Leaderboard

In all seriousness, I'm sure Zetterberg has pull just like any captain does, which I am fine with. The whole Swedish mafia thing is a giant exaggeration of reality that was created by Jeff Moss (I think thats his name) as he just takes everything to the extreme, or flat out makes crap up.

HYPE! and LGRW!!!

Green is not below average. Indications are he wants to stay. If that's so then he's probably willing to sign a more than fair contract. That would mean he's not overpaid either.

Nyquist is such a sally with the puck, leave the purse in the locker room.

Not 4 years (or 5-6). 2-3 years or 7-8. Though I would expect Larkin (or his agent at least) to push for 4-6. 3 years he would still be RFA at the end. While I wouldn't expect that to lower the hit of his next deal too much, it would at least eliminate most of the risk of losing him. 4+ and he would be unrestricted. 4-6 years he would still be young enough to look for a big deal if things weren't going well with our rebuild. If you could get 7 or 8 years at $6M or less, I think it'd be worth it. It's some risk to be sure, but I don't think that's that much more than what he'd get for 3 years. And depending on what we do with the cap in those years, there some risk in the bridge deal as well. And we wouldn't give him another max term deal unless he earned it, especially not one for "a lot more money". Sure, if he plays like Zetterberg over the next 8 years we would, as we would if he plays like that until he's 32-33. But if he ends up more of a Filppula/Tatar level, we'll let him go or trade him. And in case anyone wants to be further confused: Mantha and AA are basically the same age, both signed their ELCs in the same year, both need 4 years pro for arbitration, both started in GR the same year, both got their first call-up to the Wings in the same year, and for the most part been full-time for the last two. So why is AA eligible while Mantha is not? Because Mantha was born after after September 15th, the NHL considers him a year younger rather than just over a month. So he was considered 19 for his first year in GR, while AA was considered 20. 19 year olds need 10 NHL games to count as a season. So there you go. Half the battle is over, if you believe anything Flint has to say.

Too Much Hype!!!

I dont get why you are so against signing Green, but want us to waste money on a guy like de Haan. Green is a very good offensive D-man, and I would love it if guys like Hronek and Cholowski were able to play with him. As for the "below average" part. Please explain? I can't see how you can justify this one. He currently ranks 36th in points for a D-man, and I believe he is top 30 if you look at PPG (taking out the guys who have not played alot of games). Each NHL team has 6 D-men playing each night which translates to 186 D-men. I get that points are not everything for a D-man, but how can you say a top 36/186 guy is "below average".

Should have traded that imbecile Nyquist. Single-handedly screwed up that powerplay with his overconfidence with the puck.

Vegas as well. I can see that being an attractive option for him.

I don't know the cap situations for all the teams, but I would imagine that the only teams that could afford him are probably not contenders. That actually increases the odds for the Wings to sign him.

Loyalty is a trait. You either have it or you don't. Holland seems to have it and it shows in some of his business dealings. Some GMs don't have it at all. It's all business to them. When he uses it or who he shows it to is debatable. It's based on one's judgment. You can't just say that when he trades a player you like or he takes a guy you like to arbitration that he is being disloyal. You also can't say that he's being too loyal whenever he re-signs someone you don't like to terms that you don't like. Those are not facts, they are opinions. That was kinda my point. There are some in here that do that. I personally do not believe that trading Mrazek was disloyal. I don't think taking AA to arbitration was disloyal. I don't think keeping Howard results from any kind of "loyalty". It was business. Any perceived "loyalty" that KH shows is to players who have shown commitment and loyalty to the team, which makes sense. Those guys are usually veterans. Guys on entry level deals haven't proven anything yet. When they put in their time, they'll probably get the loyalty treatment too. That's kinda how it works. Loyalty is like respect, its not given, its earned. Does he seem to show it moreso to veterans? Yes, but those are the guys who are the free agents. Those are exactly the guys you want to see Holland as loyal, particularly to guys who have put in their dues. Here's an analogy: I have 2 guys that work for me. One has been with me a long time. I hired him, trained him, and paid him well. He has a good work ethic, is reliable, and has experience and other intangibles that I value. He could work somewhere else doing the same job for the same money or more. Then I would lose all that I have invested in him. Instead, he chooses to work for me. The 2nd guy is much younger and has been with me only a short time. He shows good qualities, which is why I hired him. He is being trained, but I have invested much less in him. He works for me because he has no other options, and may leave when he has the chance. Which guy do you think I will be more loyal to? I would rather Holland be seen as too "loyal" than not. That perception will only increase the interest of players for this team, especially the older players who are free agents. His perceived "loyalty" may hurt the team at times, for sure. But I think it would hurt the team more if players saw Holland as being without loyalty, a suit who would throw his own Mother under the bus. I'll take the occasional overpayment if it means giving us a better chance at landing a player who can make a difference.

Yes please. If we land Tavares, extend Mantha as long as possible before he plays on Tavares’ line for even a season

I'll ignore the nonsense about Green being below average... But let's just say we don't re-sign him? Who's taking his spot? We don't have a single defenseman in the system ready to take over that role. Free agency? Carlson isn't going to be available. Who else is there?

He doesn't like soul food?

Was hoping we get ken Daniels and panger like last night.

I was just about to post a GDT, then you went and did it TWICE! Let's see how we do without ToeMash.

totally agree. Jensen and XO are both expendable. I really thought with Green out and the increased minutes and responsibility Jensen would thrive and maybe prove something. He hasn't. He's a 3rd pair guy. Same with XO. No issue with either of them really but they are exactly what they are. Kronwall needs to hang em up and my verdict is still up in the air on Ericsson. He has been better than average this year.

About as Swedish as Andy Garcia is Italian in Godfather Part 3. Bulls*** post as usual. You’re worse than fake news bro

I had my fair share of Holland frustration, but when faced with the reality of his leaving, I would be concerned that a replacement might not be an improvement. They would need to be really careful in who they hired. However, I have no such concerns about the coach!

What's your point? Do you think Malkin is a number 2 center just because he's slotted behind Crosby? Do you think there were 4 defensemen on that Caps team better than Green? Not even close. He was their 2nd (3rd at worst) best defenseman. He's better than Niskanen (in my opinion) and way better than Alzner, Orpik and Schmidt. Green finished that season on the "3rd pair" with 45 points, 2nd behind Carlson. He's a top 62 defenseman in the league, which makes him a top 2. Like I said, he's a top 3 defenseman on any team, top 2 on most, and number one on ours. Why would we let him walk? Are there better players available in free agency? I doubt it. Are there better players knocking on the door from Grand Rapids? No.

Green being re-signed should not block the likes of Hronek and Hicketts. There are plenty of blueliners on this team who could and should be axed to free up roster spots.

Larkin at 8 x 5mill would be incredible even just a couple years down the line. I would be stoked if we signed him to that. If the difference for Mantha were 4x4m or 6x5m, I’d try my best to get the extra years. I think AA will get a bridge deal though.. something like 3x3m, give or take 500k per year avg. All of that would be around a 13 mill cap hit. Which would give us around 8 mill more to take care of other RFAs and offer Green a smaller contract, if I’m reading cap friendly correctly. Sounds doable. This would also be acceptable. Although I’d fear what they’d want on their next deals, I’d understand them wanting shorter deals to cash in a few years down the line.

I gave it a D because Holland didn't trade all 12 roster players I hate and failed to obtain Karlsson

I'm stingy and I think Holland is too. And I think he can get this done. Larkin $4 million x 4 years AA and Mantha $3 million x 3 years.

I want Jett Woo with that Vegas pick off of name alone I just want to hear all of LCA yell “WOOOO!” Rick Flair style.