Carman

Yep no defense for this, have at him. Doan should be something the Wings go after. Unless he gets more than 2 years, if so I'd understand. If he signs somewhere for 2 years though I'm not going to be happy.

adding 7 million dollar 21goal scorer sure would help

But at least the money wouldn't be wasted on a player that hasn't proved himself to be a good teammate. and would fill the need of a top pairing defenseman.

Woah woah, you can't compare a Suter deal to Semin. Suter has no past issues in attitude, and has produced consistently every season.

Either way Franzen's caphit is lower, and he's proved to be much much more productive in the post season.

It is, I think I'm way off course on what I'm trying to mean haha. All I'm trying to say is I don't feel there was a move to be made based on the moves that were actually made, and you guys apparently think there was a move even though none were made. I don't know how to discuss impossibilities like that. Why do you feel there had to be a move Holland messed up on? Why couldn't there just been nothing he could have done? Finding a top pairing defenseman is a very difficult process, I sincerely doubt there was an option for Holland to bring one in and he passed on it.

Sure liking this speculation word today. There is a difference in speculation and probability though. I prefer speculation based on past information that can be verified, rather than speculation based on nothing. We got here because people criticize Holland for being in this situation, and I just want to know why they feel that way, and how they came to that conclusion.

That lazy unmotivated Franzen made 3 million less and had more production than Semin. If Semin is an elite player, then so is Franzen. Hell Franzen has a much better post season PPG than Semin. Not at all, I'm just saying what I think the situation was, and how I personally feel about Semin on the Red Wings. If Semin has a good year in Carolina, and doesn't cause any trouble I'll gladly take my words back. I just feel, with the information I have, that he would not have been a good gamble. I don't think there is a right or wrong. It will have to play out, all we have to go on is our on thoughts and projections.

No it's not, because we know the moves that have been made in the past 3-5 years. And the fact that no top pairing defenseman has switched teams is evidence that it was not possible for Holland to get that defenseman. If Duncan Keith, Chara were all getting traded the past few years and Holland didn't get one, then that's the evidence of Holland not making the right deals. And yes I don't know all the possibilities of trades that could of happened, that's why I'd imagine we would focus on the players that did get traded and see if their was a player that was moved that Holland missed on.

No just guessing based on knowing how marketing works and how PR works. You use every avenue to increase the value of the player, and to me it looks like that's what they did based on your comment. You also have to think getting Semin away from Ovechkin and the young team might help them and putting Semin with Datsyuk for a full year might just hurt the Wings chemistry in the locker room

He's the one that brought in the hockey game analogy, I'm not a big fan of it. And my logic is yes, both are speculations, but one is speculation based on actual trades that happened, and the other is speculation on trades that never actually happened. So yes in my eyes there is a clear difference.

Probably, the headache Semin might be would outweigh what his goal scoring prowess might be. Washington had enough of him, and it seems Holland wasn't sold on Semin being a Stanley Cup caliber piece. I believe Holland has to build a Stanley Cup team, not a playoff team. And I really don't think Semin is going to be able to play that #1 winger role on a Stanley Cup team. Sounds more like a PR move to try and raise Semin's non existent offers.

Maybe that's because there was no move Holland could have made, and any effort to criticize Holland on that stance is ignorant? Look it's possible to criticize Holland for lot's of things, Quincey trade/signing, McCollum/Ferrarro drafting, signing Williams, not signing Semin etc. I'm just saying if you are going to criticize Holland have a reason.

The risk would be his example being shown day in-day out to players like Nyquist/Brunner/Smith. The Red Wings must have thought that risk would outweigh any rewards he would have. And so did a lot of other teams, or else a prior 40 goal scorer wouldn't have to settle nearly a month into free agency for a one year deal.

They are both speculation, but at least we know the player traded was a greater possibility. Seems more plausible that the Wings could have signed Erhoff rather than Chara right? And when the Wings lose I can usually understand what happened, I see if there was a missed assignment on a goal, I look and see if there was a bad penalty, I see if our special teams was an issue, I'll consider many different situations that make up the hockey game. The one thing in common is I know exactly what plays happened, and who was responsible. I'm not speculating on something I'm not sure would of happened, I'm focusing on the events in game that did. Which in your analogy would be focusing on the player moves in the past seasons to see what we know happened, not speculating on the players that didn't get moved.

Not the type of person I want in the locker room with the young kids we'll have up next season. If he can handle playing in Carolina, produce, and stay out of trouble I'll eat my words.

Sooo what d-men outside the organization are you thinking of? And who says Brendan Smith can't develop into a top pairing defenseman? He has as good or better shot as anyone else the Wing's could have drafted the past 4 years in my eyes at least.

But Girardi never switched teams, that's moot. If he was traded at the deadline, then there's your evidence that Holland isn't doing the right moves. I don't see what's so radical about me asking for players that actually switched teams, I feel it's a fair circumstance that if we are looking for moves Holland should have done, we should probably start with players that actually moved. Just seems logical to me.

I'm asking people for players that have actually been traded, because at least then we know it was possible they were to be traded. And we don't know Holland could have landed them, but at least we know they were tradeable in hind-sight rather then just making up that a player we think was tradeable when he never ended up switching teams. I'm not shooting things down, I'm asking for rational moves that Holland could have made to avoid this situation. Just saying he's done a bad job isn't good enough for me, I want to know individual events that he should have and could have made. It might be different for other people, and they are content with criticizing people without any knowledge of events that could improved the situation. I guess I'm different and want to know what move Holland should have made instead of what he actually did rather then just looking at the result and complaining. I just don't understand the complaints without evidence. If Enstrom gets traded tomorrow for a reasonable price, then boom there's my evidence that Holland isn't doing a good enough job. But there hasn't been a top tier defenseman that I know of that's switched teams that would fill what the Red Wings need other than Suter, I want people to bring up Erhoff, Burns, Carle, Shultz etc., and discuss how those players would make a better Red Wings team in the future, for my angle at least I know those players actually moved to a new team. I understand this is a forum, and this is my defense of Holland. I feel if you criticize someone you should have reasonable reasons as to what he didn't do, rather then he didn't anything. I'm not trying to quell anything, I feel people can criticize Holland for trading for Quincy, signing Ian White, drafting McCollum etc. Because these are things that happened, and we look back on other options and how the franchise would fair with different moves. But just blaming Holland for not doing anything? I just don't understand it, and am posting on the forum to get a better understand of it.

That's why it's ludicrous to criticize Holland on a situation that "you" don't know existed. The burden of proof is on you guys who are saying he should have done something, and yet you can't come up with a reasonable player that would fix the problem. How do you hold someone accountable for messing up a situation that never existed? Rational people have evidence that they argue for, I'm not shooting down anything, if you think Carle, Erhoff, Burns etc. are legitimate top pairing defneseman and would fit into the Red Wings system and are worth commiting long term to, that's your opinion, they are good hockey players, I don't necessarily agree that they would be good fits, but at least you bring up reasonable situations that we "know" Holland could have done and can discuss how the moves would have put the Red Wings in a better place right now and in the future. Arguing what-if's of trades that actually happened is bad enough, arguing non-existant what-ifs trades is an even larger assumption that I personally don't see the rational logic behind. Fact is we don't know what Holland could have done, but I'd rather focus on the trades and players we know have moved teams, and know without doubt Holland could have landed, rather then making up trade scenarios that might have never been a possibility. If that's too much to ask, then I guess I'll let people bash Holland for not trading for Chara, Karlsson, Doughty etc. I know I'd rather talk about situations that actually happened, and see if there are lessons to be learned in the past, rather then making up our own history and debate about things that we aren't sure were ever a possibility.

Shultz hasn't played an NHL game. Not to mention he wanted to play in Edmonton. Carle would not have been a good fit, he's slow, the absolute opposite of physical(fewest hits on his defense with the most games), gives the puck away more often, and doesn't win battles defensively. He's a good second pairing puck mover, but he's not what the Red Wings need in a top pairing dman especially when you have to commit 6 years to him. Weber wasn't coming here, and he didn't even end up switching teams. Suter is really the only top pairing defenseman that would have made the Wings better. I don't see a move that would have made the Red Wings a cup contender, if you really think Carle can play top line minutes then I guess I can't argue there, I just think Carle is very overrated and is too similar to White/Kronwall/Smith, we need to think defensively in my opinion. A willie mitchell type defenseman would be much more valuable then another offensive dman. It's not Holland's fault a top pairing defenseman is rare, bashing him for not finding a needle in a haystack is unfair in my view. It's not like his missing out on Chara getting traded for a first rounder, if he doesn't get a deal done on a top pairing defenseman and they do get traded then go ahead and bash him. But the top pairing defenseman the Red Wings needed was Suter, and there wasn't a move in the past 4 years that would have made us into a cup contender on the blueline. Holland won't make a rash move to appease the twitter world. He's going to make the right move.

Mind answering my question then? If it's that simple, which defenseman are you thinking he should have went after? Same with The Axe above me. Which defenseman that has been traded/free agent the past few seasons are you guys thinking of? I'd love to know. Bring something to the table.

Gotcha, well he didn't seem to wear a visor in any fights last year.

Sure, blame an NHL athlete on taking reasonable precautions on his future health and well-being by wearing a visor. Please, wearing a visor has no effect on someones "toughness", if anything it shows they actually have the mental capacity to understand that the benefits of wearing one far outweigh any negative effects it might have.

What defenseman traded/free agent the past 3 years would have been a very good top pairing defenseman for the Red Wings moving forward in the future? If a top tier defenseman gets traded to anyone but the Wings, and the offer isn't something completely ludicrous I'll start blaming Holland, but the only defenseman that fits what the Red Wings need the past few years was Suter, if you want to argue Burns I'll understand it, I just don't think the trade would have for value(Setoguchi,Coyle and a first would be equivalent to Filpulla, Smith/Nyquist and a first , and I'm not sold on Burns fitting in our puck possession game, he takes a lot of risks, something the Red Wings defense probably has enough of. I'd like to hear(in reasonable hindsight obviously we probably wouldn't have been able to trade for Weber/Chara etc.) on players that have been moved, what you think Holland should have done? I can't see a defenseman that I'd personally feel good about going forward with for the next 5 years other than Suter, and Holland did all he could to get him. The situation is not dire, there is plenty of time, cap space, and assets for Holland to work with. If he strikes out and the Wings miss the playoffs, Yandle or Enstrom get moved for cheap then there is reasonable examples of Holland not getting the players we need.