NJDevs4978 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Nobody's taking away from how Detroit built their team, but FBF initially responded (took offense?) to a post saying teams can either buy or have great drafts to get offense. Detroit's done well with their farm system but again they have one of the top five payrolls in the league. That's just a fact, that's not taking away from what Holland's done. Saying a team buys its offense doesn't neccesarily mean they don't use their farm system or only use free agency. I guess I must be the only one that understood the point of the initial post that started this Detroit debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Big deal. Why is it always about payroll, payroll, payroll? The idea that the Devils are cheap is not accurate. They may not overpay most of their players but they certainly have to give their guys raises to keep them. They can afford their core. Does it matter if Detroit's in the top four and the Devils are in the top ten? Both are still in the upper echelon of markets. And this idea that all their players are drafted is off tangent. Where did Lamoriello get Langenbrunner from and Friesen? Where did Larionov, Kozlov and Hrdina come from? How about Rasmussen and Stevenson? And when you can make deadline deals for higher salary guys, that means you have enough resources to take on more to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTCB Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Big deal. Why is it always about payroll, payroll, payroll? Because a lot of people are brainwashed by E$PN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 THIS was the original post, that FBF decided to write a whole novel against defending Detroit. There are two ways to get scoring in this league:- finish last about 6 years in a row and draft scoring (ala Ottawa) - buy it, like Colorado, Detroit or Flyers It barely could be construed a shot, it was just a sardonic remark. Now unless I'm mistaken all of those teams have a higher payroll than the Devils. There have been some years where the Devils have squeezed into the top ten overall (I don't think this is one of them), but I'd hardly calling that buying an offense. Especially when most of those years our offense has been average, save for '94-95, '00-01. Did Detroit build through free agency? No, although they have acquired 'certain' FA's like Hull, etc. But did their money enable them to keep their stars AND trade for salary dumps a la Lang, Schnieder, whoever? Yes. Plus, when was the last time the Devils kept anyone that was a UFA and an offensive player? Federov was probably the first time Detroit LOST one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Where did Lamoriello get Langenbrunner from and Friesen? Where did Larionov, Kozlov and Hrdina come from? How about Rasmussen and Stevenson? And when you can make deadline deals for higher salary guys, that means you have enough resources to take on more to win. Who said all the Devil players were drafted? Other than Mogilny and Gilmour (who were extended rentals) the Devils don't usually trade for high-salaried guys though. Langenbrunner was in the Arnott deal that wasn't exactly a salary dump. How much are Kozlov and Hrdina making COMBINED? 4, 4.5 million? Larionov was basically a cheaper option than Nieuwendyk and not one of Lou's better moves. Rasmussen was a bargain-basement FA. Stevenson was a 'future considerations' part of some trade. Nobody's saying you can't trade. Hell Detroit's the second-best organization in the league based on both accomplishments and the way they use the farm system as opposed to teams like the Rangers. But all this talk about how much they use the farm and the definition of buying a team and whatnot is just glossing over the original point that it takes money (or a ton of draft picks) to have a good offense. Period. THAT was the point of the original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Actually, Detroit did both those things, which is why they are a powerhouse. Yzerman was drafted #4 overall. Detroit of the early 80's were NOT what you would call a "GOOD TEAM". Even by 89-90, they were still picking up the #3 overall pick (Keith Primeau). And for free agents, they have brought in Hull, Robataille... taken on salary... Lang, Schnieder You want offense, you finish near the basement of the league and draft high or you buy it. Detroit has done both. There are exceptions (Datsyuk, Elias) where you can find diamonds in the rough but those certainly are not the rule. Yeah, we had just as bad an 80s as Detroit. Difference was that they could afford to keep Stevie Y throughout that whole time. Only player we could afford to keep from beginning to end was Ken Daneyko (not that that's a bad thing - but I'm sure Ken will tell you that he's no Yzerman). ----------------------------------------------------------------- My whole point was that simply saying "go get some offense and you won't have to rely on Brodeur" is far, far, far easier said than done. We would have to go through some really lean years or move the franchise. I don't think I like either option, so relying on Brodeur and our D seems like a better plan to me. Keeping a team as a cup competitor for 10 years on our budget is no easy feat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyBlueFish203 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Not once in my big "novel" did I say that Detroit doesn't spend money. My only beef is against people who like to accuse high profile teams of "buying" their Cups. Like I said, you can either be ready to spend money or you can become the Edmonton Oilers. Now I love the Oilers so this is not a dig against them, but anyone would be silly not to notice what lack of financial aid can do to a team. The Oilers have been forced to become the farm team for the entire NHL. Detroit spends because they can afford to spend. They have a high payroll and they can afford to support that payroll. But their payroll doesn't take away their Cups because they've got a solid group of guys who've been here from day 1, and when those guys leave there will be another group of guys who will take over - all homegrown. These 3 Cups Detroit has won recently have come with hardwork and team effort. To quote Mitch Albom, "This is the team of Steve 'Glue me together and I'll play' Yzerman," and this spirit runs down that lineup. And yet again I say, if only spending money mattered, Glen Sather would be King. I really hope my point was much clearer this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Exactly. And if you look at recent Cup winners, they rented players to help them win. Maybe a little later on when I am home, I'll go through the list. Has, one question on Viktor Kozlov: Is he worth the money he's making given how he's played right now? He can be a lot better than what he's shown. But if Burns isn't going to play him, it's a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 (edited) See...proves my point and I didn't even have to read the posts..."I can do that you cannot"....you can say something about another team but if someone does the same about yours you have a fit....yours are unbiased opinions and everyone else is against your team if they say something about the Rags that is THEIR opinion...hypocrisy Derek...tsk tsk Edited April 14, 2004 by StarDew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.