Buppy

A few PS games aren't going to override every other bit of evaluation the team has done on a player. It's just a handful of games. Like I said originally, a fans idea of what "does really well" means is likely far lower than management's. And it wouldn't be enough to just outperform someone at the bottom of the roster. They won't waive someone just to have a kid sit in the pressbox. We have a lot of guys we can probably count on for 15+ goals and 30+ points. To earn a spot, a kid probably needs to show that we should expect a fair amount better than that. Not just potential, but actually expect that. Nothing Mantha has done in the last couple years says we should expect that, so it's probably unlikely that there's anything he could do in TC/PS to change that. AA would be a bit closer, but he'd still have to be pretty amazing in camp.

Well, considering Larkin was ahead of Nyquist, Tatar, Richards, Franzen, and Sheahan from day one (Helm was out the first handful of games) it's not too hard to imagine that he could have displaced one of them. Most likely one of Sheahan or Helm getting bumped to a checking line, with Ferraro or Andersson being waived (as they eventually were anyway). But that's pretty pointless speculation. Yeah, maybe Larkin wasn't so good that he would have gotten a roster spot in any possible situation, but he most definitely did earn his spot. Many of the reasons you give for suggesting that Larkin was given some special opportunity could also apply to AA/Mantha this year. Could apply to pretty much any team any year. There's always someone who leaves, or is on the way out, and injuries happen. From the estimates given, it seems probable that Pulk won't be ready right away. Z is still aging. Vanek's only on a one-year deal. But more to the point, there is always a spot available for a good enough player. If we had Ovechkin instead of Mantha there wouldn't be any question. If AA comes to camp and looks dominant, scores 8g and 14p in 5 pre-season games, generates HQ scoring chances every shift, is engaged and effective defensively...he'll make the team, even if it means waiving someone we don't really want to lose. Now, if he looks just "good" in a handful of mostly meaningless games, no, we probably won't risk losing someone. Wouldn't be worth it, given that injuries are inevitable and he'll get his shot sooner or later.

I would say absolutely, without even the slightest trace of doubt, yes. Though probably at the expense of Jurco/Pulk rather than Miller/Ott. However, I would bet that "kill it in camp" means something wildly different to management than it does for fans. For fans it's probably something like score a goal or just skate fast one time in a highlight clip. But let's turn that around. Hypothetically, if both AA and Mantha suck in camp/pre-season, would anyone that currently thinks they should be on the roster change their mind?

True, but that also highlights some of the other differences between the eras. Trades for star players were more common. We traded Murphy for Carson, Carson for Coffey, and Coffey (with Primeau) for Shanny. Then there was the influx of Russian and European players during the same time. So we had three things going for us then that we don't have now. Plus, we weren't exactly flying then to say we rebuilt on-the-fly. Relatively similar to where we are now I suppose, but fewer teams to compete against. Not to say that it's impossible to build on the fly, just that it isn't the same situation. But we still have AA and Mantha. I'd be shocked if AA at least doesn't get a significant amount of games. Mantha I'm sure will get an opportunity, and if he produces I'm sure he'll stick. More depth is better than less depth. More options are better than fewer options.

Wasn't the same back then. In the 8 seasons from 83 through the first year of our current streak 91, 5 of the 6 times we made the playoffs we had a .500 or lower record. We also picked 11th or higher in the draft for 7 of those years, and 17th in the other year.

There may be some element of that, but it's probably more due to a lack of good scoring talent. Glendening gets a lot of flak, like he's the worst player in the league or something. But the fact is he produces pretty decently for a lower line forward. Low end 3rd-line or high end 4th. Over the last two years, there are 232 forwards with more goals, and 264 with more points. Of 466 forwards to play at least 400 minutes over the last two years, he's 309th in on-ice GF60, and 79th in on-ice GA60. And he takes many of the tough minutes, making things a bit easier on other players. Who can say what that's worth. While we have a lot of skill players, and we could maybe pull off four scoring lines (and I was saying even last year I'd like to see us try it), I doubt it would make any significant difference. You put Mantha, Jurco, Pulk, etc. on a lower line, with little PP time and without better linemates, chances are they won't produce much (if any) more than Glendening. Miller now is a different story. He hasn't been productive in several years. I would hope he'll be out of the lineup more often than not. Ott is an unknown. Didn't do much in StL, but was good in Buffalo prior to that. Maybe he'll get back to that, maybe he's just too old. Worth a look at least I think. I'd like Pulk and Jurco to get more of an opportunity before we give up on them, same for AA and Mantha of course but we have more time with them, but I don't think they'd make any real difference from the bottom 6.

I think if we can't trade one of them, we'll use Pulk's spot to keep both Sproul and Ouellet protected. So barring any trades, further injuries, or a truly excellent training camp, I expect AA to start out in GR. But I also expect at some point sooner rather than later, a spot will open up and he'll move up for good.

You wait until the trade deadline and you might not have the same options. I also have my doubts about Trouba and Fowler, but I'd do that Shattenkirk deal in a heartbeat. (And for the record, StL only scored 10 more goals than the Wings, so they weren't much better.) I'd also take Vatanen or Lindholm (and maybe Manson) if we were to target an Anaheim D. On the flip side, there's a chance that an even better option would open up by the trade deadline, but given our cap situation that seems unlikely. I agree that we have enough talent up front that expecting better isn't a stretch. But I also think we have enough talent that we can expect better even without one of Nyquist or Tatar. One of them (or maybe both) is likely to be in a lower line role anyway, while AA and Mantha may not be on the team at all.

But upgrading a defenseman doesn't necessarily only upgrade the defense. Shattenkirk scored more points, and only a few less goals, than Nyquist last year. Add to that having options like AA, Mantha, Jurco, and Pulkkinen all likely to be underused or not on the roster at all... Of course, when bringing in new players, there's always questions as to how well everything will come together and how well any individual will perform, but I don't think it'd be any more of a question than what we already have. It'd be one thing if our offense had been good last year, but it wasn't. It's already something we need to try to fix.

"Trades to improve your team" and a trade for a top defenseman are two different things. A finite number of those players even exist, and only a fraction of them will be available for trade at any given time. Only one team can actually acquire any one player. So very obviously that kind of trade is not always available to everyone. If what you think was true, those kinds of trades would be far more common. As for what makes me think that; it's primarily an assumption that Holland isn't an idiot. He says he wants to add a top D. Doing so would cost some good assets, and since Holland's not an idiot he would know that. Therefore, I can only conclude that he'd be willing to do it. But I'll give you this. We probably could get someone if we were willing to pay any price at all. In that sense, you could maybe even say a big trade is always available. But that shouldn't be the question. No, he's probably not willing to pay just any price at all. The question is what is the right price? And is "right" the same for us as it is for the team we're trying to trade with?

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?

No more so than yours: A trade is available therefore Holland must not be willing to make a trade because he hasn't. Maybe it's true for small trades, but of "all the trades", very very few of them involve the kind of defenseman we're looking for. If Holland had made 30 trades over the last few years, and the team was still in the same position, would anyone be any happier? The reality is that most of the roster juggling around the league is pointless.

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.

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.

I just don't understand the logic for why Holland would want to hoard assets like you and others seem to be saying. Doesn't make any sense. We won't be able to keep everyone anyway. Is it that hard to believe that there might be some team out there that isn't all that interested in the few good pieces we have to offer?

You're making a lot of assumptions. Kind of pointless to debate it as nothing can be proven either way. I just don't see any logic as to why Holland would be unwilling to move some of those guys. There was even a rumor a few years ago that we were offering Nyquist or Tatar (or both) for Bouwmeester. Some rumors last year that we were offering Smith. Maybe Mantha too, or maybe he just became less "untouchable". Svech (as well as Jurco and Pulk) aren't anything more than what Holland has traded in the past. We did just trade our 1st, so obviously picks are on the table in the right deal. And more bodies does not necessarily make a trade better. Especially right now when many teams are already struggling to figure out whom to protect. Seems much more plausible to me that the teams that have what we want don't want what we have. And finally, simply "wanting" isn't even enough. The sense of value of a player/prospect/pick has to be somewhat similar on both sides. At some point, there's a price even you wouldn't pay for Trouba.

And how many Trouba/Barrie/Shattenkirk-level defensemen have been traded in the last 5 years? I'm not just talking Norris candidates, and I don't think Holland is either. Top-pair, or even potential top-pair, defensemen just don't get traded very often. Our trade assets right now are Nyquist/Tatar (maybe both), Smith, and a handful of OK prospects. Hardly anything we should think the rest of the league would be kicking down our door to get. Hockey players aren't currency. They don't have a real value. They're worth whatever the team we're trying to trade with thinks they're worth. It isn't far-fetched at all to think that maybe the few teams who might be offering what we want don't think that what we have to offer is that valuable. And this started with me responding to you saying Holland needs to make an impact trade for a top-pair D. If you want to think smaller than that, I already said I think we should and most likely could do more in that area. But I understand why Holland doesn't want to use our limited assets in deals that probably aren't going to make much difference.

Maybe you're definition of top-tier is just a lot different than mine, because I would highly doubt there are a dozen available. I don't think there's been that many traded in the last 5 years. Not making excuses. Holland has made it pretty clear that he's not looking for those kinds of trades. I think I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with him on that. Just saying I believe him when he says what he's looking for isn't out there.

No, I don't think that would even be close. "Hysterically ridiculous" is probably how I'd characterize that offer. You say every team is making trades, but again there have been very few trades for real impact players, and almost all of those are including players or picks much more valuable than what you seem to think it would take. And if you're going to give other teams credit for small trades, you have to do the same for Holland. Like I said, I don't think Holland has made enough small trades. But he's made it pretty clear that he's not looking to, and I can at least understand the logic. Sure, we might be a bit better if we had traded for guys like Yandle and Coburn, but if we had used up assets for that and then saw Subban go for something similar we'd be kicking ourselves. And would be enough "better" to really matter anyway? Again, I don't think the big trade is out there right now, so I'd say go for the small one, but I do understand why Holland wouldn't. Is there "a" trade out there? Probably. A good enough trade? That's another thing entirely. Is there a trade for Faulk or Fowler or Trouba? I doubt it. If there was, I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't have happened already. But things change all the time. A trade that wasn't there yesterday might be there tomorrow. We just have to hope that if one is out there, the team actually wants what we're selling.

Easy enough to say "they absolutely would", but I have to think if it was that easy it would have happened by now. In those last 4 years, there's been a dozen or so good defensemen traded, and I'd say only a few who would really make a difference for us. Subban/Weber obviously weren't an option. We have nothing like Johansen so no on Jones too. Hamilton, and it's debatable whether or not he'll become a true top pair guy, went for quite a lot. Hell, Adam Larsson went for Hall. I think when Holland says that teams don't want spare parts, it means he's actually tried to do just what people are saying, and no one is biting. I just don't think that the few teams out there who might have a good defenseman to trade are all that interested in Nyquist or Tatar, and piling a bunch of garbage on top of them doesn't make it any better. Worse, even. Personally I think we should be thinking smaller; try to make a few small upgrades rather than look for the one big one, even though it might not make a very big difference. But I can't really blame Holland for trying to hold on to assets. If a deal does come along, it'll have been worth waiting for. I just have little confidence that one will. Our best hope is probably to have Mantha and AA show some real star potential this year, and use one of them to get help on D.

Cholowski was the next D after Stanley. Seems the organization just really wanted a defenseman. My philosophy is always best-player-available (other than goalie), but I can understand the rationale. Our prospect pool is very thin on defense.

So wait, your original argument was that we were relying too much on the draft, now you're saying that we didn't make the right picks, but then in the next paragraph you go back to drafting too much. I don't think you even have any clue what it is you want to say.

Building through the draft doesn't mean every player on the roster. It doesn't even necessarily mean most of the team. It mostly means the top players. It is far easier to get top end players through the draft than by trade or UFA. In the entire lockout era there have been only a small handful of the type of top players we need who have moved teams. We're not worse because we've been drafting too much. We've gotten worse because the players we need aren't available.

Eichel had only 8 more points than McDavid, in 36 more games. I don't think it takes any ifs and assumptions to say that McDavid was the better player. If he wins it I wouldn't like it, but I think he deserved the nomination. I also think Gost should win. Phenomenal performance for a rookie defenseman.

As of now, it looks like only Arizona, Carolina, and NJ might need help getting to the floor. All of those teams have a lot of spots to fill, so they might get there anyway. We can hope that more than one of them needs help, but if there's only one team that ends up having any interest, they could ask for a lot if they think we're more desperate than they are. Most likely it will be fairly cheap. I would think less value than even Pulk. But you never know. Could be that no one even needs it. Ducks are nowhere near the cap, unfortunately. Like $20-22 million, and not much they need to do. They are a budget team though, so they probably don't want to spend to the cap. Though if they're worried about that, they'll likely move someone at the draft.