Leaderboard

The rationale is evidence. Trades have been made, Holland is on record saying he doesn't want to trade the top prospects. He has made a ridiculously low number of trades compared to even the conservative teams. Two years ago he wouldn't consider trading Mantha but won't give him a legit shot at making the roster because he had to sign guys like Vanek and Helm. It's like he's stuck between when they were contenders and needed immediate help and knowing they have no real shot short term and need to plan for 5 years down the road and he's trying to do both and screwing it up both ways.

This was my original point. Holland is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, and I'm the farthest thing from a Holland apologist.

Totally agree. Walked on in 2005 and busted his ass from then on out. His stay here was a few seasons too long, but Cleary belongs nowhere near this list.

Whoever thinks Cleary was a bust probably has zero clue what "bust" means. And is likely equating typical "I hate Dan Cleary" narrative with the concept of being a "bust". Aside from winning a Stanley cup with us he also scored the OT game winner against Anaheim in 2009. Not to mention he had two 20 goal seasons, a 26 goal season and scored more points than Datsyuk did in the playoffs at least 3 different times. Also scored more goals than Zetterberg did in 2011. So it's not even "efforts". He actually produced better than our star players did at times. And not just one time. Multiple times. His last playoffs with the Red Wings was in 2012-2013 where he scored 4 goals and 10 points whereas Dats scored 3 goals 9 points. Both played exactly 14 games. So lol. Can't believe I just had to defend Dan Cleary. He might have been a washed up player for the last 3 or 4 years who no longer belonged in the line up, but the guy was no bust. He made a career here when the Red Wings gave him a chance. And he won a Stanley cup in the process. Not many people in the league can say that about themselves. And not many teams can say that about other players they give opportunities to. Usually when a team gives a chance to a player whose career is falling apart or declining, they end up being a bust. Not Dan Cleary though. That guy ended up winning a Stanley cup, recovering his falling career and went onto play 10 more seasons with a successful franchise.

Don't get me wrong, I highly doubt they would do it. But if there was a team out there that was going to make a dumb trade due to an overreaction....it would be Philly.

Sorry, not going to give you the last word just because you say I should. You're the one bringing up how few trades Holland has made, as if it's evidence. I'm saying that the majority of trades are not "big" ones, and the reason Holland hasn't made a lot of trades could be very different than the reason he hasn't made the one big one he's said he wants to make. If Holland trades for Trouba tomorrow, he'll still have the lowest number of total trades. I would say that every team that does not currently have a Norris candidate is in a situation pretty similar to ours. Moreover, we have finished in the top half of the league every year, so I would assert that at least half the league has as much or more of a "desperate need" to acquire something big. Yet most of them haven't. You say there's quite a few teams stacked with D but starving for offense. Then why haven't there been more big trades? Are we the only team in the league with forwards we could part with? But I don't want to endlessly debate hypotheticals. I've already said that, hypothetically, the possibility for a trade exists. What I don't like is that you don't seem willing to accept that trading for a top defenseman is not entirely under Holland's control. You're reasoning that because big trades have happened before, they must always be available to every team and every situation. You're wrong. And you have no logic for Holland's motivations. You're just making an assumption, then drawing a conclusion based on it without even considering the possibility that the assumption could be wrong. It may look like I'm doing the same, but it's actually just the opposite. I'm looking at what's actually happened (or hasn't, in this case), then using logic to derive an assumption. I think the logic for why I believe Holland would want to add a top D, and be willing to part with some good assets to get one, and why some teams may not be interested in the assets we have are all pretty self-evident, but I'd be happy to explain my reasoning if you want. So what is your supporting logic? I know you think he's just unwilling to give up whatever, but why, in your mind, is he unwilling? What is his motivation in your theory?

AA is probably going to be a 20 goal 45 point player. A #2 D is lore valuable than that

I think we're going in circles. "Trades to improve your team" is one thing. A trade for a top D is very different, and much more rare. Most trades around the league are minor. Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players. Agree or not it does explain why we've made so few trades. My point about Boston is that every situation is unique, and you can't infer anything from any trade. And maybe I am stating the obvious in saying teams have to want what we have, but you don't seem willing to accept the possibility that some team out there might not. Maybe Wpg and Ana want a player and not just picks, but they don't want the players we have to offer. Or whatever, I'm not going to try to speculate reasons for every hypothetical scenario. I'm saying there are a lot fewer real trade opportunities than there are potential ones, and it makes far more sense to think we just haven't found a good match than it does to think Holland just isn't doing anything or willing to give up anything. And look at it from a different perspective. You think Wpg, Ana, StL, Col, etc. would all want what we're willing to offer, and you think all of them have a D they're willing to trade. Why wouldn't they have called Holland? Aren't they trying to improve their teams? Isn't that the whole reason they're willing to trade those D? Holland has said several times over the last several years that we'd like to add a top D, so even if you think Holland isn't taking any initiative it still seems likely that at least some teams would have contacted him. So again that puts us at "Holland must not be willing to give up anything". And I just can't believe that's true. Quote from Doug Armstrong: “Maybe my asking price is too high, or maybe I value him higher than other people,” Armstrong told reporters Friday, via the Post-Dispatch. “But I haven’t been anywhere close to what I think is representative of the value of Kevin Shattenkirk.” There are rumors that several teams have talked to StL about Shattenkirk, including the Wings. But he hasn't been traded. Same goes for many other rumored-to-be-available defensemen. There are reasons for that and it can't all be Holland. Now, maybe there's some price that Wpg would accept for Trouba, for example, that you would think is fair but Kenny thinks is too high. But you have to admit that maybe there isn't. And maybe the same is true in each of the few cases where some team has what we're looking for.

If Holland ranks dead last in trades over the last x amount of years, that tell me their are two main reasons. 1) Holland refuses to make a bad deal (think the Seguin trade). He likely turns down alot of trades, which on one hand pisses off a lot of fans, but on the other who wishes in retrospect that he pulled the trigger on the supposed Larkin/Myers deal. 2) Holland is not creative. To make trades sometimes you need to be able to get creative, maybe Holland and his team are just not good at that. Most likely answer, a combination of the 2 things above. When you have a GM who refuses to risk losing on deals AND is not creative, you rank dead last in trades.

Really? I think you're stretching a little trying to be flippant. Yes, Hamilton was traded for picks. That doesn't mean that every (or any even) other team out there is willing to trade a top defenseman for picks now. Even if one was, doesn't mean they would want to trade with us, especially right now. Our *picks* may not be worth any less than anyone else's *picks*, but the 15th overall pick in that draft could easily be valued differently than our uncertain-position-1st-rounder in next years draft. A team like Boston could easily see more value in sending a good player to a team outside the conference than to a division rival. Every deal, every team, every player, every prospect, every situation is unique. I'm not saying "We don't have the assets." as some absolute. The value of what we could potentially offer, to the extent that we can make an objective valuation, is enough to potentially make a deal. More than one even. But that doesn't matter. It's not the National Hypothetical League. What matters is that there has to be a specific situation where a team is willing to move a player we think is or will be what we want AND that team has to want whatever it is we are willing to offer AND want it more than any other offer they get AND it has to work for both teams in terms of the cap AND we have to actually find that deal. Only the last part and half the cap fit part are things Holland has any control over. I think history proves pretty well that the first part is uncommon to say the least. Second and third is pure speculation. But in the absence of any kind of rationale for why Holland would be intent on keeping all of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, AA, Svech, our higher picks, and whatever else, I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal.

Some say the reason the Red Wings backed into the playoffs last year even though we lost our last game was because Don Zetterberg made a phone call to Erik Karlsson before the Ottawa vs. Boston game. Some say he made Karlsson an offer he couldn't refuse. The end result was 6-1 Ottawa allowing the Wings and the Swedish Mafia entry into the playoffs.

Howard's 5 year deal....but you're right about the other guy too.

At least it's only 2 years. He'll either earn more or not. Not like it's 5 years when he's already declining.

What are you takling about? In his two years here during the playoffs he had a GAA of 1.75 and a save % of .928. Top multi year playoff numbers for any Wings goalie since his time here. Not to mention he handled the Hasek s***show of 03 pretty darn well.

Better. Pros: 1) 1 Year ago we didn't even have Datsyuk, he was recovering from a surgery and Neilsen is better then an injured and or not playing Datsyuk. 2) Vanek in 2016 is better then Richards in 2015. 3) Blashill has now had 1 year to coach in the NHL, logic would dictate that he will be better prepared in 2016 then 2015. 4) Every player that struggled/regressed with the new system should be better this year (Abby, Helm, Tatar, Nyquist, Sheahan, Jurco, etc.) 5) Larkin, AA, Mantha should all keep getting better. 6) Mrazek should keep growing as a goaltender 7) Better Assistant Coaches Cons: 1) Zetterberg/Kronwall are definitely wild cards, will they come in healthier and put up better season, or will they continue their regression. Odds are regression. 2) E should just keep getting worse 3) Datsyuk is Gone. He did show up in some games and give us the Datsyuk of old, we will never get that again.The high scoring Boston game comes to mind.