kipwinger

Yzerman, Draper, and Verbeek all scouting Rossi last night according to The Athletics Max Bultman.

Watching Marco Rossi on NHL network right now. He's going to be better than Lafreniere. Mark it.

Nobody said Sakic or Shanahan made their teams good. I said that they did a lot their first year, and implied that an "assessment year" in which you do very little of substance is unnecessary. In the future I'm happy to debate with you, but I'd prefer you respond to what I actually said, and not what Edit: Also, now that I look closely at it, I'm gonna call bullsh*t on the "nothing stands out" comment too. Sakic traded a top young center for two prospects who are still playing big roles on the team now and a 2nd round pick; and added Stuart and Soderberg (top 4 defenders with Stanley Cups) and Daniel Briere (a bona fide star). Shanahan traded a young top four defenseman for a first round pick, cleared a massively bad contract (Clarkson), and traded a depth defenseman for a 2nd round pick. So yeah, hardly sitting on their hands here.

Presumably when a) he can clear some of the Kapanens and Johnssons from the roster and replace them with b) non-Patrick Marleau vets who don't cost a ton for minimal production.

You're on crack. Most of the credit goes to Datsyuk and Zetterberg for prioritizing two-way play themselves. If Mike Babcock taught them to play the right way, then why didn't he do the same with Matthews, Marner, and Nylander? A portion of the credit does go to Mike Babcock no doubt. He was the coach after all. But another portion of the credit goes to all those vets on the team that made sure Dats and Z were accountable every day. Pretty hard to play half-assed hockey when Yzerman, Shanahan, Lidstrom, Draper, Malty, etc. are on the team telling you to do otherwise.

I agree with all of this. Plus, he was 25 and his age doesn't fit with our rebuild timeline. Same is gonna happen to Mantha soon too. Those five goals in the first two games bought him some time, but his 8 goals in the next 37 games is glaring. Most "star" level players are basically as good as they're going to be at 25 or 26 anymore. If you're not, it's on you.

Lol. Doubt it. They need a few vets on the team at forward to help hold guys accountable on the ice, and a little growth/maturing by the coach and key guys. But that's about it. Also, from 2005 to about 2010 or 2011 Babs had all the talented, accountable, players he could ever want. AND had superstars too. And he got very mediocre results out of them. He literally had his ideal situation (prime two-way superstars, gritty role players, accommodating GM) for a long period of time and we didn't get some Joel Quenneville level of success. We got two trips to the finals and Cup win. A feat accomplished by Michael Therien/Dan Bylsma as well. Why? Because superstar talent is the rising tide that floats all boats. There are a ton of coaches out there that get a lot out of a little bit of talent, but Mike Babcock just isn't one of them.

Just like he cracked the whip in Toronto? Fat lot of good that did them. AND that was a much more talented team than ours. Babcock jumped the shark. He was never as good as people made him out to be, and he's worse now that everyone has had 15 years to figure him out. He had superstar players in TO at the beginning of the year and far from "cracking the whip" and making them competitive they were instead racing to the bottom. Dude sucks. He's basically this era's Ken Hitchcock.

I must have missed the part where "hard man" Babcock used his Babcockian hardness to propel a much more talented roster than ours to any meaningful playoff success in the 5+ years he was with the team. If being a hardass made Babs some super coach I'd sure like to see the results, because from where I'm sitting he's he REALLY good teams and marginal success. Plenty of other "player's coaches" have had as much or more. Now Sheldon Keefe (a rookie coach (with a better record than Babs this year) is considered a bust because he hasn't unf*cked Toronto in like 40 games? C'mon. You're reaching bro.

I disagree. Look at what Sakic and Shanahan did in the first 12 months after taking over their teams. Both of whom were at the bottom of the league too. I also totally disagree with this notion that we're so bereft of talent that there's nothing we can do to improve. We have tons of assets, between our middle 20s players, 2nd and 3rd round drat picks, and cap space. Nobody is expect a miracle in year one, but I think it's entirely inaccurate to imply there's nothing more Yzerman could do. He's done very little this year because that's his choice, not because he can't do more. I simply disagree with that choice.

Don't look now, but rookie Chase Pearson is playing like an absolute stud for the Griffins. 20 points in 53 games off their 4th line. There's a genuine chance we've got something more than a grinder here.

Not necessarily. There's probably some value in people thinking that Mantha is always a year or so away from "breaking out". What if he has two 25 goal/55 point seasons over the next two years? If you know that Montreal thinks they're about to get a total monster, then you can price him accordingly rather than wait until he regresses to the mean. No right answer here BTW, just a tight rope Yzerman has to walk in his decision making. Little rich for Mantha. There aren't many players in the entire league who would fetch you consecutive 1st round picks.

Their prospect pool is stacked and they've got most of their picks as well. This is a year where they can afford to lose a 1st as long as it's for a good piece. And Mantha fits into their forward group. I think a package like I mentioned above (doesn't have to be those exact players, but close in value) is something they'd have to consider. Going forward with Mantha, Gallagher, Domi, Drouin, Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, and Caulfield makes them very dangerous. Also makes guys like Tatar and Byron expendable for help in other areas (defense).

Personally I'd move him this offseason, but your point is taken and very valid. I like him to Montreal this offseason because they'll likely get a high (but not too high) 1st rounder, and have a great prospect pool. Couple that with the fact the they've indicated they don't want to rebuild. They've already got a 1C and 2C in their system and just need top wingers so he's a good fit. And finally, we've got three 2nd rounders so we can sweeten the pot a bit to take the sting out of losing that 1st.

1. See above: MacKinnon had nothing to do with the Duchene trade. 2. Assuming they pick somewhere between 6-10, I'd offer Mantha and a 2nd (not the 32nd overall though) to Montreal for their 1st round pick, Romanov, and Cayden Primeau prior to the draft. Thus we'd have a top four, a top 12, an elite goalie prospect, a top left D prospect, and two second rounders coming into our system this offseason. 3. I agree with the bold. 4. It's only an "assessment year" because Yzerman said that's what he's doing and nobody wants to question him. Plenty of other GMs actually do something of substance the first year they're on the job. The whole "shake things up" approach ya know.

1: He wasn't a budding superstar at that point and people were actually criticizing him for not being able to take his game to the next level. Literally nobody anticipated he'd drop 97 points the next season. 2: But even if that's the case, trading a Mantha is pretty easy when you've got Zadina, Veleno, Rasmussen, and a top 4 pick coming up in this year's draft. Not like we're absent options as well. 3: My point is, trading good players gets good returns. Trading mediocre players gets mediocre returns. We have good players to trade.

What's that have to do with anything? Duchene requested a trade out of Colorado. He was getting traded with or without MacKinnon and he STILL got that kind of return.

We do.

Fun Fact: After the Colorado Avalanche posted a era worst 22 win season in 2017 they got creative and traded one of their best young players (Duchene) in a three way deal with Ottawa and Nashville, which yielded them (among other things): 1st (Bowen Byram) 2nd (Traded for starting goalie Philipp Grubaur) Samual Girard (.5 ppg defenseman) Shane Bowers (top prospect for the organization) Vladislav Kamanev (top prospect for the organization)

I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect the GM to take meaningful steps toward improving his team (when it's this bad) each season. Landing a quality prospect with your first pick is almost the least you can do. Trading De La Rose for Fabbri was almost the least you could do (there isn't a fan on earth that would not have made that trade too). Acquiring more 2nd and 3rd rounders was something Holland was ALREADY doing. But more Robert Mastrosimones and Antti Tuomistos and Albert Johansons aren't going to change this franchise's fortunes. Going forward Steve needs to do a few things. First, recognize that if this rebuild is going to take as long as you're saying then you need to get high returns for Bert and Mantha now and get those prospects/picks developing. How good is Mantha going to be in another 8 years? Bert? They aren't stars now, let alone in their 30s. Move them for 1sts and high quality prospects now. Second, he MUST become better at asset management in general. You can't throw away Regula or Kaski for nothing. If they don't fit into your plans, you package them with a veteran at the deadline and get a decent pick. Regula and Helm/Glendening is likely a very attractive package for a playoff team. Likewise you HAVE to trade Fabbri. He's a free asset that is probably only a 3rd line player on a competitive team. He's replaceable. If Barclay Goodrow and a 3rd gets you a 1st, then Fabbri and a pick gets you what? 3rd, Yzerman HAS to start trading things of value. If you're not willing to trade valuable players, and nobody wants bad players, what does that leave you? UFAs and guys like AA. And you're not likely to change your fortunes on what you'll get from those returns. In the run up to this deadline ten 1st round picks were traded, along with a number of high end prospects (including Nolan Foote, Calen Addison, and Tyler Madden). That's more than any year in recent memory. We received none of those assets. That can't happen. 4th, weaponize your cap space. I'm going to wait and see on this one because this generally tends to happen in the off season. But Yzerman had a boat load of cap space last offseason and did nothing with it. We've seen time and again the value this has for competitive teams who need the space in for free agency. We cannot go another year without taking advantage of this as our cap payroll is going to start increasing before too long with Bert, Mantha, Hronek, Fabbri all needing new (more valuable) deals soon and a bunch of high quality youngsters poised to start integrating into the team before long.

I hear this every year, and I don't agree. Every GM has tolerances. More or less risk that they're willing to assume. A conservative GM makes fewer moves with the same roster as a risk taker, in theory. Some GMs would never, ever, ever, trade a 70 point player (Holland). Some would trade them for Tyler Seguin (Nill). Some would trade them for Adam Larsson (Chiarelli). Seems like Yzerman, so far, has very low risk tolerances. He even said today in his presser that every player has some kind of value at the deadline, and yet he only made two deals. The fact that he didn't trade a Glendening, Helm, Bernier, or Fabbri DOES NOT mean that there was no market for them. It could mean a few other things too. Maybe the market was weak and they have more value to your team. Maybe you're scared to trade a better than average player. Maybe you weren't willing to pair them with a prospect or pick to get a more valuable asset. I don't know the story with Yzerman, but I do know that pairing Barclay Goodrow with a 3rd round pick was worth a 1st rounder today. What's Fabbri and a 2nd get you? Glendening and a decent prospect?

How does hanging on to our most valuable trade chips help us become competitive as soon as possible? Especially when those guys have shown that collectively they can't win? You suggested earlier that WITH those guys we're looking at 3-5 years before we're competitive anyway. You have to try and find ways to accelerate your rebuild IF you're going to hang on to those guys. Conversely, if you're ok with the rebuild taking 10 more years to pay off then you might as well trade them now and get a jump start.

Sure, at this rate. But if so, then why not trade Mantha and Bert for 1st round picks? Since neither of them work with that timeline? or Larkin for that matter?

That's understandable, but you need to acquire high value draft picks. I'm all for drafting and hoping with your late 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. But the reality is that Yzerman might very well go the rest of his career without finding another Brayden Point in the 3rd round, for instance. So I don't think that can be the central thrust of your rebuilding philosophy. You also need to make those picks count. If you're looking for gems in the 2nd round you need to take guys with boom upside. Antti Tuomisto types just aren't going to cut it.