument and can't face it.

 

[Syckle78]

When you fail to show that at the very best, in your proposed scenario, we are nowhere ahead than we are now, it seems like you're the one that's dug in. You walking away from points made to counter yours and simply refer back to your punch line, does very little to convince anyone who doesn't see it the way you. Infact, it make me believe you realise you didn't examine your own argument and can't face it.

Have you not read a word I said or just being willfully ignorant to continue to argue? I told you more than once what the benefit of not having long term contracts eating up space is. I don't care how slim the chances of us being able to convert cap space to assets is having it affords us the opportunity to use it should it arise and that no matter how you slice is better than not having it all. And with that I'm done with the topic because it's quite literally that simple.

 

[Invictus12]

Have you not read a word I said or just being willfully ignorant to continue to argue? I told you more than once what the benefit of not having long term contracts eating up space is. I don't care how slim the chances of us being able to convert cap space to assets is having it affords us the opportunity to use it should it arise and that no matter how you slice is better than not having it all. And with that I'm done with the topic because it's quite literally that simple.

Quite literally, I walked you through it and displayed that you literally showed nothing. Nothing that in anyway puts us ahead of where we are and your response is to pretend like what you said wasn't addressed and countered with you revering back to punch lines. Because thats all you have.