Tell me how we realistically fix our defense...

[Frk It]

Smith needs to be moved at the draft because he sucks.

Ericsson isn't part of the core and he can be moved. I kinda hope he is so we can soon move on to hating the new #4-5 d-man. First it was Stuart we hated, then it was Quincey for a while, then we moved on to Ericsson, who's next? Can't wait until we find a young, cheap #4-5 that never makes mistakes, produces 30+ points, plays physical, drives offense and never gets injured (in b4 someone thinks that is Smith).

You play bad, and you get knocked for it. Crazy how that works.

Quincey picked up his play and you see 1/100th of the posts "hating" on him you saw 2 years ago.

The solution is to find a working top pairing and have a team that doesn't play the most 1-goal games in the league

That's a fact.

 

[Pavels Dog]

If he was a young and cheap 5 or 6, far fewer people would complain. If the position were a rotating blend of guys like Ouellet, Russo, Marchenko (before he came up fully this year), and Russo (or whomever else you think ought to get a shot), far fewer people would complain.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the complaints are solely because the team doesn't have 6 Lidstroms and not that they have anything to do with paying a mediocre #5 $4.25m for the rest of his career.

Fewer would complain? Maybe. But people were complaining plenty about Lashoff, Kindl and Smith who were part of a rotating #5-6-7 group and were all young and cheap. Names like Ouellet and Russo look really great until they start becoming regulars and people realize that they too make mistakes.

The solution is not to find the young, cheap and good #5-6 d-men that people don't complain about, because it's likely never happening. The solution is to find a working top pairing and have a team that doesn't play the most 1-goal games in the league, leading to every single mistake a player makes being blown out of proportion.

You play bad, and you get knocked for it. Crazy how that works.

Quincey picked up his play and you see 1/100th of the posts "hating" on him you saw 2 years ago.

You play bad, your icetime decreases. Crazy how that works too. Ericson was #5 in icetime this year. He's too expensive for a #5 yes, but it's a role he CAN handle. Wanting him traded/bought out/retired is pointless until we can't actually afford him anymore. We could have a 6 million dollar #7 and it wouldn't matter unless we can find actual top-pairing d-men to spend that money on instead.

 

[njx9]

Fewer would complain? Maybe. But people were complaining plenty about Lashoff, Kindl and Smith who were part of a rotating #5-6-7 group and were all young and cheap. Names like Ouellet and Russo look really great until they start becoming regulars and people realize that they too make mistakes.

The solution is not to find the young, cheap and good #5-6 d-men that people don't complain about, because it's likely never happening. The solution is to find a working top pairing and have a team that doesn't play the most 1-goal games in the league, leading to every single mistake a player makes being blown out of proportion.

Eh, I don't remember half the vehemence, with regards to say, Lashoff, that Ericsson gets. Kindl at $2.5m or whatever he made the last two years wasn't really cheap, and him in the lineup (when it was clear he wasn't ever going to amount to more than a 6 or 7) was an active block for guys like Ouellet and Marchenko. Clearly opinions are split on Smith.

And yes, of course everyone agrees that we need an actual top pair. But at the same time, you can't just piss away 1/15 of your cap on a lifetime contract for a bottom pair guy who's going to prevent you from seeing what you have in younger, cheaper players. Let's say Russo plays well in GR next year... We don't really have a roster spot for him, to see if we actually have anything, because we're busy paying a guy like Ericsson top dollar to play replacement-level hockey on the bottom pair.

EDIT: You mentioned in another post that the money we're paying Ericsson isn't relevant unless there's someone else to spend it on, and while I agree, I'd note two things: 1) there's a high degree of motivation to move Datsyuk's contract, to free up space to sign someone like Okposo or Stamkos. Ericsson's contract contributes to that lack of spare cash. 2) One of the big reservations people seem to have regarding Shattenkirk is that resigning him as a UFA might be difficult. That's relieved significantly if we're not spending so much on a bottom pair guy. I mean, yeah, there's no one, right-this-instant to throw $3m-$4m at and become a better team. But that doesn't mean that we should give that $4m to a bottom pair guy on a lifetime deal, just because we can't use it elsewhere today.

 

[Ezekial]

1. yes

2. regardless of whether we move smith or ericcson we will need to fill their vacated spot and hopefully with someone who significantly upgrades our defence and to me
shattenkirk plus 3 million smith plus retained 2.25 million ericsson is better than shattenkirk and 17 million ericsson

now would it really take retaining 50% to move JE, has that ever been done before with that much retention over that exact or longer term? to me that seems pretty high and if the answer is yes then why does detroit employ such a player and why would anyone defend him

One or the other fills that spot, a bottom pair defender. Quincey's void already makes room for someone in the top 4, everything I write in this thread is reliant on getting a legitimate top 4 D in the offseason.
In regards to the first bolded - you don't retain E's salary for just 1 season so it isn't 3 mil smith and 2.25 mil E - its 9 mil E over 4 years. You can't skew the numbers and say 17 mil E if you're going to lowball the numbers for your point.

And no matter how you slice it, unless we can trade E for a maximum of 1.25 mil retention it is cheaper(less cap hit) to keep E as a bottom pair D man and ship Smith than it is the other way around.

I don't even want to defend Ericsson in this, I'd rather keep Smith in a perfect world. But looking at next year we already owe Weiss over 8 million over the next 5 years, Pavel's contract, moving both Howie/Ericcson and to a lesser extent Kindl - we could be looking at around 12 million in lost salary next year alone.

As for your last line, why does LA pay Dustin Brown 5.9 million a year and will for the next 6 seasons? Why does Chicago pay Bickell 4 mil to play in the AHL?
Sometimes GMs give out bad contracts. I'd rather have E's than Brown's.

 

[dangledangledeke]

Sign Keith Yandle and make a move for Vatanen.

Then run a defense of:

Green Smith
Yandle Vat
Kronwall Dekeyser
Marchy

Send Oulette and another of the D prospects off in the package for Vats along with a big +.

Take Ericsson out back.

Don't re-sign Quincey.

Now you have a higher-octane defense with guys that can pass and skate the puck. You can stretch out your gaps because your forwards don't need to tighten up so much just to receive a pass or provide support.

Now we just have to find a way to discover an actual elite forward because we don't have one.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Sign Keith Yandle and make a move for Vatanen.

Then run a defense of:

Green Smith
Yandle Vat
Kronwall Dekeyser
Marchy

Send Oulette and another of the D prospects off in the package for Vats along with a big +.

Take Ericsson out back.

Don't re-sign Quincey.

Now you have a higher-octane defense with guys that can pass and skate the puck. You can stretch out your gaps because your forwards don't need to tighten up so much just to receive a pass or provide support.

Now we just have to find a way to discover an actual elite forward because we don't have one.

It would be more or less like this.

DeKeyser-Green
Yandle-Vatanen
Kronwall-Smith
Marchenko

No way would Blashill put one of his better D men in DeKeyser on the 3rd pairing.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

As for your last line, why does LA pay Dustin Brown 5.9 million a year and will for the next 6 seasons? Why does Chicago pay Bickell 4 mil to play in the AHL?Sometimes GMs give out bad contracts. I'd rather have E's than Brown's.

those two teams are miles and miles ahead of detroit and have been for some time therefore their mistakes are mitigated by wins and in particular, cup wins

but, i for one do not believe for a second that the hawks or kings if they choose to move bickell or brown would have to eat 50% of their contract in order to facilitate a trade

 

[Ezekial]

those two teams are miles and miles ahead of detroit and have been for some time therefore their mistakes are mitigated by wins and in particular, cup wins

but, i for one do not believe for a second that the hawks or kings if they choose to move bickell or brown would have to eat 50% of their contract in order to facilitate a trade

Bickell isn't even an nhler anymore. They couldn't unload him for 50% last season, they tried. They might be able to get rid of him at 50% this season since there's only one year remaining - word around Chicago is he will be bought out.
*I just looked it up, Bickell costs 1 mil against the cap to buy out, definitely going to buy him out.*
I doubt any team in the league would make a trade for Dustin Brown for less than 50%. Even at 1/3 retention the trading team is going to be paying him 4 million a year for 6 years, and you guys think Abby's contract is terrible. No one is paying DB that.

Your question of what kind of organization dishes out contracts like that? Pretty much all of them at some point.
By the way, I didn't come up with 50%, it was thrown out there as an amount so his contract would get picked up.

"Choose to move Bickell"

 

[PelagicJoe]

Sign Keith Yandle and make a move for Vatanen.

Then run a defense of:

Green Smith
Yandle Vat
Kronwall Dekeyser
Marchy

Send Oulette and another of the D prospects off in the package for Vats along with a big +.

Take Ericsson out back.

Don't re-sign Quincey.

Now you have a higher-octane defense with guys that can pass and skate the puck. You can stretch out your gaps because your forwards don't need to tighten up so much just to receive a pass or provide support.

Now we just have to find a way to discover an actual elite forward because we don't have one.

If we could find a way to do that and get Stamkos, that would be awesome.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

If we could find a way to do that and get Stamkos, that would be awesome.

Stamkos wouldn't really matter because with Green and Smith on the top pair the Wings would be giving up 250 goals a year.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Let's say Russo plays well in GR next year... We don't really have a roster spot for him, to see if we actually have anything, because we're busy paying a guy like Ericsson top dollar to play replacement-level hockey on the bottom pair.

How would you construct a roster in which we have a roster spot available for Russo?

Ericsson takes up 1 roster spot, just like everyone else. Whoever we replace him with would take up 1 roster spot. If Russo blows everyone away at camp like Larkin did, he can steal a job. But he probably won't so he'll need to wait his chance as an injury replacement like everyone else.

EDIT: You mentioned in another post that the money we're paying Ericsson isn't relevant unless there's someone else to spend it on, and while I agree, I'd note two things: 1) there's a high degree of motivation to move Datsyuk's contract, to free up space to sign someone like Okposo or Stamkos. Ericsson's contract contributes to that lack of spare cash. 2) One of the big reservations people seem to have regarding Shattenkirk is that resigning him as a UFA might be difficult. That's relieved significantly if we're not spending so much on a bottom pair guy. I mean, yeah, there's no one, right-this-instant to throw $3m-$4m at and become a better team. But that doesn't mean that we should give that $4m to a bottom pair guy on a lifetime deal, just because we can't use it elsewhere today.

This whole post can basically be adressed by simply pointing out that the Wings are a team that will spend close to the cap each and every year. Very rarely are we going to be sitting around with a bunch of "spare cash". We clear up cap space as needed, not before it's needed. And obviously if you're a GM, clearing up the 7 million you're paying player that is going to be in Russia is probably a bigger priority than clearing up the 4 million you're paying a guy that is actually playing on a nightly basis.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

There is spending close to the cap because you have too much talent, and then there is spending close to the cap because of mismanagement.

Wings fall squarely in the second camp.

The Wings have been guaranteeing roster spots for vets no matter what over the past 5-6 years. Simply not doing that would have allowed the prospects to find a roster spot.

 

[njx9]

How would you construct a roster in which we have a roster spot available for Russo?

By not giving marginal players lifetime deals that make them, essentially, unmoveable. Ericsson on shorter term deals, or for less money so he was actually tradeable, isn't an issue. Ericsson on an albatross no one else in the league would even touch is an anchor. Right now, no one from GR can take his spot, because of his contract. There's no way Holland would try to reassign him.

Ericsson takes up 1 roster spot, just like everyone else. Whoever we replace him with would take up 1 roster spot. If Russo blows everyone away at camp like Larkin did, he can steal a job. But he probably won't so he'll need to wait his chance as an injury replacement like everyone else.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Andersson took up a roster spot, but it was easy to dump him back into GR to bring up Mantha for a few weeks. Ericsson is basically undemotable.

This whole post can basically be adressed by simply pointing out that the Wings are a team that will spend close to the cap each and every year. Very rarely are we going to be sitting around with a bunch of "spare cash". We clear up cap space as needed, not before it's needed. And obviously if you're a GM, clearing up the 7 million you're paying player that is going to be in Russia is probably a bigger priority than clearing up the 4 million you're paying a guy that is actually playing on a nightly basis.

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with not overpaying your #5 defenseman for the rest of his career. That's money that could absolutely be better utilized in just about any other way, in any given year. That's a roster spot that could be used to see if Ouellet really is a career #6/#7, or if Hicketts can play in the NHL. That's not a roster spot you use to richly reward a marginal player on a deal that was far too long the day he signed it.

Let's step back for a second... here are my contentions:
1) Ericsson makes far too much for far too long for the player that he is and the mistakes he makes.
2) Ericsson, on a short term deal, for substantially less money, becomes moveable (to GR or by trade), should another player earn time in the NHL.
3) Ericsson currently is unmoveable via trade, and it would take a shockingly uncharacteristic move for Holland to scratch or demote him in favor of a younger, cheaper, potentially better player.
4) If Ouellet or Marchenko were the guys making those mistakes, they might get beat up by fans a bit, but it would be to a significantly lesser degree, because of 1, 2 and 3.

Ericsson is exactly the roster anchor Cleary used to be, except that he makes even *more* money. If he took a pay cut to an appropriate contract for the player he is (let's just pretend that was even a possibility), I think fans would be far less hard on him, though they still might not want him on the day to day roster.

 

[Retire91]

That's my question though, is he really cheaper if we have to retain half of Ericsson's money along with him?

Theoretically, if you give Smith 3 mil (makes 2.75 now) after next season and retain half of Ericsson's salary, you're essentially paying 5.25 million to replace Ericsson with Smith instead of 4.25 for big E. Is that marginal upgrade worth one million a year?

It depends on who you replace Erickson with. If its with a young player on a 3 year ELC then it would be a savings. Remember 3 mill of that cap space would be going to Smtih whether Erickson is here or not so really the 2.65 million at retaining half of what Holland is paying Ericskon would be on the top.

So with Erickson 5.25 + 3 = 8.5 million and

Without Erickson and half retained 2.65 + 3 + .9 ELC = 6.55 million. Its cheaper to get rid of Erickson and retain half when looking at it in regards to Smith and right around when the ELC is expired Erickson will come off the books.

I think Yzerman should have to take Erickson for Matt Carle, they both mean a similar thing to each team and Carle has a shorter term with a slightly bigger cap. It would be one step in saying sorry for Kyle Quincey as Vasalevski makes his playoff arrival.

 

[Retire91]

You play bad, and you get knocked for it. Crazy how that works.

Quincey picked up his play and you see 1/100th of the posts "hating" on him you saw 2 years ago.

That's a fact.

Quincey never picked up his play enough to justify wasting a first round pick that is why he will always get my hate. If he had an all star season next season it still wouldn't matter because he sucked when it would have mattered.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Andersson took up a roster spot, but it was easy to dump him back into GR to bring up Mantha for a few weeks. Ericsson is basically undemotable.

Andersson was the #14 forward, Ericsson is our #5 d-man and signed his contract when he was our #2. Obviously there's a difference there. But just like with Mantha/AA, things do happen during the season. Injuries for example. The kids get their chances. You know what happens when they take those chances? They stay on the team. And the saddest part? The last d-man of ours who was called up from the minors and really grabbed the opportunity:

Jonathan Ericsson.

Let's step back for a second... here are my contentions:
1) Ericsson makes far too much for far too long for the player that he is and the mistakes he makes.
2) Ericsson, on a short term deal, for substantially less money, becomes moveable (to GR or by trade), should another player earn time in the NHL.
3) Ericsson currently is unmoveable via trade, and it would take a shockingly uncharacteristic move for Holland to scratch or demote him in favor of a younger, cheaper, potentially better player.
4) If Ouellet or Marchenko were the guys making those mistakes, they might get beat up by fans a bit, but it would be to a significantly lesser degree, because of 1, 2 and 3.

I agree with 1 and 4, but I think it's false that Ericsson is unmoveable. Worse players with worse contracts have been traded (Clarkson). And even if he couldn't be traded, there's always waiving him (not sure how much, if any, money we'd save) or buying him out.

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with not overpaying your #5 defenseman for the rest of his career. That's money that could absolutely be better utilized in just about any other way, in any given year. That's a roster spot that could be used to see if Ouellet really is a career #6/#7, or if Hicketts can play in the NHL. That's not a roster spot you use to richly reward a marginal player on a deal that was far too long the day he signed it.

I won't disagree that there are better ways to spend that money, which is why we should get rid of Ericsson if we find that better way. You're jumping the gun on calling for the kids though. Ouellet would have been an NHL regular by now if he had not been outplayed by all our d-men including Marchenko, and Hicketts is a couple of years away from the NHL still (and easily could never make it).

 

[Ezekial]

It depends on who you replace Erickson with. If its with a young player on a 3 year ELC then it would be a savings. Remember 3 mill of that cap space would be going to Smtih whether Erickson is here or not so really the 2.65 million at retaining half of what Holland is paying Ericskon would be on the top.

So with Erickson 5.25 + 3 = 8.5 million and

Without Erickson and half retained 2.65 + 3 + .9 ELC = 6.55 million. Its cheaper to get rid of Erickson and retain half when looking at it in regards to Smith and right around when the ELC is expired Erickson will come off the books.

I think Yzerman should have to take Erickson for Matt Carle, they both mean a similar thing to each team and Carle has a shorter term with a slightly bigger cap. It would be one step in saying sorry for Kyle Quincey as Vasalevski makes his playoff arrival.

Ericsson's cap hit is 4.25, not 5.25, but I get your point.

Like I said if they can find a feasible way to dump Ericsson I'm all for it, maybe even a buyout. My problem with a buyout is to pay Ericsson and Weiss 19 million over the next 8 years would be lame. Especially since they would combine for 4.425 mil dead money in 17-18.

 

[njx9]

Andersson was the #14 forward, Ericsson is our #5 d-man and signed his contract when he was our #2. Obviously there's a difference there. But just like with Mantha/AA, things do happen during the season. Injuries for example. The kids get their chances. You know what happens when they take those chances? They stay on the team. And the saddest part? The last d-man of ours who was called up from the minors and really grabbed the opportunity:

Jonathan Ericsson.

Fair points, though I think part of Ericsson's deal was a panic move by a GM who had just struck out on Suter. And I understand that complaining about a deal made 3 years ago is basically tilting at windmills at this point, I just think it comes back when we talk about why Ericsson gets beat up so much, and why I don't think other guys would.

I agree with 1 and 4, but I think it's false that Ericsson is unmoveable. Worse players with worse contracts have been traded (Clarkson). And even if he couldn't be traded, there's always waiving him (not sure how much, if any, money we'd save) or buying him out.

I believe we save ~$3m/season, but add one extra year if we buy him out. I can't imagine we save anything by waiving him. I could be off, and I can't load any of the cap sites right now, for some reason. And sure, worse players have gotten moved, but let's be fair, Clarkson returned a different guy with a big cap hit who wasn't ever going to play again. There's probably some LTIR savings there, but I can't imagine they're substantial.

I won't disagree that there are better ways to spend that money, which is why we should get rid of Ericsson if we find that better way. You're jumping the gun on calling for the kids though. Ouellet would have been an NHL regular by now if he had not been outplayed by all our d-men including Marchenko, and Hicketts is a couple of years away from the NHL still (and easily could never make it).

I don't think we'd be losing much right now to bring up some of the GR guys to play on the third pair. Whether Hicketts or Russo or Ouellet are ready or capable, we'd at least be able to see how they look. Worst case, you can bring in a Brad Richards on a 1-year deal. But to go back to the original disagreement, I think that while people may not love Ouellet after he makes a turnover, it wouldn't be a big issue, knowing he's on an ELC (or whatever).

 

[Frk It]

Hicketts hasn't even played 1 game in the AHL yet, and is a long shot to ever make it to the NHL.

So why are we talking about clearing a roster spot for him?

 

[Ezekial]

ah a Brad Richards, oops

 

[Jkalapeno]

How about offer sheeting Jones? I know it doesn't happen a lot, but if they signed him for 7.5 for 5 years, the compensation would be a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. Even if they go higher, it's 4 1sts, which I would be fine with for a guy like Jones. And from what I understand the BJs are in cap hell with about 7 million? in space. IDK, seems like it should be considered

 

[The Zermanator]

Quincey never picked up his play enough to justify wasting a first round pick that is why he will always get my hate. If he had an all star season next season it still wouldn't matter because he sucked when it would have mattered.

Because Quincey picked up the phone and traded Detroit's 1st for himself?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

How about offer sheeting Jones? I know it doesn't happen a lot, but if they signed him for 7.5 for 5 years, the compensation would be a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. Even if they go higher, it's 4 1sts, which I would be fine with for a guy like Jones. And from what I understand the BJs are in cap hell with about 7 million? in space. IDK, seems like it should be considered

They would match on Jones though. Four firsts might make them pause for a second but I still think they would match. That would be an awfully hard sell to their fan-base. When they sold RyJo he was a malcontent that didn't work hard enough but look what they got back for him. Now they turn that into four magic beans with their history of mediocre drafting, people in Columbus would have out torches.

 

[BinCookin]

How about offer sheeting Jones? I know it doesn't happen a lot, but if they signed him for 7.5 for 5 years, the compensation would be a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. Even if they go higher, it's 4 1sts, which I would be fine with for a guy like Jones. And from what I understand the BJs are in cap hell with about 7 million? in space. IDK, seems like it should be considered

horrible idea, those 1sts could all be lottery picks...

 

[The Zermanator]

horrible idea, those 1sts could all be lottery picks...

Can't really comment on the possibility of a successfull Jones offer sheet, but with a core of Larkin, Jones, DeKeyser, Mantha, and Mrazek to build around, I can't imagine they would be a lottery team.