Would you extend Nyquist?

What to do with Nyquist?


  • Total voters
    98
  • Poll closed .

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,210
12,201
Tampere, Finland
My real answer is a sound NO! He doesn't drive the bus.

Second best in any zone-entry statistics after Larkin.

Like, when Tatar dropped out of the current TOP9, I think it was good that he was gone. And it was also great that he will never return.

But I want to keep good players, drop worst ones, and Nyquist is definitely in the current TOP3. And I'm quite sure he would help the team at TOP6 level for next 3-4 years, until we have better kids.

Trading Nyquist would be positive asset mangement and extending him on the summer would be also positive asset management. If the cap space isn't going to a jackpot like Seguin+Karlsson, I'd keep him.
 
Last edited:

Sparty

Registered User
Oct 2, 2015
1,217
759
Get what you can for him. There are lots of comparable players who can be had in free agency if you need to, but for now this team needs to get young and let the kids fill into these first/second line roles.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,996
8,748
Let's not forget the proper timing here.

He was "blocked" at age 24, is currently age 29, and, if retained, would likely be on the payroll until age 33-34.

So yeah, it's not surprising that fan reaction would be different when considering 3 points of a guy's career that span a decade. (And that's not even accounting for where the team is in the competitive cycle at each of those 3 points in time.)
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,829
4,705
Cleveland
Let's not forget the proper timing here.

He was "blocked" at age 24, is currently age 29, and, if retained, would likely be on the payroll until age 33-34.

So yeah, it's not surprising that fan reaction would be different when considering 3 points of a guy's career that span a decade. (And that's not even accounting for where the team is in the competitive cycle at each of those 3 points in time.)

and costing us $5+ million every year. If we're shelling out that sort of dough, add a few million to it and go after someone better. If we strike out, just sign another Vanek for some depth and move on. For 19/20 I'm looking at Zadina, Bertuzzi, AA, and Mantha as top4 wings, then we have guys like Berggren, Rasmussen, Svechnikov, and Veleno fighting for spots and slotting in elsewhere. Plus we still have Gator. And Helm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkutswings

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,879
14,983
Sweden
I know you understand why things changed and why his current status as a player now doesn't necessarily justify how he was brought up earlier, so I don't understand what point this observation is supposed to make.
Maybe it's because I still feel like 29 is relatively young that it seems so funny to me. Certainly when I think of Nyquist's future on the team I'm thinking more about what role he would fill rather than his age. But it's a sign of how much younger we are getting that re-signing would now be a "veteran leadership" type move.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Maybe it's because I still feel like 29 is relatively young that it seems so funny to me. Certainly when I think of Nyquist's future on the team I'm thinking more about what role he would fill rather than his age. But it's a sign of how much younger we are getting that re-signing would now be a "veteran leadership" type move.

Why do you think 29-30 is young?
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,996
8,748
Why do you think 29-30 is young?
Different player, but this was on TSN yesterday:

https://www.tsn.ca/krejci-didn-t-enjoy-bruins-pursuit-of-tavares-1.1167940

It's about how Krejci didn't appreciate being in the dark on Boston going after Tavares, and some of the bashing he received from fans, but this caught my eye:

"I’m still young and I feel like I still have some of my best years in front of me. Maybe not 70 or 80 points production-wise, but maybe more of a complete player and helping out the young guys grow.”

David Krejci is 32 years old.

I'm with you - I have no idea how guys at or above 30 aren't viewed as winding down quickly, particularly at forward. But opinions seem to be mixed.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,210
12,201
Tampere, Finland
and costing us $5+ million every year. If we're shelling out that sort of dough, add a few million to it and go after someone better. If we strike out, just sign another Vanek for some depth and move on. For 19/20 I'm looking at Zadina, Bertuzzi, AA, and Mantha as top4 wings, then we have guys like Berggren, Rasmussen, Svechnikov, and Veleno fighting for spots and slotting in elsewhere. Plus we still have Gator. And Helm.

Some of that young group will be traded for a defenceman. And Nyquist plugs that hole.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,913
10,462
Second best in any zone-entry statistics after Larkin.

Like, when Tatar dropped out of the current TOP9, I think it was good that he was gone. And it was also great that he will never return.

But I want to keep good players, drop worst ones, and Nyquist is definitely in the current TOP3. And I'm quite sure he would help the team at TOP6 level for next 3-4 years, until we have better kids.

Trading Nyquist would be positive asset management and extending him on the summer would be also positive asset management. If the cap space isn't going to a jackpot like Seguin+Karlsson, I'd keep him.


Those fancy stats in this instance prove how little they really mean. Who cares if he was second best or first best at getting into the zone, did he/team generate more pts because of it? His job is to score or help score, and he for the second year in a row, while playing with a still tremendous Zetterberg in both years, barely hit 40 pts despite the fact he gets a boatload of icetime. He should be a 60 pt player, not a barely half a pt a game player.

All these new or fancy stats, mean so little, as reality hits, and the only thing that matters, for an offensive player, is whether they got goals, assists, and points, and whether they set up a lot of chances at least. 20 goals and 40 pts is abysmal for an in his prime 1st line winger.

I like Nyquist and hoped he would be that 25-30 goal, 50-60 pt player he looked liked he would become, the last 2 seasons, both his pts totals and general effort level are missing. Many nights go by, where you don't even notice he was out there. Just like when Tatar was here, when he left we didn't lose out on any offence, because others took up the tiny bit of slack he left. If/when Gus gets traded, we won't notice any loss in offense, because most players playing 1st line minutes can hit 40 pts fairly easily. Like I said, if Gus brought other intangibles to the team, then 40 pts is ok or fine even, but he doesn't. He isn't great defensively, plays perimeter hockey, which is anti NHL these days, as most offense his done near the net, and he certainly doesn't bring any physicality to the table, so he doesn't do enough for what he gets paid and where he plays. If he was 9th in forward ice time with little PP time, with 20 goals and 40 pts, great, but he plays among the most in both categories.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,210
12,201
Tampere, Finland
Those fancy stats in this instance prove how little they really mean. Who cares if he was second best or first best at getting into the zone, did he/team generate more pts because of it? His job is to score or help score, and he for the second year in a row, while playing with a still tremendous Zetterberg in both years, barely hit 40 pts despite the fact he gets a boatload of icetime. He should be a 60 pt player, not a barely half a pt a game player.

All these new or fancy stats, mean so little, as reality hits, and the only thing that matters, for an offensive player, is whether they got goals, assists, and points, and whether they set up a lot of chances at least. 20 goals and 40 pts is abysmal for an in his prime 1st line winger.

They would score even less if some worse puck carrier does the same job. Pure and simple hockey fact.

It's not fancy stats, it pure data of who transitions the puck best. Who is most successful through the neutral zone with puck. Erik Karlsson is the best player in same data and some greatest hockey minds think the same too. Are they lost their minds? Go ask from Mike Babcock and he tells the same thing about Nyquist.

Nyquist production has been 2nd line production level for 4 years. 0.57 per game. He ranks 5th-6th best forward on any team with that production. If production is all for you. But he drives the possession too, relatively better than his production is vs. league. His current lack of production cumulates from, when we have lost our best Elite players. that's what happens for 2nd line player. but every team has a 2nd line, 3rd abd even 4th line and they have to play hockey. Somebody reasonably good has to exist there. Maybe some experience with 2 prospects.

Just like somebody else wrote, that everything looks bad on a bad team. When we rise again on the top, all Nyquist level players are the new shiny gold when they aren't any better. They just look like that.
 
Last edited:

SirloinUB

Registered User
Aug 20, 2010
4,669
2,155
Canada
Why do you think 29-30 is young?

I was chatting with a friend about the possibility of seeing careers lasting longer. I understand the value of youth but part of me wonders if modern players will be able to play at a high level longer because of all the advancements in training and rehab.

The stars have always had long careers but when we see the dedication to fitness of current players it’s not much of stretch to think more guys than ever before will be able to maintain a high level longer. Of course that’s not to say everyone will be playing into their late 30 or early 40s but I do believe it’s possible for the top players.

Anyway, a little off topic I suppose.
 

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,254
4,454
Boston, MA
It's not young and it's not old. Guy is in prime. And Gus is not a muscle power guy, more of smarts and skating, and those will always age well. 3-4 extra years won't hurt.

This attitude in here is hilarious.

The problem with Nyquist isn't his age per se, its that the NHL adjusted to him and now he's a perimeter player. He now is pretty much a run of the mill winger that doesn't drive possession or play. There is no reason to re-sign him when it makes more sense to use his roster spot to assess young talent, and know if they have players capable of building a team around. And beyond all that, there is no incentive for Nyquist to take a short term or lower cap hit contract with Detroit. Nyquist is the exact type of player you move on from when their paydays come, and replace with young players under team control.
 

Steve Yzerlland

Registered User
Jul 18, 2018
8,210
4,042
NyQuist is not old! 29 is in his prime. He is also not very good and extremely inconsistent. I would trade him for picks or D prospect.
 

aborkie

Registered User
Jul 27, 2018
75
18
I'm not sure, but they definitely got their money's worth. He made squat for a few years and was fantastic.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
It's not young and it's not old. Guy is in prime. And Gus is not a muscle power guy, more of smarts and skating, and those will always age well. 3-4 extra years won't hurt.

This attitude in here is hilarious.

His prime what? Definitely not his prime statistical years.

Where do you see Nyquist fitting in if the guys that you're excited about develop the way you're expecting? Certainly not in the top 6.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,256
5,198
Wisconsin
I'm vote #62 - trade him, and don't want him back.

He's another 'Tatar' - decent, but nothing special, and if Holland can procure another 1st rounder for him I'd be happy.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,829
4,705
Cleveland
His prime what? Definitely not his prime statistical years.

Where do you see Nyquist fitting in if the guys that you're excited about develop the way you're expecting? Certainly not in the top 6.

apparently we're going to gut any decent piece from our drafting in our attempt to get a D we won't bother drafting ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkutswings

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
NyQuist is not old! 29 is in his prime. He is also not very good and extremely inconsistent. I would trade him for picks or D prospect.

I love this. He sucks... GIVE ME YOUR PICKS OR D PROSPECTS FOR HIM! If he sucks so bad you don't want him, you will get dog**** for him. If the choice is trading Nyquist for a Xaiver Ouellet type D prospect or a 2nd round pick+ (as a pending UFA wing with total NTC, he's not getting much more than that, if that) and him playing out and just walking... I might just hold onto him and see if I can convince him to take 4M for a couple years. I want the Wings to get exceptional players, not more okay players.
 

SirloinUB

Registered User
Aug 20, 2010
4,669
2,155
Canada
He hasn't been fantastic since 13-14. In 14-15 he was good, and since then he's been a generic 2nd line winger.

He is 51st in points among all wingers since 15-16.

When he is playing his worst hockey he slots in as a low end 1st line complimentary winger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJoe88

Steve Yzerlland

Registered User
Jul 18, 2018
8,210
4,042
I love this. He sucks... GIVE ME YOUR PICKS OR D PROSPECTS FOR HIM! If he sucks so bad you don't want him, you will get dog**** for him. If the choice is trading Nyquist for a Xaiver Ouellet type D prospect or a 2nd round pick+ (as a pending UFA wing with total NTC, he's not getting much more than that, if that) and him playing out and just walking... I might just hold onto him and see if I can convince him to take 4M for a couple years. I want the Wings to get exceptional players, not more okay players.
When did I say he sucks?If you disagree with everything I say why do you continuously quote me?
 

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,254
4,454
Boston, MA
He is 51st in points among all wingers since 15-16.

When he is playing his worst hockey he slots in as a low end 1st line complimentary winger.
The only way I could get that stat was by looking at natural wingers who played more than 100 games in that period. 3 problems, first you have to not include natural centers who played wing a majority of the time like Nylander. Second nyquist also played most of the games in that period so his ppg is lower than 51st. Third it doesn’t include many young players who haven’t hit 100 games but are better than Nyquist.
 

TheMule93

On a mule rides the swindler
May 26, 2015
12,474
6,522
Ontario
He hasn't been fantastic since 13-14. In 14-15 he was good, and since then he's been a generic 2nd line winger.

He just had his best season since his crazy rookie season IMO. Gus was fantastic this past season. I was impressed with him night in and night out.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad