The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
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?
- Look up the stats on 3rd round picks. There's a tiny chance they even play in the NHL at all, much less become impact players. Everyone remembers the one 'steal' from the 3rd round on, but it's easy to forget the other 29-30 players who didn't turn into anything. Teravainen was a very highly regarded prospect at the time, and he's a 60 point player with room to grow now.
- As far as instances where a team gained from taking on cap space, off the top of my head, from the last few years there was Colorado getting Grubauer for taking on Orpik, Chicago had to downgrade very significantly from Panarin to Saad because they weren't going to be able to afford Panarin, Vegas got a 1st and a 2nd for taking on the Clarkson contract...
- Nobody is taking on Helm or Abdelkader, those are in fact just the type of thing we're talking about here. To get rid of them we'd have to significantly sweeten the pot either by retaining salary or sending a valuable asset along with them. In other words, we're stuck with those bloated contracts. And you can add Nielsen to that list.
- Nobody's denying that you can get something for Daley, Vanek, whoever. Sure, extra draft picks are nice, and it's definitely a tool for a rebuilding team to use. Myself and others are arguing that it's irresponsible to cut out an entire avenue for improving the team in the future, we're not saying you can't sign players with the goal of eventually trading for assets. This just seems like an attempt to excuse the fact that we have one of the worst teams in the league, with the highest payroll by far. The 3rd and 4th highest payrolls are Washington and Pittsburgh. Two Cup contenders who have to manage the cap with several of the best players in the league, with elite level players on offence, defence, and in goal. And quality supporting casts to boot. Meanwhile in Detroit our best players are the young guys, many of whom are still on their entry level deals, and the others are on their 2nd contracts. So, cheap, in other words. Our bloat comes from the mediocre and aging supporting cast. There's just no defending that cap management, IMO.
The road is getting clearer in the next few years, for sure. I just don't want the guy who got us in the current situation to be managing things when all that cap space opens up. Holland has not shown himself to be very good at signing good value contracts in the cap era.
Last edited: