Last in the League

[izlez]

Yeah, but basically every team in the NHL has been really really bad at some point over the last 25 years outside of Detroit (until the last few seasons). So if every team in the league has been really bad at some point (and therefore had the high picks you mentioned), of course the Cup winners are going to have high picks on their rosters, unless the Red Wings won the cup every single season.

Well, Boston and San Jose haven't been bad enough for a top 10 draft pick in a while



...and they keep making deep playoff runs and showing up in the finals

 

[KJoe88]

Yes.

Sounds like #1 - #4 are all pretty close with Hughes leading

 

[PullHard]

Well, Boston and San Jose haven't been bad enough for a top 10 draft pick in a while



...and they keep making deep playoff runs and showing up in the finals

I don't necessarily have a side in this argument but that is really disingenuous...

Sharks have made it to the 3rd round (conference finals or "semi finals") 4 total times in team history, and progressed past that point once when they lost to Pittsburgh. Two of those round 3 appearances were in the early 90s.

Since '91-'92 Boston has made it past the 2nd round twice, winning the Cup once and losing to Chicago once.

They have been pretty darn consistent about having solid to great regular season teams and making the playoffs a lot more than average, though, which I think is the essence of what you tried to say, but doing something twice does not mean a team "keeps" doing anything, that is pretty faulty logic.

Of course, your definition of "deep playoff runs" could be a lot different than mine, but winning one round doesn't impress me personally.

 

[NDetroitFan]

Well, Boston and San Jose haven't been bad enough for a top 10 draft pick in a while



...and they keep making deep playoff runs and showing up in the finals

Well, the Bruins sorta fit into the Hawks/ Caps/ Pens example.

Boston had 3 top 5 picks on the SC winner in 2011 (Seguin 2OA, Horton 3OA and Wheeler 5OA)

The core that remains from that team (Bergeron, Marchand and Krejci) were all acquired with late 2nd early 3rd round picks. The type of picks that the Wings UFA rentals could return.

 

[Henkka]

I am saying that I don't want them to give Nyquist 6+ mil, because that is what he will get on the open market. I honestly don't understand why me not wanting our GM, who has been famous for dishing out loyalty contracts, (cough Danny Cleary), to sign Nyquist to a 4 year deal worth 24 million dollars is such an issue. If we have all of the younger assets already playing in the lineup, play Matt Puempel for all I care. Play some AHL journeyman. Signing Nyquist to a longterm contract for 6 million per year is not what we need right now. These longterm loyalty contracts that Holland dishes out are hurting the team more than helping it.

If you can't comprehend that I don't want Nyquist on the team anymore because it doesn't make sense, well this discussion is going to keep going in circles. I would rather give young players bigger roles, and I would also rather have Puempel or Chris Terry or "insert journeyman AHL player here" on the team making 600,000 than Nyquist on the team making 6.5 million. Spend the 6.5 elsewhere, or don't spend it at all.

Same crap you are writing in here? Letting Nyquist walk just like that doesn't swap to good team building, even if you would write the same crap in 1000 times.

Red Wings need Nyquist on their next rise, because the kids aren't ready for next 2-3 years. Period. Simple thing to understand. Then he is still there, when the kids are maybe ready and gives us a very deep Top9 offence. Simple thing to understand.

It makes only sense.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I am saying that I don't want them to give Nyquist 6+ mil, because that is what he will get on the open market. I honestly don't understand why me not wanting our GM, who has been famous for dishing out loyalty contracts, (cough Danny Cleary), to sign Nyquist to a 4 year deal worth 24 million dollars is such an issue. If we have all of the younger assets already playing in the lineup, play Matt Puempel for all I care. Play some AHL journeyman. Signing Nyquist to a longterm contract for 6 million per year is not what we need right now. These longterm loyalty contracts that Holland dishes out are hurting the team more than helping it.

If you can't comprehend that I don't want Nyquist on the team anymore because it doesn't make sense, well this discussion is going to keep going in circles. I would rather give young players bigger roles, and I would also rather have Puempel or Chris Terry or "insert journeyman AHL player here" on the team making 600,000 than Nyquist on the team making 6.5 million. Spend the 6.5 elsewhere, or don't spend it at all.

Thanks for ignoring what I'm saying.

I don't want them to necessarily re-sign Nyquist either. I just don't have this sheer hatred of him that you seem to. If Nyquist is in line for 6.5, let him walk. If you think he'll want that, you deal him at the TDL for a good return. Not for a 6th or a used bag of pucks.

Nyquist has a place on this team. That place is not as a 6.5M 2nd line winger... so I agree with you on that score. But it is ludicrously stupid to say "I JUST WANT HIM GONE, BECAUSE HE'S NOT A MINIMUM WAGE PLAYER!". Nyquist is a good player. You don't get better by chasing good players off a roster. You also don't get better by crazy overpaying them. I mean, when does it stop? If the Wings don't re-sign Nyquist, they're going to sign a forward of his same ilk. So, are you any better off if you sign Loui Eriksson instead of Gustav Nyquist?

 

[Hammettf2b]

Same crap you are writing in here? Letting Nyquist walk just like that doesn't swap to good team building, even if you would write the same crap in 1000 times.

Red Wings need Nyquist on their next rise, because the kids aren't ready for next 2-3 years. Period. Simple thing to understand. Then he is still there, when the kids are maybe ready and gives us a very deep Top9 offence. Simple thing to understand.

It makes only sense.

If Nyquist signs a 2-3 deal that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is many think he will be looking for a long term deal as it will be his last big deal of his career hence why they don't want Holland re-signing him.

 

[RedWingzz]

Thanks for ignoring what I'm saying.

I don't want them to necessarily re-sign Nyquist either. I just don't have this sheer hatred of him that you seem to. If Nyquist is in line for 6.5, let him walk. If you think he'll want that, you deal him at the TDL for a good return. Not for a 6th or a used bag of pucks.

Nyquist has a place on this team. That place is not as a 6.5M 2nd line winger... so I agree with you on that score. But it is ludicrously stupid to say "I JUST WANT HIM GONE, BECAUSE HE'S NOT A MINIMUM WAGE PLAYER!". Nyquist is a good player. You don't get better by chasing good players off a roster. You also don't get better by crazy overpaying them. I mean, when does it stop? If the Wings don't re-sign Nyquist, they're going to sign a forward of his same ilk. So, are you any better off if you sign Loui Eriksson instead of Gustav Nyquist?

Sure, he's an average 2nd liner. In my opinion you shouldn't pay average 2nd liners 6 million. Or even 5 million for that matter. Nyquist is so unbelievably inconsistent, and hasn't been a goal scorer in over 5 years. He gets ice-time like a first liner, but produces like a 2nd liner. I'll admit, I probably hate him more than I should, but his stats are extremely underwhelming considering the ice time and opportunity he gets. He is having a good year, but let's not ignore his underwhelming seasons he has recently had either.

In the end, I just don't want him on the team anymore, and I don't think it makes sense to bring him back just so he can chip in 40 points. You shouldn't pay 40-45 point players 5+ million per year. And as for your Loui Eriksson comment, no, I would rather we jut not spend to the cap, or spend the money on D upgrades. Why do we have to spend to the cap every year? It's nonsensical to overpay players just because you have cap space. If we were a contender then I'd say we should be spending to the Cap...but we aren't a contender, we suck. We spend the most, and we are the worst team in the NHL, that shouldn't happen.

 

[RedWingzz]

Same crap you are writing in here? Letting Nyquist walk just like that doesn't swap to good team building, even if you would write the same crap in 1000 times.

Red Wings need Nyquist on their next rise, because the kids aren't ready for next 2-3 years. Period. Simple thing to understand. Then he is still there, when the kids are maybe ready and gives us a very deep Top9 offence. Simple thing to understand.

It makes only sense.

You keep saying "simple to understand", but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be rude, but perhaps there is a language barrier here or something, because I don't understand any part of your post, sorry.

 

[Henkka]

because I don't understand any part of your post, sorry.

Ok. Enough this discussion for me.