kipwinger

It's a man's league. These kids don't stand a chance lol.

Here's an interesting tidbit... "While Mike Babcock was still coaching the Detroit Red Wings, during their exit interviews both Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk told management that they wouldn’t re-sign with the Red Wings while Babcock was still coaching the team." http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/10/encarnacion-will-be-in-high-demand-in-off-season

He should go the CM Punk route and try a career in MMA instead of pretending to be a hockey player. At least he'd be spending his time on something he's good at.

I remember as if it were yesterday when McGratton said analytics were a fad and that he'd be back in the league in no time lol.

What is it you think he'll "likely" be? Because I haven't seen anything to suggest, so far, that he'll be any different that Tyler Myers, or Zach Bogosian, or Alex Edler, or Cody Franson. As a matter of fact, they ALL came into the league young too, performed BETTER than Trouba has to this point, and still never developed into top pairing guys. He's never topped 30 points. You seem perfectly content to chalk that up to being young, but that belies the fact that lots of guys have come into the league at the same age and performed better. Any one of them showed as much, or more, "potential" as Trouba but didn't develop into top pair guys. So why are you so sure he will? It's not unreasonable, for instance, to think that Mrazek will continue to improve and fulfill his potential. But that because he's played at a high level off and on for two seasons. He has SOMETIMES been excellent in his short career. Trouba has never shown that. He's never been anything other than pretty good. And he's regressed each season since his best one. So what's this "what he'll likely be" insinuation based on? If you're willing to give up all this for Trouba based on his potential and age, what would you give for someone like David Savard? He's nearly as young, and has performed just as well as Trouba. What's he worth? People are acting like Trouba is another Dougie Hamilton. An obvious top pair guy who's hitting the trade block. But he's not. His track record doesn't suggest that at all.

Which is why trading for someone in hopes that they'll get better is dangerous. Trouba, for instance, has played well over 200 games and gotten worse since his rookie year. Fowler too. So its pretty dangerous to trade your future #1 goalie based on that track record.

Or like the people talking about Trouba and Fowler like they're already legit 1D instead of moderately good players with some potential? You're doing the same exact thing your chastizing others for.

Mrazek is already a better NHL goalie than Trouba is an NHL defenseman. Anybody who is willing to make that trade is dramatically overestimating Jacob Trouba.

Nah, I'm from Michigan. We tend not to have that problem.

Eichel...cuz he big!!!! He's 1 inch and 5lbs bigger than Larkin. What a giant.

I'd give up Nyquist or Tatar for a 1D too. Unfortunately none are available so it's a moot point. The problem with you and Dickie's argument is that you both have just gone ahead and anointed Trouba and/or Fowler and/or Shattenkirk as "top defensemen"...which they aren't. Would you give up Nyquist or Tatar for a 2D? What about a second pair guy? Because that's what you're getting.

Personally, I'd like a little more assurance than Vanek. I genuinely hope he does well, but if I'm giving up a guy in his mid twenties who's under contract and producing like that, then I'd want a better replacement than a 32 year old Vanek on a 1 year contract. Which is why I liked Okposo (which I'm going to drop because it's irrelevant now). Without such a replacement I'd prefer to wait and see what we've got before making any trades. I do agree with all your valuations though. They seem like reasonable deals. I'm just unsure of what we've got right now and would like Nyquist's (or Tatar's) offense in my back pocket going into the season.

So you'd trade any player for a better player? How profound. Nobody is arguing against that meaningless platitude. This whole conversation spawned from a discussion about trading our top prospects for one of Trouba, Fowler, or Shattenkirk. None of whom are top defensemen. That's where your scenario falls apart, as has been pointed out. But you keep beating this drum for some reason. Despite all the gushing over these guys from the LGW faithful, all of Trouba, Fowler, and Shattenkirk have real holes in their games. Trouba, for instance, has been heralded as a "potential 1D" despite showing Danny Dekeyser like offensive skills during his pro career. None of these guys are top defensemen on their teams. The fact that they'd be a top defenseman on our team doesn't make them better players, it just means we're not that great. If your 1D is worse than all the other 1D around the league you're still at a relative loss. And that's BEFORE you factor in the fact that you lost a top prospect to make it happen. I'd have been happy to trade for ANY of them if we'd landed a decent offensive player in FA. Replacing Nyquist or Tatar with Okposo would have made one of them expendable. And a trade would have made sense. But doing it now, with a top prospect, is a recipe for disaster.

He'd ultimately lose his roster spot to "GRIT". You know damn well we can't win without "GRIT".

I hope that's the case. I honestly didn't think his defensive game was terrible for a rookie, but I agree he needs to work on some things to be a regular center. Namely his faceoffs (which is my big worry with Larkin moving to C this year too).

Anybody read the NHL.com "5 Questions" article with Ken Holland? I liked that they're planning to start Zetterberg with Nielsen, but a bit disappointed that he didn't mention AA when talking about prospective centers. I'm going to be really irritated if they develop that kid into a winger.

Which is exactly what we did. Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer. So what are you complaining about? You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management. Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal. We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green). We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade. Which is EXACTLY my point. The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent.

Bouwmeester, since being traded, has scored 37, 13, and 19 points while being pretty good defensively. Pretty much everyone would consider him a second pairing defenseman. During that same span, Tatar has 39, 56, and 45 points. Nyquist has 48, 54, 43 points. I'd trade all the 20 point defensemen in the world for those "small, one dimensional, 45 point wingers". And you can go ahead and laugh your way to a lottery pick. At the end of the day, this game is about scoring goals, and they do. That's why they're more valuable than a second pair defenseman.

Trouba isn't even the best d-man of the three. That's Shattenkirk, and there's a reason why he's being traded despite producing better than Pietrangelo since being traded to St. Louis. Everybody is so bonkers for a defenseman they've dramatically overestimated these guys' values. St. Louis, Anaheim, and Winnipeg ALL have better defenses than us. None of them have won anything. And these are the three guys they're looking to get rid of (supposedly). There's a reason for that. None of them make us much better, if at all.

Nope. Because even if they only achieve 75% of their potential, if that turns out be be greater than the "established" player you got then you'd be behind. Neither Tatar nor Nyquist developed into reliable 70 point guys. But they're both reliable 40-50 point guys, which still make them better than a huge chunk of the league. If you'd traded either of them, and XO, for Bouwmeester (as you'd suggested) you would lose that trade. Not because Tatar or Nyquist reached their ceilings, but because they're more valuable to the team than Bouwmeester even at their current level of play.

So is your position that we should make a habit of trading good prospects because sometimes they don't pan out? If that's the case we should trade Larkin too, because he "could" turn into the next Cheechoo as well right?

I agree with you sentiment, but I don't want Zetterberg at center. The work load down the middle is too much for his old legs. Let him play on the wing, with a lessened defensive load, and he'll contribute plenty of offense.

Its not a question of trading "prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman, its a question of trading "top prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman. And if you'd do that you're crazy.

Exactly.

You're conveniently leaving out two things. All the times Dombrowski traded away prospects for established players and got the better end of the deal, as well as all the times he traded prospects for established players and got burned. Remember when he traded established all stars Granderson and Edwin Jackson and got two totally overrated prospects in Austin Jackson and Max Scherzer? Or how about trading Cespedes for that totally overvalued Fulmer guy? Oh wait, turns out those prospects were pretty good huh?