Well, now that the rebuild is over...

[jkutswings]

They've never been in a particularly dire cap situation, and they've always had their contracts sequenced such that ~10+ million was coming off the books in a given year. Nyquist, Vanek, Howard, Kronwall. Then Green, Ericsson, Daley. Then Z and Helm. Then DK and Nielsen. Then Larkin and Abdelkader.

When they've got 10 mil in UFA contracts expiring every year, year after year after year, it begins to look less like chance and more like a systematic approach to how the organization sets up their payables. The issue here has never been whether or not Detroit would have the cap space to be good, it was whether they'd have the players to be good. If they needed to make 10 mil in cap space to land an MVP right now and doing so would make them a legit contender they could do it by packing off Z and Franzen's contracts with a couple assets to cheap teams.

That player isn't available, so that the cap flexibility exists for them to do so isn't important. That doesn't mean the flexibility isn't there.

If finding a few million bucks when necessary was the only cap-related issue, you have a point. But I was responding to the claim that everything will be AOK in a few years, and my concern isn't just prudence in terms of AAV, but in the laundry list of mediocre to bad players that have been brought here in the first place, and the term handed out to said players.

Having the cash to add a good player is fine. But a track record of filling a significant portion of your cap with players that don't deserve the money in the first place - for several years at a time - is a financial (and competitive) impairment that cannot return if "time is to solve everything".

 

[Henkka]

A vast majority of these contracts will be gone, By the time that Zadina, Rasmussen and Hronek need new deals. Or at least most of these contract can be movable by then.

On the final year those can be traded yeah, or we could need them if we are on a rise and going on the playoffs.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

If finding a few million bucks when necessary was the only cap-related issue, you have a point. But I was responding to the claim that everything will be AOK in a few years, and my concern isn't just prudence in terms of AAV, but in the laundry list of mediocre to bad players that have been brought here in the first place, and the term handed out to said players.

Having the cash to add a good player is fine. But a track record of filling a significant portion of your cap with players that don't deserve the money in the first place - for several years at a time - is a financial (and competitive) impairment that cannot return if "time is to solve everything".

But it's kind of evident in the way the Wings have structured everything that they've planned things a certain way. They signed guys in kinda "pods" that would all be coming off the books at very similar times. It's why as desperate for a top 4 D as they were in 2013 that they didn't bend to Christian Ehrhoff's wish for a 5 year deal and instead held to a 2 year which got beat out by a 1 year deal with Pittsburgh and then bought out because Ehrhoff was actually garbage.

Like what HiHD said, it's not a matter of "A-OK" vs. cap hell. It's that the Wings continually set themselves up that IF they happen to luck into a stud or a stud happens to be on the FA market, they can make a run at him and/or have a team that is ready for a guy to jump right onto and make a difference. Guys like that have not come available at the picks Detroit has had and they've not been extraordinarily lucky to pluck a top pairing D or top line C from the draft in a less than premium spot.

The Wings have kinda known that they're locked into the roster that they had once the 2012 lockout happened and they were going to be on the hook for Z and Franzen throughout their deals. That their flexibility to truly re-make the roster was always going to be limited because you'll have up to 10M in dead cap that'll be there that you have to tap dance around.

 

[Henkka]

The Wings have kinda known that they're locked into the roster that they had once the 2012 lockout happened and they were going to be on the hook for Z and Franzen throughout their deals. That their flexibility to truly re-make the roster was always going to be limited because you'll have up to 10M in dead cap that'll be there that you have to tap dance around.

Yep. The CBA change for Recapture penalty locked our organization for Zetterberg and Franzen deals, and only choise after that was to push as far as you can go with them. When Pavel was also on the books as the best player, we were a playoff team as long as he helped.

Now, when both recapture guys are wrecked and going on non-harm LTIR, and Pavel is at Russia, this rebuild has been going as easy as eating peanuts.

 

[jkutswings]

No, I'm saying that having guys come off the books with regular cadence is one thing, but that the majority of those guys continue to be deals that never should have been signed in the first place is a distinctly different facet to the financial puzzle.

If the next 5 years continue the pattern of several lousy players on contracts that COULD be ditched, given the right scenario, that may very well be financially flexible by the letter of the law, but it's a stupid way to spend your money. Hey look! We have another load of garbage that can easily be dumped! Yeah...but why are you still looking to shell out millions of dollars on garbage in the first place?

Or to put it another way, being able to get OUT of a mess is fine. But that doesn't mean getting INTO messes should be a staple of your modus operandi.

 

[Shaman464]

Detroit was never quite in Chicago level cap hell. But they got damn close to it the last few seasons, and only were pulled back from the brink because the NHL hasn't cracked down on LTIRetirement. That being said, I don't think there was a grand plan for all of this. Contracts were given at the time based on what Holland thought was best for the team at that time, and with the knowledge that the cap would inevitably increase. I don't think he planned on the wheels coming off, and having a lot of young players needing big contracts at the same time.

 

[Pavels Dog]

No, I'm saying that having guys come off the books with regular cadence is one thing, but that the majority of those guys continue to be deals that never should have been signed in the first place is a distinctly different facet to the financial puzzle.

If the next 5 years continue the pattern of several lousy players on contracts that COULD be ditched, given the right scenario, that may very well be financially flexible by the letter of the law, but it's a stupid way to spend your money. Hey look! We have another load of garbage that can easily be dumped! Yeah...but why are you still looking to shell out millions of dollars on garbage in the first place?

Or to put it another way, being able to get OUT of a mess is fine. But that doesn't mean getting INTO messes should be a staple of your modus operandi.

We will need to spend money on our RFAs, unless most of them suck badly. We can debate the benefit of spending money on veterans if you have no quality RFAs, but to expect us to keep signing plenty of veterans instead of Zadina, Ras, Mantha, AA, Hronek, Cholo, Hicketts, Veleno, Svechnikov, Sulak, Saarijarvi, Berggren, Pope, Pearson, Setkov, Lindstrom, Turgeon etc. and potential Jack Hughes or other top 5 picks is not realistic. We haven’t had a U23 or U25 group like this since medieval times.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

This is a really tired line of argument. None of these contracts are that bad anymore. None of them stop Detroit from having cap flexibility starting really next season and there on out (barring major over payments of other roleplayers). The only reason these should be brought up anymore is because of the precedence they set, based on percentage of cap space each deal was at the time of signing. They aren't bad now that the cap has caught up, but they all were initially poor deals. But bringing them up as somehow anchors around Detroit's neck is a nonstarter.

Absolutely don’t agree with this.

 

[Shaman464]

Absolutely don’t agree with this.

The current highest cap hit is Nielsen, the Wing's middle 6 center, at 6.5% of the current cap. Every other cap hit is lower than 6% of the current cap. The average cap hit of the 4 is just over 5% of the cap or approximately 1/20th of the team's current cap allotment each. As it stands TODAY none of these guys are taking up a ton of cap space, and even combined they only account for 1/5th of the team's cap expenditures. Meaning that the other 18 make up the other 80% of the cap space used and average about 3.5 million each. What do those four players average? 4.5 million each.... So, in the context of the team, the salary cap, and their roles, they make the team average, when you take out ELCs.

 

[Jon Cusack]

We don't have a single contract on our team that you can say "What a great deal he is on"

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Absolutely don’t agree with this.

In aggregate, no, they're not great. But really, any of them are dealable with retention. Any of them continue to become less of a % of the cap as it raises. And all of the players are actual usable NHL roster players. They don't prevent us from making a move for an elite piece (see having 10M+ for Stamkos, being willing to take on Phaneuf if we had wanted a top pair D, etc.)

FAR FAR FAR worse is Stephen Weiss who is still on our cap for 2.6, 1.6 and 1.6 I think for LITERALLY PROVIDING NOTHING. Not eating ice time, just sitting at home eating pasta.

The Red Wings have only been hamstrung by the cap twice since the lockout and both were due to extenuating circumstances. Having to deal Datsyuk because he decided to up and retire on a 35+ contract and having to deal Sheahan because AA was asking for double what he ended up settling for. If AA would have taken 1.35M for one year, the Wings wouldn't have had to do anything within Sheahan. And in both scenarios, they got out of the bind pretty damn easily for damn near no actual cost to the team.

Not like Chicago who dealt a #1D and a top 6C (Buff and Ladd) for what virtually ended up being nothing to get out of trouble, then dealt a #1D for virtually nothing to get out of trouble (Campbell), then dealt a top 6 forward (Sharp) and a high profile prospect (Johns) for virtually nothing to get out of trouble.

Hell, the Wings got in trouble with Datsyuk and actually have an intriguing argument that they could become the winner in that trade even disregarding the drop of the 7.5M anchor.
Didn't the Wings also get another 3rd in the mix for dealing Sheahan? It was Sheahan + 5th for Wilson + 3rd if I remember right... and then they dealt Wilson for a 5th.

The Wings made honest to goodness ****ing hockey/futures trades to get out of their "cap troubles".

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

We don't have a single contract on our team that you can say "What a great deal he is on"

Mantha?
Larkin in a year or two?
Zadina playing on an ELC?

Most teams don't have a sweetheart deal. Or if they do, it's because they took a gigantic damn risk to land it that would have been moronic for Detroit to do.

 

[borisbadenough]

We don't have a single contract on our team that you can say "What a great deal he is on"

Vanek? top 90 ish in pts top 75 ish in goals? 1yr/3 mil?

 

[Shaman464]

Vanek? top 90 ish in pts top 75 ish in goals? 1yr/3 mil?

Doesn't play defense, and at a non-premium position. Not a bad deal, just not a steal either.

 

[Jon Cusack]

Mantha?
Larkin in a year or two?
Zadina playing on an ELC?

Most teams don't have a sweetheart deal. Or if they do, it's because they took a gigantic damn risk to land it that would have been moronic for Detroit to do.

Mantha, yes I agree you could say that. Meant more from a UFA perspective but perhaps I should have been more clear. I think Larkins deal is fair, perhaps he outplays it perhaps he doesnt. Vanek, take it or leave it, he doesn't hold a ton of value around the league as shown at every trade deadline. Like Shaman mentioned, hes fantastic offensively, a real treat to watch in the O-zone but defensively he is a liability. Zadina is not worth commenting on, its an ELC.

 

[Ezekial]

We also don't have any contracts that realistically infringe on our rebuild. If we end up locking Zadina up for 10 mil off his ELC (must be a f***ing player) we still have the ability to sign any of Cholowski, Hronek and Rasmussen to bridge deals the same off-season. The only way we start locking up a lot of the currently $58.9 million available before the 20-21 season is if most of our prospects turn into absolute studs or if we continue to sign deals like we were a few years ago, not the 1-3 year deals we've seen the last 2 offseasons.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Mantha, yes I agree you could say that. Meant more from a UFA perspective but perhaps I should have been more clear. I think Larkins deal is fair, perhaps he outplays it perhaps he doesnt. Vanek, take it or leave it, he doesn't hold a ton of value around the league as shown at every trade deadline. Like Shaman mentioned, hes fantastic offensively, a real treat to watch in the O-zone but defensively he is a liability. Zadina is not worth commenting on, its an ELC.

Extremely few UFA deals look great.

 

[lomekian]

At present, none of the Wings cap hits are particularly good or bad when looking at UFA/RFA status.

Kronwall's is no longer particularly friendly, but he's an age no guy with a year left. Nielsen, Abby, Dekeyser & Helm could be seen as slightly overpriced, but in each case its more the fear of diminishing returns rather than awful value at present. Equally we don't have any steal contracts.

''tis the equal consequences of a risk averse management group who once the streak ended have put a greater priority on the draft then taking risks in FA.

Most teams have more 'steals' and more deadweights. We are sort of in the middle of the road. As long as the players with less favourable contracts remain somewhere near the level they are at present, any of them can be got rid of without having to give up anything bar some retention.

 

[Pavels Dog]

''tis the equal consequences of a risk averse management group who once the streak ended have put a greater priority on the draft then taking risks in FA.

Consequence of not having a few superstars who make everyone around them look better than they really are. And in some cases, we’re still paying for when we had those stars and players earned bigger money.

 

[jkutswings]

Consequence of not having a few superstars who make everyone around them look better than they really are. And in some cases, we’re still paying for when we had those stars and players earned bigger money.

That might be true in some cases, but there are definitely contracts on this roster that never should have been inked at ANY price (Helm) and contracts that were predictably awful deals from the get-go (Abdelkader, Nielsen).

 

[Henkka]

Consequence of not having a few superstars who make everyone around them look better than they really are. And in some cases, we’re still paying for when we had those stars and players earned bigger money.

Yep. Our next generation will be cheap, until they prove othervise, being better than just average. There's no stars yet pulling up their value.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

That might be true in some cases, but there are definitely contracts on this roster that never should have been inked at ANY price (Helm) and contracts that were predictably awful deals from the get-go (Abdelkader, Nielsen).

Helm shouldn't have gotten 5x3.85. I agree with you on that. But if he signed the Jarnkrok deal 6x2? I'd have literally no problems with it.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

At this point, the bad contracts are what they are. We just have to work around them.

I do hope, however, Holland does not continue to give contracts like that out to bring in or keep "grit" and reduce the space we have to acquire pieces and retain the ones we want to keep.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Mantha, yes I agree you could say that. Meant more from a UFA perspective but perhaps I should have been more clear. I think Larkins deal is fair, perhaps he outplays it perhaps he doesnt. Vanek, take it or leave it, he doesn't hold a ton of value around the league as shown at every trade deadline. Like Shaman mentioned, hes fantastic offensively, a real treat to watch in the O-zone but defensively he is a liability. Zadina is not worth commenting on, its an ELC.

How many UFA deals are even good, let alone, great?

There is a vast majority of those deals that are regrettable immediately.

Ladd
Okposo
Lucic
Eriksson
Backes

5 deals in the same FA period as Frans. Frans's deal is better than Ladd's, better than Lucic's, WAY better than Eriksson's, and arguable on Backes. Okposo is better, but not super ahead.

FA contracts suck. You generally don't wade out into UFA waters and come back with a contract you're happy with. Outside of having a sweetheart arrangement like Thornton in San Jose where he's got a blank check from them, but basically takes what they offer because he loves playing in California.

If a team has a dynamite UFA deal, it's 100% a hometown discount that isn't available to any other team in the league. Like if Malkin hit UFA today, he'd get 13M+ But Pittsburgh has him at 9M because they had Crosby at 8.7M. Stamkos is at 8.5M in Tampa because his 8.5M in Tampa gets him equivalent money to like 12M in Toronto or 10-10.5M in Detroit. That cap number was not available to any other team.

Or on the off chance that you take a risk on a guy like Minny did with Eric Staal and he magically turns back the clock and looks like a stud again. There was nothing in Staal's play in New York that gave any indication he'd be a 40 goal scorer again.

 

[Pavels Dog]

That might be true in some cases, but there are definitely contracts on this roster that never should have been inked at ANY price (Helm) and contracts that were predictably awful deals from the get-go (Abdelkader, Nielsen).

Point is almost anything looks bad on a really bad team. There would have been plenty of things to complain about in the alternate reality where we don't sign those deals. Take a look at our C depth without Z and Nielsen for example.