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

[Ezekial]

What's the point of including guys like Dekeyser and Ericsson who are on pace for ~10 goals which would be a great number for D? Daley's on pace for 7-8 goals which is nice and Abdelkader on pace for ~15+ is also solid. Need more goals from Nyquist but 70+ point pace is good. Glendening 30+ point pace is great for a 4th liner PKer. Green and Nielsen 40+ point pace is good.

Context is stupid, just read the headline and make a snap judgement.

 

[Reddwit]

I don’t think it should be a given that you spend to the cap every year, no matter what.

You should only spend to the cap when you can do so responsibly, not if it involves stockpiling negative equity. I mean hell, we shed Datsyuk’s contract to spend money on Helm/Nielsen/Dekeyser.

So I can’t buy into this 100%. Having cap space makes stupid contracts more tempting, but it doesn’t mean you should do it. All that said, I wouldn’t be opposed to signing Karlsson even if it involves overpaying, but I very much doubt we have any appeal on that front.

I guess I did a terrible job of explaining my argument because nowhere did I suggest spending to the cap for the hell of it. In fact, your third sentence literally points out the idiocy I was explaining.

In short: If you pass up the opportunity to overpay the one star free agent that fills a big hole in your lineup when they typically become available every once in a blue moon, you simply end up overpaying lesser players to fill that hole later on as you get desperate. And because those players aren't that good, you need to then sign high-quality/more expensive depth to supplement them. Star-quality players just don't hit free agency much anymore and aren't much easier to hit on in the draft.

Ergo, we didn't sign Dekeyser because we wanted to burn money - we did it because there weren't many other options. We didn't sign Weiss, later Nielsen, because we wanted to bump up against the cap ceiling - we did it because there weren't many other options. We didn't sign Quincey or Smith or Richards because we wanted to flash our wealth - we did it because our "better" players up the roster weren't that good to begin with.

If you have to overpay, overpay the best. Spending on Karlsson isn't where you should be pinching pennies.

 

[Frk It]

I guess I did a terrible job of explaining my argument because nowhere did I suggest spending to the cap for the hell of it. In fact, your third sentence literally points out the idiocy I was explaining.

In short: If you pass up the opportunity to overpay the one star free agent that fills a big hole in your lineup when they typically become available every once in a blue moon, you simply end up overpaying lesser players to fill that hole later on as you get desperate. And because those players aren't that good, you need to then sign high-quality/more expensive depth to supplement them. Star-quality players just don't hit free agency much anymore and aren't much easier to hit on in the draft.

Ergo, we didn't sign Dekeyser because we wanted to burn money - we did it because there weren't many other options. We didn't sign Weiss, later Nielsen, because we wanted to bump up against the cap ceiling - we did it because there weren't many other options. We didn't sign Quincey or Smith or Richards because we wanted to flash our wealth - we did it because our "better" players up the roster weren't that good to begin with.

If you have to overpay, overpay the best. Spending on Karlsson isn't where you should be pinching pennies.

I agree with your last paragraph for sure. Not sure we even disagree but I’ll expand a bit.

I guess I just don’t think you need to have money tied up in a star or two to spend smartly. Maybe I’m thinking too idealistically, but I feel like you should be responsible with your cap regardless. You shouldn’t feel that need to burn money to burn money just because you have cap space. Especially not when you are in the re-building stage or trending that way.

Now I’m not saying leave a huge chunk of unused money out there. But if you can afford 4 deals that have a high chance at becoming negative equity deal one summer, maybe only opt to go with 2 of those deals. Example - You don’t need to sign Nielsen AND Helm. Should really be Nielsen OR Helm.

If you start the season with 3-4 mil in cap space it’s not a big deal, especially not when you are where we are. Our desire to spend every last dollar every year (like the teams actually competing) is how you get this big chunk of unmoveable + negative equity deals.

 

[Reddwit]

I agree with your sentiment that these are the type of players you end up with... I don't think we've exactly passed up on star players... they just don't actually hit UFA (I think Karlsson reaching UFA is still a stretch)

Quincey/Neilsen/Green/Bernier are pretty much grade-A free agents, though they are far from grade-A players

Lol, I guess I really didn't explain my original argument very well because that's a key part of the argument I was trying to make. Players like Karlsson rarely hit free agency. Suter is the only defenseman to hit free agency with as much clout as Karlsson since the last lockout and the only other UFA defenseman even worth mentioning in that time are Shattenkirk, Green, Yandle and Niskanen, with the former two being picked apart as they entered free agency.

 

[Reddwit]

I agree with your last paragraph for sure. Not sure we even disagree but I’ll expand a bit.

I guess I just don’t think you need to have money tied up in a star or two to spend smartly. Maybe I’m thinking too idealistically, but I feel like you should be responsible with your cap regardless. You shouldn’t feel that need to burn money to burn money just because you have cap space. Especially not when you are in the re-building stage or trending that way.

Now I’m not saying leave a huge chunk of unused money out there. But if you can afford 4 deals that have a high chance at becoming negative equity deal one summer, maybe only opt to go with 2 of those deals. Example - You don’t need to sign Nielsen AND Helm. Should really be Nielsen OR Helm.

If you start the season with 3-4 mil in cap space it’s not a big deal, especially not when you are where we are. Our desire to spend every last dollar every year (like the teams actually competing) is how you get this big chunk of unmoveable + negative equity deals.

Yeah, I don't really disagree. In fact, I agree with almost everything you said here. Ironically, the only thing I would argue against here is that it is entirely ok to "leave a huge chunk of unused money out there" under certain circumstances.

For clarity's sake, and to tie in some of your language, let me put it this way: The most extreme version of my argument would be that it is "responsible" to overpay for certain players, assuming the following conditions are met:

• 1) The player is a UFA who has hit the market (i.e. where overpayments are practically required today).
• 2) The player is a "star"
• 3) "Star" if being defined as having both (a) elite talent, and (b) elite name-recognition among NHLers, because part of the "responsibleness" of overpaying this player is not just for what he does on the ice, but for the value he brings to your organization through the hype and marketing.
• 4) The player fills an important, difficult-to-fill position within your organization.

Age is of course a factor too, but distilling that down to nuts and bolts is too difficult. Position, play-style, relying on IQ vs energy level, etc all factor in there. And lastly, I would never apply this "philosophy" to especially physical guys no matter how big of a star they are; they always break-down prematurely and the fall is a steep one.

Basically, I'm not making this argument about overpaying in general nor about stars in general, but about a particular subset of players who rarely hits free agency.

 

[The Zermanator]

I agree with your last paragraph for sure. Not sure we even disagree but I’ll expand a bit.

I guess I just don’t think you need to have money tied up in a star or two to spend smartly. Maybe I’m thinking too idealistically, but I feel like you should be responsible with your cap regardless. You shouldn’t feel that need to burn money to burn money just because you have cap space. Especially not when you are in the re-building stage or trending that way.

Now I’m not saying leave a huge chunk of unused money out there. But if you can afford 4 deals that have a high chance at becoming negative equity deal one summer, maybe only opt to go with 2 of those deals. Example - You don’t need to sign Nielsen AND Helm. Should really be Nielsen OR Helm.

If you start the season with 3-4 mil in cap space it’s not a big deal, especially not when you are where we are. Our desire to spend every last dollar every year (like the teams actually competing) is how you get this big chunk of unmoveable + negative equity deals.

Yes I agree with this completely. We've already seen ourselves hampered more than once from going after somebody because we were right up against the cap. It completely takes away your flexibility and prevents you from being able to seize an opportunity when one presents itself.

There's zero reason to be up against the cap when you're a bad team. And your example is perfect, Nielsen and Helm. Is this team really that much better with both of them than it would be with just one? We're a bottom 5 team as it is. At least if we picked only one of them we'd have an extra 4-5 million in wiggle room. You can add a decent player with that if the right opportunity arises. Or, even more likely in our case, you can take someones cap dump in exchange for a good asset. Instead, all the cap dumps are already on our roster.

 

[avssuc]

There's zero reason to be up against the cap when you're a bad team.....


... you can take someones cap dump in exchange for a good asset. Instead, all the cap dumps are already on our roster.

I don't think a bad team should be well below the cap. A bad team could be pretty close to the cap if they are banking on futures. If they take on all the cap dumps they can while locking up some of their young guys, I'd assume it gets expensive.

 

[Red Stanley]

Yes I agree with this completely. We've already seen ourselves hampered more than once from going after somebody because we were right up against the cap. It completely takes away your flexibility and prevents you from being able to seize an opportunity when one presents itself.

There's zero reason to be up against the cap when you're a bad team. And your example is perfect, Nielsen and Helm. Is this team really that much better with both of them than it would be with just one? We're a bottom 5 team as it is. At least if we picked only one of them we'd have an extra 4-5 million in wiggle room. You can add a decent player with that if the right opportunity arises. Or, even more likely in our case, you can take someones cap dump in exchange for a good asset. Instead, all the cap dumps are already on our roster.

At least nobody can accuse us of tanking on purpose

 

[Henkka]

There's zero reason to be up against the cap when you're a bad team.

There maybe isn't a reason.

But it's also 100% meaningless thing.

Being against cap is meaningful only for a contender, when you have too many good players and start losin them because of pricy extensions. Period.

 

[Pavels Dog]

There's zero reason to be up against the cap when you're a bad team.

This is pretty inaccurate.

For one; if you don't spend to the cap, how do you know how good the team could actually be? At least by spending to the cap you are TRYING to get the most out of your roster rather than plugging in AHLers and ECHLers in spots where you could have legit NHLers.

Second; the less you spend, generally the less assets you have to sell off. More assets to sell at TDL=more future assets.

Third; there's zero build up of cap space. You can't save it for next season so it doesn't matter if you have had 15 million in cap space 3 years in a row, you are still in the same position as if you had used those 15 million every season, sold off assets and freed up 15 million again.
Locking cap space up in long term deals has downsides for sure, but in many ways the optimal rebuilding-roster is one that uses cap space to the max but every summer has plenty of flexibility to go after FAs and never struggles to retain RFAs.

 

[The Zermanator]

There maybe isn't a reason.

But it's also 100% meaningless thing.

Being against cap is meaningful only for a contender, when you have too many good players and start losin them because of pricy extensions. Period.

It's not meaningless, like I said in the rest of that comment it completely takes away your flexibility. If a potential move comes along that would add even 1M to the cap, we can't do it. Like when teams were picking apart Chicago on the cheap because of their cap problems. Teravainen had 64 points last year. And Carolina got him cheap. If we had an extra 4-5 million to play with (i.e. one of Helm, Abdelkader, Nielsen not on this team), we could add a bad contract in exchange for a 1st round pick. Instead, Holland just signs the bad contracts himself and we get nothing in return.

This is pretty inaccurate.

For one; if you don't spend to the cap, how do you know how good the team could actually be? At least by spending to the cap you are TRYING to get the most out of your roster rather than plugging in AHLers and ECHLers in spots where you could have legit NHLers.

Second; the less you spend, generally the less assets you have to sell off. More assets to sell at TDL=more future assets.

Third; there's zero build up of cap space. You can't save it for next season so it doesn't matter if you have had 15 million in cap space 3 years in a row, you are still in the same position as if you had used those 15 million every season, sold off assets and freed up 15 million again.
Locking cap space up in long term deals has downsides for sure, but in many ways the optimal rebuilding-roster is one that uses cap space to the max but every summer has plenty of flexibility to go after FAs and never struggles to retain RFAs.

Are you saying not having Helm, Abby, Nielsen, Vanek, Daley, etc on this team would mean we wouldn't know how good this team could be? These are not game changing players, they're warm bodies. On a bottom 5 team, they don't matter. Those positions could have easily been filled with sub-$2M players and the result would effectively be the same.

 

[Henkka]

It's not meaningless, like I said in the rest of that comment it completely takes away your flexibility. If a potential move comes along that would add even 1M to the cap, we can't do it. Like when teams were picking apart Chicago on the cheap because of their cap problems. Teravainen had 64 points last year. And Carolina got him cheap. If we had an extra 4-5 million to play with (i.e. one of Helm, Abdelkader, Nielsen not on this team), we could add a bad contract in exchange for a 1st round pick. Instead, Holland just signs the bad contracts himself and we get nothing in return.

Those were summer moves (Teräväinen deal happened june 15th)...

When contenders have their cap problems, they like to solve them out before free agency period. Dump the young guy with big salary raise, replace him with cheap vet....

BUT...

On that time, we also have cap space. Not probably pieces to make deals, but the cap space is there.

Cap space meaningless AFTER the free agency pretty much. We also have cap space on the summer, on that time period, before the free agency. Holland pushes the cap full when the market pretty much dies and those UFAs are only options left.

 

[Henkka]

Are you saying not having Helm, Abby, Nielsen, Vanek, Daley, etc on this team would mean we wouldn't know how good this team could be? These are not game changing players, they're warm bodies. On a bottom 5 team, they don't matter. Those positions could have easily been filled with sub-$2M players and the result would effectively be the same.

They do matter.

You saw what happened with a defence with mostly cheap ELC rookies? We were losing games 2-9...

When the veterans like Ericsson came back, team stabilized instantly.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

There maybe isn't a reason.

But it's also 100% meaningless thing.

Being against cap is meaningful only for a contender, when you have too many good players and start losin them because of pricy extensions. Period.

I disagree it's 100% meaningless.

As others have mentioned, it would be good to have some cap room to take on other team's bad contracts if they're also offering prospects and picks. Hard to know if that opportunity will ever arise but it'd be nice to at least have the room if it does.

 

[tucson83]

flyers fan coming in peace, i think if you have a healthy veteran group, you could dominating in the nhl, it's just you guys got bit hard with the injury bug and you have to rely on younger players that's hurting you more. i mean you look at montreal, islanders, bruins, capitals, they have alot of vets, it's fact they are managing to stay healthy and that's why are playing at a high level. with your team, you are just so unlucky.

i feel bad for you, hopefully, you will have a healthy team and manage to win it all again.

i wish you guys the best of luck, im serious.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

flyers fan coming in peace, i think if you have a healthy veteran group, you could dominating in the nhl, it's just you guys got bit hard with the injury bug and you have to rely on younger players that's hurting you more. i mean you look at montreal, islanders, bruins, capitals, they have alot of vets, it's fact they are managing to stay healthy and that's why are playing at a high level. with your team, you are just so unlucky.

i feel bad for you, hopefully, you will have a healthy team and manage to win it all again.

i wish you guys the best of luck, im serious.

Are Vets are not really that talented. Yes the performances have been more even in terms of glaring errors, but we don't have a very talented vet group. A lot of them have declined to that though and deserve a little more respect for what they did accomplish. However, the reality now is even with playing well for two weeks we still have the fourth worst record in the league. We aren't a very good hockey team, Dylan Larkin and Jimmy Howard are willing us to victory at times this year.

It's a process, but while I appreciate the wishes for luck, we really do need to do our turn at the bottom. We need more talent and that is how we are going to get it. Larkin and Cholowski are good building blocks, but time will tell if they can anchor being cornerstone players, Larkin looks like he is ready to do that but it is still early. But we will go through another rough patch probably soon. For as awful as the first 10 games were and I expected them to be when the schedule dropped, this second stretch of ten was an easy part of the schedule where if we didn't do well we were going to be Colorado/Buffalo out of sight of the rest of the league bad if we didn't get it together here. I still think this is going to be a very long season, but important to the future of the organization, but it isn't about wins and losses this year for me at all and I hope it isn't for the organization.

 

[SCD]

flyers fan coming in peace, i think if you have a healthy veteran group, you could dominating in the nhl, it's just you guys got bit hard with the injury bug and you have to rely on younger players that's hurting you more. i mean you look at montreal, islanders, bruins, capitals, they have alot of vets, it's fact they are managing to stay healthy and that's why are playing at a high level. with your team, you are just so unlucky.

i feel bad for you, hopefully, you will have a healthy team and manage to win it all again.

i wish you guys the best of luck, im serious.

Even if we were healthy, our defense would prevent us from being truly competitive.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Are you saying not having Helm, Abby, Nielsen, Vanek, Daley, etc on this team would mean we wouldn't know how good this team could be? These are not game changing players, they're warm bodies. On a bottom 5 team, they don't matter. Those positions could have easily been filled with sub-$2M players and the result would effectively be the same.

Easily? I don't know about that. They are not gamechangers but they are all definitely NHLers. We are already filling out the roster with relative scrubs like Witkowski, Frk, Ehn, Meagan, and a bunch of rookies. Throw in even more borderline NHL-caliber players and things can go from bad to Larkin-asks-for-trade-bad.

The major point however is that cap space you don't use is effectively potential wasted. Right now we have the luxury of saying "these players don't help, we're still bad". That's a good thing. Much better than sitting around with 15 million in cap space wondering what our youngsters could do if they had more support.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

There's no such thing as wasted cap space when you rebuild, there's only 'money you saved'.

 

[Sentinel]

If you have to overpay, overpay the best. Spending on Karlsson isn't where you should be pinching pennies.

Given that Karlsson is already having a second bad season in a row, I'm not sure we want him...

 

[Invictus12]

Given that Karlsson is already having a second bad season in a row, I'm not sure we want him...

A slow start isn't a bad season and from the sound of things, SJ has no regrets. Besides, given the turmoil in his life at this moment, it should be very understandable why he wouldn't be top notch. Those things pass with time however...

 

[iDangleDangle]

Given that Karlsson is already having a second bad season in a row, I'm not sure we want him...

Those 62 points in 71 games while being the best player of team in turmoil sure were a farce!

Karlsson would be the best player the team has had since prime Datsyuk, AINEC. I'd we willing to throw the checkbook at him if he'd show even the slightest sign of interest in signing with us.

 

[Pavels Dog]

There's no such thing as wasted cap space when you rebuild, there's only 'money you saved'.

Don't know why anyone would care about that when it's not your personal money getting spent.

 

[Heaton]

Don't know why anyone would care about that when it's not your personal money getting spent.

Because fans realize how important good cap management is for the team and that if you have poor cap management, the product that fans pay for will suffer. So not caring about how the money gets spent seems incredibly ignorant.

 

[Heaton]

I really hope Yzerman or Holland or whoever is calling the shots has a real plan moving forward getting elite talent. This latest winning streak, which was bound to happen, makes me nervous that this team won't get another top 5 pick. This team being competitive enough to be at 8 or higher isn't going to cut it, especially when Holland is unlikely to make any trades to improve the team.

It's good to see Larkin and AA being competitive and in no way should this team purposely lose, but it's imperative the team finds a way to stay near the bottom 5 of the league to have the best chance possible at the highest pick possible.