HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Price of Players: Building the team moving forward

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2013, 06:40 PM
  #26
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampere, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 13,328
vCash: 500
It will be pretty obvious that our philosophy will change at same time when we are getting those better prospects ready.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 06:46 PM
  #27
DatsyukToZetterberg
Alligator!
 
DatsyukToZetterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
To start let's see who is a member of our core right now and how long we have them signed for:

Datsyuk, 34 years old -1 1/2 year left on his contract
Zetterberg, 32 years old - 5+ years left on his contract
Franzen, 33 years old - 5+ years left on his contract
Filppula, 29 years old - 1/2 years left on his contract (UFA)
Brunner, 27 years old - 1/2 years left on his contract (UFA)
Helm, 26 years old - 3 1/2 years left on his contract
Tootoo, 30 years old - 2 1/2 years left on his contract

Kronwall, 32 years old - 5+ years left on contract
Ericsson, 29 years old - 1 1/2 years left on contract
Smith, 24 years old - 1/2 years left on contract (RFA)

Howard, 29 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (UFA)

So that above is our current core. What we should be doing is putting our youth around that core, the opposite of what most teams do (they usually put veterans around their youth.)

So throw in:

Tatar, 22 years old - 1 1/2 years left on contract
Nyquist, 23 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (RFA)
Andersson, 24 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (RFA)

Those guys should have been on the roster from the get go in some role.

Then next year we have Jarnkrok, Sheahan & Ferraro making a push for a spot with more help on the way. Then the year after we will have Ouellet, Jurco & Pulkkinen all forcing there way up.

If we are going to overpay for a UFA this year or next are the years to do as we will have a lot of cheap ELC or 2nd contracts coming up through the ranks over the next 2-4 years.

Mind you we shouldn't go bat **** crazy and give someone like Perry 8.5M+ on a 7 year deal either. We have to find a balance of a little overpay here and then have a #7/8 playing as a #6, or cheap role players. You pay the superstars an extra 500,000-1,000,000 and you have to take away from other places, it's basic cap thinking.

DatsyukToZetterberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 07:37 PM
  #28
detredWINgs
Registered User
 
detredWINgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Why trade your star player when you have a chance to make the playoffs? If everyone has a chance, no one is going to deconstruct their roster, because net gain will be zero. Free Agency will be more important because the only moves you'll see will be for role players and bottom sixers.
Because, first of all, not everyone is going to have a chance. And second of all, because GMs don't gauge "net gain" in isolation. It may be a "net gain" to forego a chance of creeping into the playoffs as a bottom seed and instead getting a nice return for impending UFAs or coveted veterans who don't have a place in your teams future.

Parity is a much about asset management as it is competition.

detredWINgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 07:44 PM
  #29
Bench
#notmyroof
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Twin Peaks
Posts: 12,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukToZetterberg View Post
Mind you we shouldn't go bat **** crazy and give someone like Perry 8.5M+ on a 7 year deal either. We have to find a balance of a little overpay here and then have a #7/8 playing as a #6, or cheap role players. You pay the superstars an extra 500,000-1,000,000 and you have to take away from other places, it's basic cap thinking.
I like the way Boston has built their team with depth throughout the lineup. They don't have that 1 gamebreaking superstar outside of Chara, but their offense finds ways to contribute across all lines.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:06 PM
  #30
detredWINgs
Registered User
 
detredWINgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17,966
vCash: 500
Thought this stat was relevant here.

Trades since 2010:

Chicago - 26
Boston - 24
Los Angeles - 18
Pittsburgh - 17
Detroit - 7

Detroit has made the fewest trades of all NHL teams in that time. The average NHL team has made 23 trades in that time. All but 3 teams teams have made more than 15 trades in that time.

Most of these trades are obviously minor trades, but I think that's what's so telling about it. In today's NHL, you need to be willing to move the non-integral pieces and constantly reevaluate and tweak your roster to improve and/or stay competitive.


Last edited by detredWINgs: 03-16-2013 at 08:31 PM.
detredWINgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:23 PM
  #31
Heaton
Moderator
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 21,212
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
Thought this stat was relevant here.

Trades since 2010:

Chicago - 26
Boston - 24
Los Angeles - 18
Pittsburgh - 17
Detroit - 7

Most of these trades are obviously minor trades, but I think that's what's so telling about it. In today's NHL, you need to be willing to move the non-integral pieces and constantly reevaluate and tweak your roster to improve and/or stay competitive.
What trades have those been for Detroit? I honestly don't remember 7 deals getting done.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:24 PM
  #32
Bench
#notmyroof
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Twin Peaks
Posts: 12,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
Thought this stat was relevant here.

Trades since 2010:

Chicago - 26
Boston - 24
Los Angeles - 18
Pittsburgh - 17
Detroit - 7

Most of these trades are obviously minor trades, but I think that's what's so telling about it. In today's NHL, you need to be willing to move the non-integral pieces and constantly reevaluate and tweak your roster to improve and/or stay competitive.
Very interesting. Lots of Chicago's trading was after they were forced to unload their stacked 2010 team, but they were able to keep that young core locked up while getting a few assets in return.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:27 PM
  #33
Bench
#notmyroof
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Twin Peaks
Posts: 12,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
What trades have those been for Detroit? I honestly don't remember 7 deals getting done.
Me either. Commdore for conditional pick. Stuart rights. Those are pretty much nothing trades, but they count I guess.

Leino?

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:31 PM
  #34
Syckle78
Registered User
 
Syckle78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Redford, MI
Country: Belgium
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
Me either. Commdore for conditional pick. Stuart rights. Those are pretty much nothing trades, but they count I guess.

Leino?
Quincey and um, maybe draft pick trades are counted? Can't think if any other players.

Syckle78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:36 PM
  #35
Eternal Sunshine
 
Eternal Sunshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 26,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
Me either. Commdore for conditional pick. Stuart rights. Those are pretty much nothing trades, but they count I guess.

Leino?
Quincey for 1st + edit: Piche?
Stuart's rights for plug UFA + cond. 7th
Commodore for cond. 7th

draft picks for draft picks being at least 1 or 2 other trades, right? hmmm

Eternal Sunshine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:37 PM
  #36
detredWINgs
Registered User
 
detredWINgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
What trades have those been for Detroit? I honestly don't remember 7 deals getting done.
- Ville Leino to Philly (OKT, 5th rounder)
- Andy Delmore to Calgary (Riley Armstrong)
- Kris Newbury to the Rangers (Jordan Owens)
- Detroit's first (Puempel) for two 2nd rounders from Ottawa (Jurco, Ouellet)
- Quincey from Colorado (1st, Piche)
- Commodore to Tampa (7th rounder)
- Stuart's rights (Basically nothing)

detredWINgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 09:31 PM
  #37
DatsyukToZetterberg
Alligator!
 
DatsyukToZetterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
- Ville Leino to Philly (OKT, 5th rounder)
- Andy Delmore to Calgary (Riley Armstrong)
- Kris Newbury to the Rangers (Jordan Owens)
- Detroit's first (Puempel) for two 2nd rounders from Ottawa (Jurco, Ouellet)
- Quincey from Colorado (1st, Piche)
- Commodore to Tampa (7th rounder)
- Stuart's rights (Basically nothing)
Hey that 7th is going to be the next Zetterberg!

DatsyukToZetterberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 11:01 PM
  #38
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
 
Vatican Roulette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gorillaz-EPWRID
Country: United States
Posts: 13,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syckle78 View Post
As an aside. The cap is lowering for next season that might make for more sellers than what is anticipated.
Good point, although, I would say that UFA's would hold a ton of value to contenders with cap problems next year.

Personally, I'm fine with Detroit selling off Filppula, White, Cleary, Miller, Eaves.

Their roles in the organization can be replaced from within. Also gives tons of room for a free agents, and the re-signing of Howard and Smith.

Also, I've been following the Wings for a long time, and this is the best prospect pool I've seen since the early 90's. Even if half bust, Detroit's still in good shape. Adding more draft picks through trades keeps the pool stocked, and allows for movement.

Problem is, doesn't seem like Holland shares this mentality, i.e. selling off players.

Vatican Roulette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 12:57 AM
  #39
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
Holland is stuck in the past. The only way he's modified his management philosophy in the cap era is to retain his picks and prospects. Other than that, he's clueless.

First, he needs to realize that veterans are not as valuable as they used to be. They get injured; they slow down; they're expensive. Gone are the days when players as slow as Larry Murphy or Brett Hull could still get by on skill and remain dominant. By contrast, the only guys in their late 30s who have remained "dominant" nowadays are phenomenal skaters.

Second, he needs to realize that being "loyal" is no longer a viable philosophy. You can't be nice and hand out contracts to aging veterans just because they've stuck around or put in some of their best years with the team. This is an era where goal differentials and shootout losses are the difference between making the playoffs and sitting on the sidelines. You can't forego signing or promoting more talented players just to keep on a veteran.

Third, going hand-in-hand with the above, the overripe philosophy has to go. The decision to bring in prospects should be based solely on whether or not they're going to give your team a better chance to win than the roster that you've got.

Fourth, no one wants to be a Red Wing above all else anymore. It's nice to be able to say "Hey! Look at our glorious past! Look at all of our historical banners! Look at our playoff streak!" but hockey players are not that dumb. They're just as aware as you are that any team can win any night in this league. So what does that mean? You're going to have to overpay the occasional player. I'm no NHL GM, but it would seem to me that the obvious "trick" here is to simply be discriminant: pass up on the Wisniewskis and Ehrhoffs when you've only lost 1 of your top 4 defenseman, but go hard after the Suters when you've lost 3 of your top 4 defenseman.

Fifth, if you're having cap issues or anticipate having cap issues, its OK to trade a roster player to alleviate the problem.
Wanted to post damn near this exact post earlier, but I kept getting sidetracked. You hit the nail on the head.

garry1221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 01:03 AM
  #40
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukToZetterberg View Post
To start let's see who is a member of our core right now and how long we have them signed for:

Datsyuk, 34 years old -1 1/2 year left on his contract
Zetterberg, 32 years old - 5+ years left on his contract
Franzen, 33 years old - 5+ years left on his contract
Filppula, 29 years old - 1/2 years left on his contract (UFA)
Brunner, 27 years old - 1/2 years left on his contract (UFA)
Helm, 26 years old - 3 1/2 years left on his contract
Tootoo, 30 years old - 2 1/2 years left on his contract

Kronwall, 32 years old - 5+ years left on contract
Ericsson, 29 years old - 1 1/2 years left on contract
Smith, 24 years old - 1/2 years left on contract (RFA)

Howard, 29 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (UFA)

So that above is our current core. What we should be doing is putting our youth around that core, the opposite of what most teams do (they usually put veterans around their youth.)

So throw in:

Tatar, 22 years old - 1 1/2 years left on contract
Nyquist, 23 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (RFA)
Andersson, 24 years old - 1/2 year left on contract (RFA)

Those guys should have been on the roster from the get go in some role.

Then next year we have Jarnkrok, Sheahan & Ferraro making a push for a spot with more help on the way. Then the year after we will have Ouellet, Jurco & Pulkkinen all forcing there way up.

If we are going to overpay for a UFA this year or next are the years to do as we will have a lot of cheap ELC or 2nd contracts coming up through the ranks over the next 2-4 years.

Mind you we shouldn't go bat **** crazy and give someone like Perry 8.5M+ on a 7 year deal either. We have to find a balance of a little overpay here and then have a #7/8 playing as a #6, or cheap role players. You pay the superstars an extra 500,000-1,000,000 and you have to take away from other places, it's basic cap thinking.
This is another concept I tried writing earlier. Personally, I wouldn't call Tootoo part of the core, but that's just opinion. Asset management is the name of the game here. While it's not as easy as many of us would like to think it is, it still ain't rocket science.

garry1221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 01:07 AM
  #41
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
 
Vatican Roulette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gorillaz-EPWRID
Country: United States
Posts: 13,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
Holland is stuck in the past.
I agree.

Vatican Roulette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 01:45 PM
  #42
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
Holland is stuck in the past. The only way he's modified his management philosophy in the cap era is to retain his picks and prospects. Other than that, he's clueless.

First, he needs to realize that veterans are not as valuable as they used to be. They get injured; they slow down; they're expensive. Gone are the days when players as slow as Larry Murphy or Brett Hull could still get by on skill and remain dominant. By contrast, the only guys in their late 30s who have remained "dominant" nowadays are phenomenal skaters.

Second, he needs to realize that being "loyal" is no longer a viable philosophy. You can't be nice and hand out contracts to aging veterans just because they've stuck around or put in some of their best years with the team. This is an era where goal differentials and shootout losses are the difference between making the playoffs and sitting on the sidelines. You can't forego signing or promoting more talented players just to keep on a veteran.

Third, going hand-in-hand with the above, the overripe philosophy has to go. The decision to bring in prospects should be based solely on whether or not they're going to give your team a better chance to win than the roster that you've got.

Fourth, no one wants to be a Red Wing above all else anymore. It's nice to be able to say "Hey! Look at our glorious past! Look at all of our historical banners! Look at our playoff streak!" but hockey players are not that dumb. They're just as aware as you are that any team can win any night in this league. So what does that mean? You're going to have to overpay the occasional player. I'm no NHL GM, but it would seem to me that the obvious "trick" here is to simply be discriminant: pass up on the Wisniewskis and Ehrhoffs when you've only lost 1 of your top 4 defenseman, but go hard after the Suters when you've lost 3 of your top 4 defenseman.

Fifth, if you're having cap issues or anticipate having cap issues, its OK to trade a roster player to alleviate the problem.
1. I'll go a step further and say that if vetrans (35+) dominant as you described, they shouldn't sniff any type of movement clauses. NTC's and NMC's should be awarded for something other than longevity.

2. Nothing more to add. Loyalty while nice in the past, could be a torpedo in today's nhl. It could be argued that if we want to reward loyalty, it could be done with a 1 year deal rather than multiple years. Still a thin argument imo.

3. Again, hammer meet nail. I mentioned this in another post. It's called asset management. It's not rocket science. The question becomes, can an old dog learn new tricks. The first few years it looked possible. Lately, I'm not sure.

4. Couldn't have said it better. We're no longer a prime destination. We need to pay superstars like superstars. The 'detroit discount' is a thing of the past. We knew it was coming, but it was made abundantly clear recently.

5. And again, we come back to asset management.

garry1221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 03:39 PM
  #43
RedWinger10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
I wish this was the good old days when players would do whatever it took to play for a top contending team. When we has Dominik Hasek he actually turned away $5 million to make the salary cap for the rest of the team.

RedWinger10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.