kipwinger

I still don't like Quincey's contact. He's played much better and all that, but he's still overpaid. By a lot. As far as Cleary, I kinda don't care about them re-signing him this year. Whatever, let him play out one more year as the 13th forward and retire a Wing. I hated last year's signing though, but those circumstances were different. Either way, my point in bringing them up was just to say that while I thought Kenny was making questionable moves because he was washed up, he was really just putting bandaids on the problem until the kids could take over. Which has always been his stated strategy, but which I thought was a bad idea...until I saw how good they were. So, long story short, if Kenny moves a prospect or two for a veteran, I'll assume those prospects weren't 100% necessary. Because it's not like he doesn't know what good prospects look like. And if he doesn't, then I'll assume we've already got whatever we need in our system.

Wait, you mean our rookie, third string, goalie had a bad game against the best offensive team in the league? What a bum! In all seriousness, I'm glad to hear it. Obviously, looking at the score it seemed like one of those games where we just looked retarded for 60 minutes. If the team played well, and Peter was just off, oh well. Obviously I'd like to see them win, but over the course of an 82 games season you're going to lose some games. If that's the case, I'd rather they lose because one guy has a bad game than because 20 guys did.

I bitched about the Tootoo, Sammy, Cleary, Quincey, etc. signings, trades, and re-signs. I was convinced that Holland was past it and didn't have any fresh ideas. Apparently he knew a little bit more than I did just how good his prospects were. Now our team is pretty legit. And we're certainly positioned to be VERY good in the next couple of years. So I've got to admit I was 100% wrong about Holland. At this point, when it comes to building a team, developing players, or acquiring talent, I'm going to defer to the guy who's got four Stanley Cup rings sitting on his mantle.

You said it yourself. Nestrasil was waived because he couldn't beat out Jurco (a guy with minor league options). Not because there was no room for him. If he'd been good enough to keep, Jurco would have gone down. If there's one thing you can say for Ken Holland, it's that he almost never lets an asset go for nothing. Hence, we've still got Kindl on this team. Nestrasil, Almquist, Emmerton, Mursak, etc. all had opportunities to play their way onto the team. If they didn't stick, it's because they weren't better than their competition (Jurco, Kindl, Glendening, Miller/Eaves/Andersson). When Ken Holland loses a player that he really wants to keep, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. But as of now, he's only losing guys who can't hack it.

So, I didn't have a chance to watch this one last night. What the hell happened?

That's a little bit like saying, "I don't want to offer up Nyquist in a trade, so I'd rather offer up Tatar or Andersson". They're not comparable, and depending on which you offer, it dramatically changes the make up of the package you're offering and the return you expect to get. That's why I think you're missing the mark here. Because you're saying that in an effort to avoid losing our best prospect, you'd rather lose a really good prospect...or a really bad prospect. I don't get why you've made those your options?

Which prospect did we lose due to roster overcrowding?

So switch it to Smith, Larkin, and a 1st. I'd still do it. And it's a more realistic possibility.

You said it would take two roster players (Smith and Helm), plus Larkin. I'm disagreeing. I'm saying it will take less. One roster player, one prospect, and one pick. That's what I've been saying all long.

I wasn't avoiding the first part of your last post. I misunderstood what you meant by "non roater player". Typically when people say "non roster player" it means a depth player or prospect. When then mean a pick, they say pick. A good roster player (Helm), and high end prospect (Larkin), and a 1st round pick will get you a very good player on an expiring contract. Two roster players, a first rate prospect, and a first round pick is a lot. And I'm not sure why you think that's what it would take to get O'Reilly when other comparable players have gone for less.

Where do you get your information about the value of our prospects from? I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I really want to know. Because Frk and AA aren't even close to having the same value in a package. Athanasiou is probably VERY close to untouchable. He's the best center prospect we've got, and prior to his injury was beginning to maul AHL competitions after only 15 games as a pro. By game 25 (his injury) he was eating teams up. Frk...on the other hand, can't even stay in the lineup. Sometimes I think you add guys to packages for no other reason than you're not familiar with them. Then, once you are, you'd never trade them in a million years.

The smart move is somewhere in the middle though right? I mean, I get that it's good to be patient and build a contender. But at some point, you've got to decide now's the time, and try to win. Always looking toward the future obscures the fact that (pardon this goofy description) the present was the future at one point. What's all this saving, and developing, and patience working toward if not to make a Cup run? And as far as I know, no team (in the modern era) has done that with 100% homegrown pieces. Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston...all had significant help from outside. If you're not willing to move pieces for guys like Yandle, or O'Reilly, or Spezza, or Kesler, etc. when they become available, exactly what are you willing to move them for? And if the answer is "nothing", you're in trouble. Because, as I said, nobody has ever managed to win that way yet.

I was always talking in hypothetical. I asked Dickie what kind of player he'd want in return if he was going to trade Mantha or Larkin, and then immediately suggested if I wanted to trade Larkin I'd want someone like O'Reilly in return. Go back and look. At no point did I ever suggest this was what we really should do, or that it was a realistic proposal. We're about to have a very young, and yet very experienced team in the near future. I think if ever there was a time to "sacrifice the future for the now", it would be now. Trading and 18 year old, for a 23 year old with a nearly identical skill set, who's much more proven, is not a bad move. This is all starting to sound a little bit like that time you said you wouldn't trade Brendan Smith for Keith Yandle because "Smith's going to be better than Yandle one day". I'm done. You win.

Agree. I've been talking in hypothetical this whole time. In no way to I think this actually happens. First, because of the reasons you said. And secondly, because I don't think Ken Holland would do a first rounder from a year ago wrong like that. Not his style.

Not sure where you're getting this from. I never said a "non roster player". I'd start with Helm, Larkin, 2nd but I'd give the 1st (since it will be a very late first anyway based on our record). Which should put us in the ballpark. I might even be willing to sweeten the pot with a mid level prospect too if need be (Jensen). Secondly, obviously you and I dramatically differ on how we value Smith so I'm going to leave that out. Again, because I don't think it's necessary to trade him. But I could give a damn about losing "other assets" in Helm and unproven prospects as long as I'm getting a first rate player on the front end of his career. We'd be losing Helm and an unproven prospect for a guy that does all the same things as Helm PLUS scores. The only real loss is the (very late round) 1st, and Larkin (a great, yet unproven, prospect). Losing both those things would sting, but we've got the organization depth to do it and never miss a beat. AND you'd be set down the middle for the next 7-10 years. Seriously, trading for O'Reilly means you never won't need another center for a VERY long time. Keeping Larkin means you MIGHT NOT need a center for a very long time. That's why I do it. Every single time.

Firstly, yes...I'd be totally fine trading Helm, Smith, and Larkin for O'Reilly. However, that's just the typical trade rumor overpayment bluster. Ryan O'Reilly isn't going to get that much in return. Hell, Rick Nash, Bobby Ryan, and Jason Spezza didn't get that much in return. Not sure why you think O'Reilly would be different. Secondly, I feel like I'm talking in circles. I'd be willing to give up Larkin, plus those assets, because O'Reilly can help us now AND in years to come...while Larkin can only help us in the future. And in the future we won't have Dats, Zetterberg, or Kronwall. We might find that we're actually further away from the Cup by the time Larkin can make an impact. 5 years from now our leadership will be retired, Larkin will be a rookie, and O'Reilly will be 28 and on the front side of his prime. A guy like O'Reilly is the present AND the future, while Larkin is just the future. If you trade for O'Reilly you can field this lineup tomorrow Tatar-Dats-Abby Z-O'Reilly-Nyquist Weiss-Sheahan-Jurco/Franzen Miller-Glendening-Andersson And in a few years you'll still have Tatar-O'Reilly-Mantha Nyquist-Sheahan-Jurco Pulkkinen-Athanasiou-Abby Callahan-Glendening-Whoever. You're right. Larkin has all those assets. But he doesn't have them at the NHL level for at least three more years of college and one AHL season. That's a long time to wait when you're as close as we are right now.

Because it's a civil crime and he probably hasn't pressed charges. Most of the time the state isn't going to get involved in something like this by bringing criminal charges.

I think that's understood. As I've said already, I think everybody would agree that none of our quality prospects should be traded for a tin of beans. But it's always fun to speculate on guys' values and the types of packages you could put together around them.

See, I disagree about the contract. The current one is a bit high. But that's because Colorado dicked him around and he doesn't want to be there. Secondly, the term was short. Sign him long term (which is a good investment), and that number comes down. He won't make 6-7 million on a 5+ year deal. He's just making that much because he's on 1-2 year deals. Also, I want to reiterate he's only 23. He's only going to get better. He's not even entering his prime. I'm not sure why everybody thinks he's reached his max potential. If he continues to improve and in a couple of years is putting up 60 pts. regularly and playing stud defense, which isn't unrealistic, how would he not be worth 6 million?

I'm not arguing any of that. Those young guys are better than Franzen because of a number of things. They are, perhaps, no more skilled than him. But that's not all that goes into a hockey player. They're skilled AND work hard, so they're better players. And he's unnecessary. Again, I'm not defending the guy. Or even saying we should keep him. I'm saying his production hasn't noticeably dropped this year. There's a slight drop for sure, but I see no reason to attribute that to an overall decline rather than the yearly slumps he goes through like clockwork. Knowing what we know now, I'd even have been in favor of buying him out a year ago. But again, that's because of his terribly long contract and the new punishments that go with keeping those around. Not because he's changed much (or at all) as a player. Finally, I agree with you about his work ethic being bad for the team. For a few years now I've believed this team lacked an identity. If seems like we're finally seeing a little bit of one emerging. Fast, tenacious, and often explosive offensively. He certainly doesn't fit in with that. But that's not a knock on his production, that's just a change on our organizational direction. Send him to a team like Boston or San Jose and he's flourish.

Because while a capable center, he's a better winger. He's like Zetterberg (or Kesler), his best offensive season (66 pts.) was on the wing. Something not true (or true to a much smaller extent) of Weiss or Helm. Again, he's a MUCH better player than Darren Helm. I'm not sure why this comparison is sticking around. 6 million is a little bit of an overpayment (thanks to that dumb Calgary offer sheet that drive his price up), but pretty close to what good second line centers go for these days. Especially if they're 23 years old and are only getting better. Filppula (5), Kreci (5.25) are good comparables. I'd move Larkin plus Helm (plus whatever else) to get him. And I'd sleep very well knowing that my centers of the present were (some combination of) Datsyuk, Zetterberg, O'Reilly, Sheahan, and Glendening, and my centers of the future were O'Reilly, Athanasiou, Sheahan, Nosek, and Glendening. Seriously, look at those last five centers. O'Reilly, Athanasiou, Sheahan, Nosek, Glendening. Fast, fast, fast, tenacious, hard working, and strong on the puck. That makes me drool when you add in the fact that our wingers are Tatar, Nyquist, Mantha, Abby, Jurco, Pulkkinen, etc. That team would skate you into the ground.

I wasn't implying that you'd trade them straight up. I was implying that O'Reilly is the kind of guy I'd want back if I was sending Larkin in a trade. As far as the other stuff...I don't care about his cap hit (we've got money), its always easier to re-sign a guy if you're a good team (Colorado), and players that good always make you better. Comparing him to Helm is laughable. You said you haven't seen him much, you should. He's a really good hockey player.

Franzen goes through droughts every single year. He was on a goal scoring drought this year. I don't see what the difference is? He had 16 goals and 25 assists last year in 54 games. He had 7 goals and 15 assists in 33 games this year. It's that that much of a drop off. Especially given how hot and cold he runs. Again, I'm not saying we've got to keep the guy or anything. He's clearly not necessary for the team's success. But I think this Franzen has regressed narrative is overblown. Also, can we all agree that using plus/minus to make a point you want to, and then lambasting it as a "worthless stat" the rest of the time, is shaky at best. I've seen you personally talk trash about the plus/minus stat. So I'm not sure why you're using to make a case now.

Because he's everything Larkin projects to be, but is at an age where he could help us out while we've still got Datsyuk and Zetterberg. He's a first/second line center, he's the same size as Larkin, he's super fast, he works his tail off, he's excellent defensively, has good (but not great offense) and competes like hell. Best case scenario Larkin turns into an O'Reilly type guy...but in about four or five years. At which point D and Z are gone or over the hill. Plus, losing Larkin but keeping O'Reilly, Sheahan, and Athanasiou doesn't leave us in bad shape down the middle for years to come.

I'd trade Larkin for O'Reilly. Just sayin'.