Player Discussion: Danny DeKeyser

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

If anyone that watches this team regularly thinks that Mike Green isn't our best defenseman by a fairly large gap, I really don't know what to tell you.

He certainly has. That's because he's a better defenseman than Danny DeKeyser. Doesn't mean DeKeyser is garbage or anything, just that Green is better.

 

[Henkka]

Dekeyser making unforced errors in the defensive zone and being generally incompetent offensively have absolutely nothing to do with quality of competition. It's an excuse people use because it's the easy go to excuse. The dude's getting paid $5 million a year to play at a high level.

If he can't handle the supposed tough competition without looking like a dumpster fire than he should give some money back so he's more appropriately paid.

Let's put Smith, Ouellet or Sproul on those DeKeyser duties and start losing more hockey games.

I'm perfectly fine with a high draft pick at 2017 draft.

 

[obey86]

He looked better on those days, when Kronwall-Ericsson was the shut-down pair. And then everybody was throwing those two on the fire.

Now DeKeyser carries the shut-down load and everybody else on other pairs look better and people are wondering why doesn't he look good anymore.

This same debate just goes around and around when roles change. 3rd pair defencemen look great on some stats and oh boy, they look shiny new toy and those shut-down guys "look so ugly".

Funniest thing has been Winging it in Motown guys praising Smith how he should get more ice-time etc. crap. When he is clearly the worst defenceman of our group and will be gone on Free agency after this season and no one cries after.

Kronwall still looks like complete garbage despite not being on the first pair. His problem is and was his inability to move/skate, more so than the competition he faced. He still looks terrible this year playing supposed "easier" competition and less minutes.

And Ericsson seems to be much healthier this year and he can actually turn and skate, which has lead to his rejuvenation. If his hip was still bothering him and he couldn't move he would look as bad as before no matter what competition he's playing.

 

[Frk It]

Kronwall still looks like complete garbage despite not being on the first pair. His problem is and was his inability to move/skate, more so than the competition he faced. He still looks terrible this year playing supposed "easier" competition and less minutes.

And Ericsson seems to be much healthier this year and he can actually turn and skate, which has lead to his rejuvenation. If his hip was still bothering him and he couldn't move he would look as bad as before no matter what competition he's playing.

With regards to Kronwall, we were talking about a few seasons ago. Sounds like Henkka was thinking of Babcock's last season here.

 

[Henkka]

With regards to Kronwall, we were talking about a few seasons ago. Sounds like Henkka was thinking of Babcock's last season here.

Pretty much yeah. At last season Dekeyser was already on shut-down duties.

 

[obey86]

Despite the silly rhetoric, there's no indication that the opponents DeKeyser is playing are anything more than negligibly better than they were in year's past.

Opponent season stats:

16-17:
49.5 GF%
51.1 CF%
50.6 SF%

15-16:
51.2 GF%
50.1 CF%
50.2 SF%

14-15:
50.7 GF%
50.0 CF%
49.9 SF%

13-14:
50.5 GF%
50.0 CF%
50.0 SF%

 

[14ari13]

He looked better on those days, when Kronwall-Ericsson was the shut-down pair. And then everybody was throwing those two on the fire.

Now DeKeyser carries the shut-down load and everybody else on other pairs look better and people are wondering why doesn't he look good anymore.

This same debate just goes around and around when roles change. 3rd pair defencemen look great on some stats and oh boy, they look shiny new toy and those shut-down guys "look so ugly".

Funniest thing has been Winging it in Motown guys praising Smith how he should get more ice-time etc. crap. When he is clearly the worst defenceman of our group and will be gone on Free agency after this season and no one cries after.

IT should not be so difficult to understand. But apparently it is to some.

Kronwall still looks like complete garbage despite not being on the first pair. His problem is and was his inability to move/skate, more so than the competition he faced. He still looks terrible this year playing supposed "easier" competition and less minutes.

And Ericsson seems to be much healthier this year and he can actually turn and skate, which has lead to his rejuvenation. If his hip was still bothering him and he couldn't move he would look as bad as before no matter what competition he's playing.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
If you are a goalie and oveckin, hull, Fedorov shoot at you, then you stop 6-7 out of 10.
If draper, pulkkinen, glendening shoot, then you stop 9out of 10.
And if the posters from this board shoot you stop 100 out of 100.

 

[BinCookin]

Despite the silly rhetoric, there's no indication that the opponents DeKeyser is playing are anything more than negligibly better than they were in year's past.

Opponent season stats:

16-17:
49.5 GF%
51.1 CF%
50.6 SF%

15-16:
51.2 GF%
50.1 CF%
50.2 SF%

14-15:
50.7 GF%
50.0 CF%
49.9 SF%

13-14:
50.5 GF%
50.0 CF%
50.0 SF%

Obey, you are big into advanced stats.

Can you give me a break down of our 8 D, and how they have fared?

Try to make your report as neutral as possible

 

[jprenkert]

I've never been a fan of DDK. He isnt worth anything in the O zone as he fakes a shot every time then passes. I think hes OK in the D zone. He was the best with *cough* Quincy net front *cough* where he could run around like a try hard in drop in. I think we are going to be screwed in 2-4 years with the terrible contracts that Holland has given out of loyalty. But not a fan of DDk at all. Never was. Mediocre player trying to be like his idol, who is playing for home town team.

 

[ap3x]

I don't get this "if u think DDK played bad, you weren't paying attention and don't know anything about hockey" crap. Replace the former with "if you think DDK played good, ..." and the latter can go either way. I said numerous times that - sadly - there isn't anyone to put there instead of him. That doesn't make him automatically performing as his payment should suggest though. Due to DDK's performance in previous seasons, accompanied by Kronner's regression, we've got high expectations on him. This season he's way below expectations and there's much room for improvement.

Just 'cause there isn't anybody who's better suited to fill his spot, I won't jump to the conclusion that he's doing a good job. Throughout this season he isn't. Sucking the least is still sucking. He can do way better. And that's why I expect him to do much better. Accepting this season's performance as "good" is accepting to suck.

 

[Reddwit]

Yes, his overall performance is going to suffer because of the increased competition, but you can't objectively watch this guy and say thats all there is to it. He's made more dumb plays, unpressured giveaways, and passes into skates in the first 20 games than he made in 50 last year. His decision-making is just terrible right now. I can understand the calamity when the opposition's best guys are running circles around him, but this guy looks bad on every other shift, down to the most innocuous situations, like when the opposition is making a change and he's got extra time to make the right move.

I think the pressure of the big contract has gotten to him, honestly. Its really disappointing, too. I thought entering the (typically) prime years for defenseman would off-set his increased responsibilities and he would end up giving us largely acceptable, neutral performances, but he has really been inexcusably bad.

 

[jprenkert]

Could it be he is just over his head? He wasn't bad playing mid to bottom D minutes. And hit the Jackpot with the contract due to Holland being too comfy upstairs and NGF?! I don't think his play warranted the contract and i think we are becoming aware of this and many other flaws Holland has done in created and icing this team.

 

[14ari13]

I don't get this "if u think DDK played bad, you weren't paying attention and don't know anything about hockey" crap. Replace the former with "if you think DDK played good, ..." and the latter can go either way. I said numerous times that - sadly - there isn't anyone to put there instead of him. That doesn't make him automatically performing as his payment should suggest though. Due to DDK's performance in previous seasons, accompanied by Kronner's regression, we've got high expectations on him. This season he's way below expectations and there's much room for improvement.

Just 'cause there isn't anybody who's better suited to fill his spot, I won't jump to the conclusion that he's doing a good job. Throughout this season he isn't. Sucking the least is still sucking. He can do way better. And that's why I expect him to do much better. Accepting this season's performance as "good" is accepting to suck.

I think it is very difficult to assess our players at this point.
We have to wait 10-20 games till

 

[Henkka]

Only thing what is sure at our defence is that Brendan Smith was ultimate worst against any competition. Can't be more than happy he is gone from the Top6 for next 4 weeks.

Now we can finally see the full potential of our defence.

 

[BinCookin]

Only thing what is sure at our defence is that Brendan Smith was ultimate worst against any competition. Can't be more than happy he is gone from the Top6 for next 4 weeks.

Now we can finally see the full potential of our defence.

I wish our coaches had made the decision, dont like to see anyone hurt.

But i think this injury will only improve our team, as we will play better players now.

 

[avssuc]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q4VrVqT940wR2V_qhhCxR5h9HDQqcTmnwINkfIRtUcw/edit#gid=0

Just look at in here.

I trust these BinCooking eye-tested statistics more than any other "advanced" crap stats

Seriously though, yea, you can't knock the eye test, especially when it comes to guys like Smith, but you can't say that advanced analytics are garbage along side. The biggest advantage one has when using advanced analytics is the fact that they aren't nearly as susceptible to bias. I admire BC for his effort, but it's nothing more than super novice armchair stuff. If it had any merit, he'd be working in the NHL, not posting with the rest of us amateurs.

Obey, you are big into advanced stats.

Can you give me a break down of our 8 D, and how they have fared?

Try to make your report as neutral as possible

Advanced analytics are the definition of neutrality, dude. Honestly, I enjoy your work, and the effort you put in... but to claim you're unbiased is a lie. We are all biased, no shame in it. Thus, the system you set up is biased. The advanced analytics most commonly used eliminate much of the bias, light years ahead of the system that you use. Again, your system has value, just not as much. Not trying to hate, just sharing my opinion.

You can package it any way you like, the reality remains the same.

 

[ap3x]

Yeah, there may be an underlying bias. He also tried to engage others in sharing stats though. Most do not. So I won't criticize him that much for being biased. Especially as I consider his judgement pretty fair & rather objective than subjective.

 

[avssuc]

Obey, you are big into advanced stats.

Can you give me a break down of our 8 D, and how they have fared?

Try to make your report as neutral as possible

Yeah, there may be an underlying bias. He also tried to engage others in sharing stats though. Most do not. So I won't criticize him that much for being biased. Especially as I consider his judgement pretty fair & rather objective than subjective.

First let me start by offering a small bio in an effort to help you folks understand my saltiness, and 'not' in effort to create any logical fallacy based on my supposed authority. For work, I've been employed by the military for almost the last two decades. I've worked most of that time in intelligence where deception and the black arts of misrepresenting stuff is my job. In this time, I've used my GI Bill and TA to get an undergrad in history, postgrad in intelligence. Math is far from my strong-suit, but citation (as a historian) and psychological twists (as a federally trained PR dude) are right in my wheelhouse. The main reason I take issue with your work is the fact that it's done mostly by emotionally invested Wings fans and lacks any sort of peer review, a deadly combination. That would be like letting Halliburton track and report collateral in OIF... as if the corporate media was any better.

We all have bias that drives us when it comes to something we are invested in. That's why I trust people that live outside of Wings fandom... more than I trust you and yours. I wouldn't trust myself to track like you do! With that, I do see how it's possible that you are giving honest reports, I just don't think it's likely. Beyond the that, I take issue with the expansive and subjective nature of your scoring system. Here is a quote (edited for brevity) from the OP on your thread. I'll offer my comments in bold:

Again I will be scoring our defensemen for the Red Wings this year.

Here is how I have been scoring players:

Each player receives a + (plus) or a - (minus) for good plays and bad plays they make during the game. This is of course a subjective rating system, and I will include in these stats anyone else that wants to keep tabs on the defenders during a game.

-You note the subjective nature, and that's good; however, this is a common tactic used in preemptively addressing/defusing misnomer. The fact that you stated the possibility/probability begs for en masse trust of the authority and system here. I highly doubt you intended to do this, but overt or covert intentions matter not when coupled with everything else.


-You leave the door open to others that want to add; great, get folks involved... but how do you vet them? Is there a method of determining the honesty of Henkka or others when it comes to their contributions on this forum? With many of the advanced stats, this is something that can be done. When I commented on your defensive system thread, your largest defender was a guy that wouldn't even reply to me when I countered his open fallacy with easy to access information obtained from a simple Google (a couple days back). How am I to trust BC defensive scouting metrics if some of your contributors can't acknowledge and own their mega-fallacy? The question of citation and peer review becomes a huge red flag right from the start.


Examples:

Examples of a Minus (-) = Turnovers, non-pressured icing, fumbles, bad loss of board battle, really bad pass, bad/careless penalty
Examples of a Plus (+) = Nice Break out pass (usually underpressure to infront of our net), great offensive play, great pass, great hit, good poke check etc etc.

I occasionally give -2 if a player screws up and virtually causes a goal by himself.

-This is what needed to go first. "Good" and "bad" are subjective, so why even package it like that? Since we all have our own definitions, why give folks the room to err on their bias?

-What outliers are there in terms of "fumbles" (bad ice, bad pass, forecheck, injury, etc.)? What's the difference between a bad pass and a "really bad pass"? You might claim semantics here, but it seems like your system went from under-complicated to over-complicated. Plus, you add variables for the hotheads to focus on.

-The -2 stat is riddled with . You can track any play back far enough and say that a player caused the goal. Myself, I track all goals scored on the Wings to Dan Cleary . Others might say that the "really bad pass" made by DeKeyser or Smith in the O zone (that happened before DeKeyser or Smith left for a change) was the causal factor. Again, too many variables.

Note: The exact scoring system is not as important, as the fact that all the D-men are being viewed closely by the same standards)

-Can this be true? We all have favorites for one reason or another. What if some of us slightly resent Cholowski (subconsciously) if Chychrun or Fabbro turn into top paring guys? What if our favorite target isn't taken in 2017? What if he is? How would we score them when they got thier call-up, and through their struggles/success? Whether we like it or not, most of us have different investments in players, and this causes us to look over naughty or focus on rant their play, depending on our investment. This turns into Hot Take Central! With the -2 stat in play, with the old school distrust of advanced analytics and the group at Winging it in Motown (Smith fan club), and then with the counter... there seems to be plenty of room to push the numbers where your feels are in this system.

I would have combined this post with the next, but it felt too long, and it might have taken away from my following content.

 

[avssuc]

Obey, you are big into advanced stats.

Can you give me a break down of our 8 D, and how they have fared?

Try to make your report as neutral as possible

This enters a much bigger area really. Since the question of this thread boils down to value, we really can't have the conversation without talking about organizational management (or mismanagement). The ELC topic is huge in this respect. One look at the modern NHL and we know why. I suppose we can talk about that some other time.

So as for the "report", let's start with exiting the zone. That is one of the first things that jumps off the page for me watching DeKeyser as he struggles out there. As a beer league defenseman myself, I cringe every-time I see him fire it to nobody... I cringe harder when it's a pass to the other team.

Here is a 3rd party, sample size, report on zone exits... where DeKeyser leads the team in in all the wrong areas:

Outside of that, I don't know what to "report" on given some of the conclusions. These stats seem to go away from my eye test on Smith, but maybe I'm wrong on him. His errors are pretty big, but from my seat, they seem to be done with a purpose, not out of fear or lack of imagination, like DeKeyser.


So we could compare the whipping boys and debate the merit of the stats:

We might look at Trouba and have a good laugh over those that said we shouldn't trade DeKeyser for him, or laugh at that after looking at the Smith chart:

We could look at what the Devils paid 1/3 less than Ken Holland would have offered (a guy that makes 4 times less than DeKeyser):

We could look at what a different 2016 FA that now makes $.5 million more could have brought:

We might paint the numbers and say that DeKeyser should be a 30 point guy based on one season, or we could paint the numbers to say this was a fluke:

We can talk about givaways:

In the video below, instead of trying to work it back to Green, dude forces it up the boards after a quick silent prayer that a winger would be there to handle some hot garbage. I can't find other examples loaded up, but this has happened in every game I've watched. This pass is pretty mild compared to some that I've seen, and if I had my own scoring system for "super-ultra-mega-crappy plays" at -50 point deductions, dude would be deep in the red!

I get it... guy gets put in more rough spots than most... but I think it's time they put someone else in that spot. If the replacement then ranks in the bottom 2% of the league in areas of efficiency, roll the dice again, move em back, have a fire sale, I don't really care. This team is sad to watch, so they might as well spice it up after the contract blunder and seemingly failed top pairing experiment.





I know this is sorta all over, but we could talk about a whole host of items. Perhaps you could answer back with captures of your stats as they correspond? Obey86 already brought up some of the numbers, but I haven't seen a very pointed reply to counter. What do your stats say about his contention?

The numbers I read paint DeKeyser as a negative impact player by a large margin in big areas. The adjusted Corsi For% has DeKeyser almost dead last in the league among defensemen.

I like Paul Coffey's take on defense... they can't score if they don't have the puck. Designating defensemen as offensive or defensive is useless in this respect. Sure, you can use a guy that's big and can kill penalties, but what cap can he feasibly take up, and do you dare roll him in your top 4? How much worse would Sproul or Smith be up there (in terms of offensive generation and all that CF for stuff)? Every game that gets played is making it more clear that DeKeyser doesn't belong in the top 4, and probably never will. Just because Holland went hog wild with Danny doesn't justify his usage, and will do nothing but hurt negotiations with guys like Sproul and outside FA's in the future. Polishing this turd is gona be difficult for anyone not in the PR HoF.

IMO, Quincey is the bottom paring guy you want to kill PIMS and play where the Wings 'should' have DeKeyser slotted. You obviously don't lock him in at (the non-Holland 1 year price of) $1.25 million for term, but he's not a $5 million guy either. That makes it easier for the club to spend on top 4, or lock up futures that might project better along those lines. Danny is three months away from 27 and 29 is the average peak for NHL defenseman performance. Quincey turned 31 three months ago (still well within peak), and NHL defenseman decline slowest of the group (happening largely after 34). Quincey doesn't fill a top 4 void, but at the projected numbers, he isn't a cap black-hole like DeKeyser either.

Hate to say it, but this all goes back to Holland. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Holland didn't spend big, then try to fit that expensive square peg in a round top 4 hole. Not to blame KH for 9/11, but he's made some pretty unjustifiable moves in the past several years. So why might he have done this?

It's easy to click on anything Red Wings and see the Michigan narrative. Just go to their NHL site, or look at the feeder ads on the side of your pages, the Michigan stuff is pretty obvious. The only way the DeKeyser deal makes sense is through Michigan marketing lenses, so chalk it up to that, not building a winner. Basic psychology teaches us that humans are pretty good at addressing current threats, but have almost no ability to focus on future threats. So the conclusion for me is pretty clear: KH passed the buck to focus on short term survival and organizational profitability. DeKeyser never projected as a top guy, and the projections seem to be correct. A terrible gamble at the least, a move to sell tix and merch at worst.

 

[Frk It]

I really could care less about Giveaways or HERO charts, personally.

I think there is something to that zone exit tracking, and something to take away from the possession stats as well.

I think Dekeyser has been considerably worse at getting the puck out of our zone (we also have as a team) than years past. I'm wondering if that is because teams are forechecking harder on us than in the past... maybe because we are not as structured as we were under Babcock, and the league finally noticed just how bad our defense is? I don't think it's JUST Dekeyser... getting the puck out of our end seems like a chore for the majority of our back end not named Mike Green.

When your top defenseman are out there, you want to see a + shot differential 5 on 5.

Examples:

Letang: +42
Burns: +38
Doughty: +34
Subban: +22
Karlsson: +7

Side note- Dougie Hamilton is +46, really don't get why people think he would not help us...

Here is how our team fares:

Ouellet: +4
Sproul: Even
Green: -4
Ericsson: -12
Kronwall: -17
Marchenko: -23
Dekeyser: -28
Smith: -30 (lol)

So 1 positive player out of 8 guys. Smith being -30 when he is not even getting the hardest matchups is a joke. Deserved to be benched. Dekeyser is struggling a lot with his role though. If we had another defenseman similar to Mike Green our team would be much, MUCH better. That's why every time we have a trade rumor circulate people advocate for bringing in a player like that, even if he is "only a #3" or whatever people like to say. People said that about Green when he was on the bottom pair in Washington too. And he is by far the best we have. So maybe sometimes you have to take a chance on a good player buried on a deeper team.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I really could care less about Giveaways or HERO charts, personally.

I think there is something to that zone exit tracking, and something to take away from the possession stats as well.

I think Dekeyser has been considerably worse at getting the puck out of our zone (we also have as a team) than years past. I'm wondering if that is because teams are forechecking harder on us than in the past... maybe because we are not as structured as we were under Babcock, and the league finally noticed just how bad our defense is? I don't think it's JUST Dekeyser... getting the puck out of our end seems like a chore for the majority of our back end not named Mike Green.

When your top defenseman are out there, you want to see a + shot differential 5 on 5.

Examples:

Letang: +42
Burns: +38
Doughty: +34
Subban: +22
Karlsson: +7

Side note- Dougie Hamilton is +46, really don't get why people think he would not help us...

Here is how our team fares:

Ouellet: +4
Sproul: Even
Green: -4
Ericsson: -12
Kronwall: -17
Marchenko: -23
Dekeyser: -28
Smith: -30 (lol)

So 1 positive player out of 8 guys. Smith being -30 when he is not even getting the hardest matchups is a joke. Deserved to be benched. Dekeyser is struggling a lot with his role though. If we had another defenseman similar to Mike Green our team would be much, MUCH better. That's why every time we have a trade rumor circulate people advocate for bringing in a player like that, even if he is "only a #3" or whatever people like to say. People said that about Green when he was on the bottom pair in Washington too. And he is by far the best we have. So maybe sometimes you have to take a chance on a good player buried on a deeper team.

That last bit, I understand. But that doesn't mean you go ahead and deal three or four assets for that "only a #3". Like Mantha + Pulk + 1st (Svech) + Smtih for Phaneuf. Or four assets of good quality for Edler.

Most people have an issue because other teams want top pairing prices on basically their version of Danny DeKeyser or significantly more if the player is actually a big jump up and isn't 38 years old.

They need to find a trade that works... but they don't need to buy a mediocre defenseman at a Gold Rush premium.

 

[Frk It]

That last bit, I understand. But that doesn't mean you go ahead and deal three or four assets for that "only a #3". Like Mantha + Pulk + 1st (Svech) + Smtih for Phaneuf. Or four assets of good quality for Edler.

Most people have an issue because other teams want top pairing prices on basically their version of Danny DeKeyser or significantly more if the player is actually a big jump up and isn't 38 years old.

They need to find a trade that works... but they don't need to buy a mediocre defenseman at a Gold Rush premium.

Sure, sometimes the price is out of whack. But I could give you a bunch of reasons why Fowler or Dougie Hamilton are much better than their version of Dekeyser.

Point is, we need to make that kind of addition... I'd say desperately so if we want to extend the streak, or have even a shot at making it past the first round. But if Holland doesn't have the stomach for it, I won't be mad at a high draft pick this year.

There's no way anyone could think our defense is good enough as it stands. I really don't know why we haven't taken a shot on some buy-low opportunities, like Keith Yandle or Goligoski, if we are so averse to ponying up for a good/promising younger guy.

 

[avssuc]

I really could care less about Giveaways or HERO charts, personally.

I think there is something to that zone exit tracking, and something to take away from the possession stats as well.

I think Dekeyser has been considerably worse at getting the puck out of our zone (we also have as a team) than years past. I'm wondering if that is because teams are forechecking harder on us than in the past... maybe because we are not as structured as we were under Babcock, and the league finally noticed just how bad our defense is? I don't think it's JUST Dekeyser... getting the puck out of our end seems like a chore for the majority of our back end not named Mike Green.

When your top defenseman are out there, you want to see a + shot differential 5 on 5.

Examples:

Letang: +42
Burns: +38
Doughty: +34
Subban: +22
Karlsson: +7

Side note- Dougie Hamilton is +46, really don't get why people think he would not help us...

Here is how our team fares:

Ouellet: +4
Sproul: Even
Green: -4
Ericsson: -12
Kronwall: -17
Marchenko: -23
Dekeyser: -28
Smith: -30 (lol)

So 1 positive player out of 8 guys. Smith being -30 when he is not even getting the hardest matchups is a joke. Deserved to be benched. Dekeyser is struggling a lot with his role though. If we had another defenseman similar to Mike Green our team would be much, MUCH better. That's why every time we have a trade rumor circulate people advocate for bringing in a player like that, even if he is "only a #3" or whatever people like to say. People said that about Green when he was on the bottom pair in Washington too. And he is by far the best we have. So maybe sometimes you have to take a chance on a good player buried on a deeper team.

Agreed with HERO, the Smith HERO tells us this much.

Agreed on giveaways too, some pretty good players are far ahead of the Wings. Gotta crack some eggs.

For zone exits, I'd be curious if it's a league trend that might correlate to more youth and speed on NHL rosters. As the cap has stagnated, the usage of ELC's has increased by necessity. Outside of that, you mentioned the coach, and I'm inclined to agree. I've only watched 50% of the games this year and last, but it sure seems like the shift in structure has exposed the defense. Plus, Toronto has really clamped down, better cast, but still.

 

[obey86]

Sure, sometimes the price is out of whack. But I could give you a bunch of reasons why Fowler or Dougie Hamilton are much better than their version of Dekeyser.

Point is, we need to make that kind of addition... I'd say desperately so if we want to extend the streak, or have even a shot at making it past the first round. But if Holland doesn't have the stomach for it, I won't be mad at a high draft pick this year.

There's no way anyone could think our defense is good enough as it stands. I really don't know why we haven't taken a shot on some buy-low opportunities, like Keith Yandle or Goligoski, if we are so averse to ponying up for a good/promising younger guy.

They can't really afford any more money on the back end until one or both of kronwall or ericssons contracts are gone. I've said it before but until those contracts are gone they aren't going to be able to make wholesale changes on the backend.

 

[avssuc]

That last bit, I understand. But that doesn't mean you go ahead and deal three or four assets for that "only a #3". Like Mantha + Pulk + 1st (Svech) + Smtih for Phaneuf. Or four assets of good quality for Edler.

Most people have an issue because other teams want top pairing prices on basically their version of Danny DeKeyser or significantly more if the player is actually a big jump up and isn't 38 years old.

They need to find a trade that works... but they don't need to buy a mediocre defenseman at a Gold Rush premium.

Sure, sometimes the price is out of whack. But I could give you a bunch of reasons why Fowler or Dougie Hamilton are much better than their version of Dekeyser.

Point is, we need to make that kind of addition... I'd say desperately so if we want to extend the streak, or have even a shot at making it past the first round. But if Holland doesn't have the stomach for it, I won't be mad at a high draft pick this year.

There's no way anyone could think our defense is good enough as it stands. I really don't know why we haven't taken a shot on some buy-low opportunities, like Keith Yandle or Goligoski, if we are so averse to ponying up for a good/promising younger guy.

They can't really afford any more money on the back end until one or both of kronwall or ericssons contracts are gone. I've said it before but until those contracts are gone they aren't going to be able to make wholesale changes on the backend.

And this is another huge reason teams shouldn't spend to the cap. Not to derail the thread, but large amounts of cap spent on a guy that might stretch it as a #4 (DeKeyser) not only hurts dude as someone playing under unrealistic expectations, it cripples the future unless he starts defying the odds. The Wings aren't the only bottom feeder that didn't plan appropriately here, but they also have one of the more daunting outlooks for future LTIR usage and buyouts.


Looking forward to a 'very real' LTIR forecast, the Wings are in the suck pretty deep. With no idea of what the Vegas expansion will do to the cap, folks might anticipate a $3 million per year raise as per the norm. That puts the cap at roughly $77 million in 2018. That means the Wings will only be able to exceed the 2018 summer cap by $7.7 million, or put more horrifically, a half-million less than what Hank and Weiss add up to. This fails to include Franzen, Kronwall, and Ericsson (and if the parts keep breaking, 50/50 on Helm). Worst case (minus the hyperbole on Helm) means the Wings will have $20,704,545 spent on buyouts and LTIR to start 2018. The team will need to be $13,004,545 under the cap to start the 2018 season (meeting the 10% summer overage limit), placing the internal cap at $63,995,455. Only the Cains have that much space right now, and that's with 7 entry level contracts. The Wings may have to stay $13+ million under that anticipated cap with $44,666,667 spent as of now, $19,328,788 left to potentially keep:

-A full year after Tatar, Athanasiou, Jurco, Russo, Ouellet, and Frk will need a bridge or extension

-After doing something with Vanek

-In the summer that Larkin, Mantha, Lil Bert, Sproul, Coreau, Mrazek, Marchenko, Nastasiuk, Nosek, and Patterson will need to be bridged or extended

-After replacing/re-signing Green.

If all players are kept, they will need to average $1.36 on the contracts.

It's irrational to think that all of those players will still be around for this to happen, but we 'are' talking about a Tradeoholic, prospect rushing, tough as nails salary negotiator on organizational products... the myth, the man, the legend... Ken Holland. I suppose this assumes that he hasn't been run off by an angry mob by then.

This dystopian future could be lessened if the Wings were able to try their hand with the new trend that's paying off for a few teams recently: forgoing the bridge to extend long term for future cap savings. This relies a good deal on playing guys in the NHL for a good portion of their ELC's, so it already looks like an impossibility unless the fire sale starts tonight (a sale that would have been aided immensely by having free cap to take a bad contract or two). Not that I'd trust KH here either, but it's worth mentioning as another possible negative looming aspect, brought to us by the worst contract and ELC manager in the NHL.

Go Wings!