Update: Conflicting info on Holland. (He still might return.)

[Kyleftlx]

Or Abdelkader.
Or Helm.
Or Ericsson.
Or Hudler.

And, in the case of Abby/Ericsson, they weren’t really part of the championship winning club like Filppula was (part of the argument someone made). I feel like trading guys for assets when you’re not where you want to be in the standings is generally always smart because not only are you acquiring legitimate future assets for that player, but you also get roster flexibility to see another guy in your system, and you also get money freed up for future signings. When your GM is clearly a Free agency GM like Kenny seems to be, this strategy could pay off quite well.

I get the argument that Detroit’s situation in the mid 2010s was a little different due to the 25 years bs, but I really do think they could have done themselves more favors than they did in getting to this point.

 

[Claypool]

The Blues originally came up for one reason: an example of a team that sold at the deadline, despite being in the playoff mix, and having that decision pay at least short term dividends. Claypool then opened the can of nonsense that led to all these other tangents, despite my repeated statements that I was NOT saying people should specifically emulate St Louis.

So let's walk this back to selling Filppula then. I stand by my statement that Detroit's days of championship contention were over, and they should have sold an expiring contract (that they knew was guaranteed to leave). Others are free to disagree, and life goes on.

What is your point exactly? That six years ago you think Detroit should have traded a secondary player for what would have likely amounted to a mid-round draft pick? Nobody cares.

 

[kliq]

Saying a given team is lousy this year is very different than saying a franchise has never been relevant in its 51 year history.

That doesnt really answer the question I was asking, but ok.

 

[kliq]

Or Abdelkader.
Or Helm.
Or Ericsson.
Or Hudler.

They were never going to trade E. At the time they viewed him as a Top 2 D-man and had just lost Stuart/Lidstrom the year before. Sure in hindsight that would have been great, but that one never had a shot at happening.

 

[dragonballgtz]

They were never going to trade E. At the time they viewed him as a Top 2 D-man and had just lost Stuart/Lidstrom the year before. Sure in hindsight that would have been great, but that one never had a shot at happening.

E was never looked at as being a top 2. The closest he came to it was during the 09 playoffs... he was beastly then but never sniffed that level of play ever again. Red Wings had 3 more years of Lidstrom, Stuart, and Kronwall anchoring the back end, and during the '12 summer it was clear E was not someone who should be relied on to anchor a defensive core. E was a #4/5 guy but being played as a #2/3 due to the rest of the defensive core being shit and never address properly.

 

[jkutswings]

What is your point exactly? That six years ago you think Detroit should have traded a secondary player for what would have likely amounted to a mid-round draft pick? Nobody cares.

Needless condescension aside, here's what I'm saying. At some point - not necessarily simultaneously - each of these three things happened:

* Detroit no longer had a realistic chance at another championship.
* Detroit management realized it.
* Detroit management decided that things like keeping the playoff streak alive were more important than rebuilding to once again have a realistic chance at chasing a championship.

Now you're perfectly fine for being ok with the above. Be a fan however you like. But it's also fine for me to say this franchise has become a joke, and isn't worth cheering for until they raise the bar again.

But if me having an opinion that's different than yours continues to result in you replying with snark and condescension...maybe it would be healthier if you just set my posts to ignore. I know it's a button I'm glad that I've used at one time or another.

 

[Redder Winger]

They were never going to trade E. At the time they viewed him as a Top 2 D-man and had just lost Stuart/Lidstrom the year before. Sure in hindsight that would have been great, but that one never had a shot at happening.

No, in foresight it would have been great.
If Holland viewed Ericsson as a top 2 defenseman, Holland's talent assessment meter is broken.

 

[Redder Winger]

Needless condescension aside, here's what I'm saying. At some point - not necessarily simultaneously - each of these three things happened:

* Detroit no longer had a realistic chance at another championship.
* Detroit management realized it.
* Detroit management decided that things like keeping the playoff streak alive were more important than rebuilding to once again have a realistic chance at chasing a championship.

Now you're perfectly fine for being ok with the above. Be a fan however you like. But it's also fine for me to say this franchise has become a joke, and isn't worth cheering for until they raise the bar again.

But if me having an opinion that's different than yours continues to result in you replying with snark and condescension...maybe it would be healthier if you just set my posts to ignore. I know it's a button I'm glad that I've used at one time or another.

The other thing that's obvious is that the playoff streak, whatever it was worth, had its costs.
And those costs are likely a deeper and longer diver into the depths of the NHL than otherwise would have been necessary.

 

[Henkka]

No, in foresight it would have been great.
If Holland viewed Ericsson as a top 2 defenseman, Holland's talent assessment meter is broken.

Ericsson was pretty much viewed as Stuart replacement. 2nd pair defensive guy.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Needless condescension aside, here's what I'm saying. At some point - not necessarily simultaneously - each of these three things happened:

* Detroit no longer had a realistic chance at another championship.
* Detroit management realized it.
* Detroit management decided that things like keeping the playoff streak alive were more important than rebuilding to once again have a realistic chance at chasing a championship.

Now you're perfectly fine for being ok with the above. Be a fan however you like. But it's also fine for me to say this franchise has become a joke, and isn't worth cheering for until they raise the bar again.

But if me having an opinion that's different than yours continues to result in you replying with snark and condescension...maybe it would be healthier if you just set my posts to ignore. I know it's a button I'm glad that I've used at one time or another.

I mean, it's a good thing to chase a championship and if there were not something like the salary cap and recapture and all that nonsense and we could go out and sign players to address our weaknesses with impunity? I'd be perfectly fine with saying "Cup or Bust every year".

But at some point, you just simply can't have that as your goal every year. It's not realistic. This is the same management team (sans old man Illitch, of course) that saw the early 1980s when they literally needed to give away a new car every home game to get attendance. So, I'm not going to be upset with them for not willingly shelling out 50-60 million (if they went balls to the wall and sold everything, they'd still need to spend that much money) to have a team who has no mathematical shot. To toss away seasons like they mean nothing. Particularly at the same time that their baseball team is embarking on the same path.

And this is a bit more OT... but if you don't want to draw condescension and ire and want to have a true discussion? Maybe don't refer to the organization as a joke. A joke is the Matt Millen Lions. A joke is the Cleveland Browns. Hell, a joke is the Edmonton Oilers... where they are basically giftwrapped five or six FANTASTIC players including either the best or the 2nd best player in hockey and they have all of 3 points on the Red Wings. A disappointment, sure? A team desperately in need to new leadership? Sure. But a joke? hell no. Jokes do things like what the Pistons did, where you trade away all your flexibility just before a coach/GM is going to lose his job.

 

[kliq]

No, in foresight it would have been great.
If Holland viewed Ericsson as a top 2 defenseman, Holland's talent assessment meter is broken.

Easy to say with foresight in hindsight lol. Show me a quote from back then, I'll give you props.

 

[kliq]

E was never looked at as being a top 2. The closest he came to it was during the 09 playoffs... he was beastly then but never sniffed that level of play ever again. Red Wings had 3 more years of Lidstrom, Stuart, and Kronwall anchoring the back end, and during the '12 summer it was clear E was not someone who should be relied on to anchor a defensive core. E was a #4/5 guy but being played as a #2/3 due to the rest of the defensive core being **** and never address properly.

Agreed, and that is my point.

 

[Redder Winger]

Easy to say with foresight in hindsight lol. Show me a quote from back then, I'll give you props.

I was opposed to the Ericsson deal before the current deal - let alone this bullshit.
I wasn't posting on this site at the time this shitstain of a deal was signed.

How does anyone need "foresight" to know that Jonathan "never scored more than 15 points in a season" Ericsson wasn't a top 4, let a lone top 2, defenseman.

In the cap era, I've always been against overpaying mediocrity.
More recently.
The Suicide Pills - Red Wing Center

Back the day i was opposed to the 5 year deal to Cleary.

 

[Frk It]

Easy to say with foresight in hindsight lol. Show me a quote from back then, I'll give you props.

If you want to explore the past: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...ear-extension-4-25m-yr.1547101/#post-75097437

 

[kliq]

I was opposed to the Ericsson deal before the current deal - let alone this bull****.
I wasn't posting on this site at the time this ****stain of a deal was signed.

How does anyone need "foresight" to know that Jonathan "never scored more than 15 points in a season" Ericsson wasn't a top 4, let a lone top 2, defenseman.

In the cap era, I've always been against overpaying mediocrity.
More recently.
The Suicide Pills - Red Wing Center

Back the day i was opposed to the 5 year deal to Cleary.

Ok, I was talking from managements perspective, either way I dont have the energy to go back and forth with you about this as I see where this is going.

What is this link? Am I to assume you are the top poster? That link talks about Helm/Abby (or at least the beginning, I didn't read the entire thing.)

If you want to explore the past: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...ear-extension-4-25m-yr.1547101/#post-75097437

Thanks! I was looking for that but couldn't find it. I did see that you wrote:

6 year deal? No thankssss

Hopefully his game doesn't regress. Last thing we need is another 30-something year old player with an unmovable contract.

Seeing as how the cap is going up, would have rather have him more money over less years. Unless this deal is super cheap, I'm not a fan.

Spot on man! You read that deal perfectly. Overall though, on the first page people seemed fine with it. A few people said too long (which is what I remember thinking at the time) but not many hated it.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I was opposed to the Ericsson deal before the current deal - let alone this bull****.
I wasn't posting on this site at the time this ****stain of a deal was signed.

How does anyone need "foresight" to know that Jonathan "never scored more than 15 points in a season" Ericsson wasn't a top 4, let a lone top 2, defenseman.

In the cap era, I've always been against overpaying mediocrity.
More recently.
The Suicide Pills - Red Wing Center

Back the day i was opposed to the 5 year deal to Cleary.

Ericsson never got paid like a legit top 2D. He essentially got paid like a 2nd pairing D, which he was and arguably still is.

 

[dragonballgtz]

Agreed, and that is my point.

Thought you meant the Red Wings legit seen him as #2 guy.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Now the Ericsson contract is being viewed as "good" at the time of the signing?

Good lord...

Cause locking up a 29 year old stay at home defenseman with almost zero offense for six years is super smart.

Dude topped out as a #4-5 on a good team.

 

[Winger98]

I didn't really have a problem with E's deal then, don't really have a big deal with it now that he's found his game again. I think the guy was an unquestionable top4 D until hip and hand injuries took a big bite out of his effectiveness.

 

[dragonballgtz]

Now the Ericsson contract is being viewed as "good" at the time of the signing?

Good lord...

Cause locking up a 29 year old stay at home defenseman with almost zero offense for six years is super smart.

Dude topped out as a #4-5 on a good team.

A classic Holland panic move.

 

[jkutswings]

Sometimes it surprises me how much a fanbase can vary on their opinion for a given specific subject.

Before they ever brought Ericsson back, I didn't even want him to return. The financials of the contract didn't even exist yet; I just didn't like the player, and wanted him to take a roster spot on another team.

He's salvaged himself a bit with these last couple of years, but his skill set probably could've been replaced by a fairly cheap <Defenseman X> on the open market.

 

[Redder Winger]

Ericsson never got paid like a legit top 2D. He essentially got paid like a 2nd pairing D, which he was and arguably still is.

Right.
Which is why you think he's untradeable.

Ericsson is way overpaid and way overextended.

He's OK as a third pairing guy. On his best days he masquerades as a #4.
He should never have been paid more than $2M for more than 2 or 3 years.

If some other team wants to pay it, great. There's no reason to pay that guy long term at that rate.

You have to understand that on the UFA market, third pairing guys are available every year on the cheap.
Jonathan Ericsson is Andreas Lilja

 

[Redder Winger]

Now the Ericsson contract is being viewed as "good" at the time of the signing?

Good lord...

Cause locking up a 29 year old stay at home defenseman with almost zero offense for six years is super smart.

Dude topped out as a #4-5 on a good team.

I'm struggling to see our problem on defense,
Green is a big offensive Dman.
Dekeyser and Ericsson are legit top 4 guys
Daley is a top four guy.

What am I missing? Why do keep saying we suck?

 

[cjm502]

I'm struggling to see our problem on defense,
Green is a big offensive Dman.
Dekeyser and Ericsson are legit top 4 guys
Daley is a top four guy.

What am I missing? Why do keep saying we suck?

Everyone evaluates talent different, and statistics back up the fact that our defense is awful. I look at DD and E as #4 guys. Green and Daley are second pairing guys. Then we have whatever two scrubs Blash chooses to round out our defense. Our problem on defense is crystal clear to myself and most others, a lack of competent defenders and top end talent. Our defense is lucky Howard is there to bail them out

 

[kliq]

Now the Ericsson contract is being viewed as "good" at the time of the signing?

Good lord...

Cause locking up a 29 year old stay at home defenseman with almost zero offense for six years is super smart.

Dude topped out as a #4-5 on a good team.

If you are going to chime in with your typical cynical approach, can you at least read what was read? I get you are playing the gimmick, but at least know what's going on.

The argument posed by Redder was that the Wings should have traded E or not re-signed him the year he was going to become a UFA. I agree with that, but said:

"They were never going to trade E. At the time they viewed him as a Top 2 D-man and had just lost Stuart/Lidstrom the year before. Sure in hindsight that would have been great, but that one never had a shot at happening."

My point was that after losing Lidstrom, Stuart and really Rafalski as well, they were not going to also lose E when he was their #2 d-man.

I never said it was a good contract, what I said was that in hindsight, of course they would have been better off moving him. I did also point out how when reading the thread from the time, most fans were good with it. Read it if you don't believe me.

Or just say

"Good lord...

Cause locking up a 29 year old stay at home defenseman with almost zero offense for six years is super smart."

That really adds to the convo, its like talking to Frank Grimes 2.0.