kipwinger

We absolutely, positively, needed a top six center a year ago too. We got one, for a cost that wasn't worth it, and the move did nothing to help the team. We need to be wary about how far we're willing to go to fill a need. I think Mike Green could help. But I'd be wary about giving too much for him. Because there's a thin line between need and want. The Wings have managed quite well without a right shooting PP quarterback in the past, and if the cost is too high they need to be willing to do so again. Missing out on FA has begun to turn the quest for a right defenseman into something messianic, and that worries me more than spending another down year letting the kids develop. Hell we've got people clambering for Jurco and/or Tatar to get traded for an expiring contract because we need it so bad. As if we don't need forwards with size, tenacity, and goal scoring potential, given that our current ones are getting old and injury prone.

It's almost like they're negotiating. Like, one side asks for something incredibly high. And then the other side counters with something incredibly low. And then they eventually work their way toward something palpable for each side. Hmmm....

It sounds like the gist of your first paragraph is that "he tried, and they didn't come, so there's nothing that could have been done". In which case, we should blame fate, and nothing else since player acquisition is clearly this much of a crap shoot. It sounds like the gist of your second paragraph is "other teams lose in the first round too, so we should wait and see if we get better next year". Which entirely ignores the fact that Tampa breezed into the playoffs and made moves to get better, and Dallas breezed into the playoffs (in a harder conference) and made moves to get better, while Detroit stumbled into the playoffs (two years in a row) and did nothing to get better. I'd be fine with the "sometimes making moves isn't better than standing pat" argument if we already had a really good team, and internal growth might put us over the top without costing assets. But we're not a really good team. We're a team who (narrowly) outpaced teams like Washington and Toronto for a playoff spot the last two years. What level is internal growth going to bring us up to? Columbus level good? But you can't make em come to Detroit eh? Dallas just got Jason Spezza for Alex Chaisson, a prospect, and a pic. We can offer better packages than that. So, A) we don't offer, B) if we offered, they'd come, C) we do offer, they wouldn't come (in which case there IS some reason to believe guys are actively avoiding Detroit).

Everybody realizes that just because a team asks for something in a trade doesn't mean they'll get it right? And also, even if they don't get it, that doesn't mean the trade won't happen? Dallas just gave up a worse player than our young guys (Chaisson) for a better player than Green (Spezza) on an expiring contract. Why does anyone think that we'd give one of our young guns for a worse player than Spezza (Green) on a worse contract? Ken Holland has shown an unwillingness to be proactive in player acquisition. He has not shown symptoms of early onset Alzheimer's Disease. They can ask all they want, they'll likely not get one of those guys in return. And that will likely not stop them from trading Green anyway. If they want to trade him to another team, one who IS willing to give top young talent for injury prone 2nd pair defensemen on expiring contracts, then more power to them. But I suspect finding GMs that stupid will prove more difficult than they think.

Lol. I get it, you're trolling me. Good one.

Wait, I'm confused. Is you point that there was absolutely, 100%, nothing that Ken Holland could have done to improve this team other than sign Kyle Quincey? Because if not then it's a moot point. The fact that guys would rather sign to play with their buddies,or sign for less money, or sign with non-playoff teams, than sign with your team and get paid to win is a problem. It says that either A) you're not winning, B) you're not paying, or both.

And it just so happened that his buddy happened to play for a team good enough to make it to the Stanley Cup Finals. For some reason I have a hard time believing he'd have been so friendly if St. Louis played for the Oilers lol.

I like his potential too. I like Tatar's goals even better. Until Pulkkinen scores some NHL goals I'm not assuming anything on potential.

To answer both of you... 1. The Legwand trade should have shown everyone the danger of trading good talent for expiring contracts. And free agency just showed us that lots of NHL players would rather not sign here. So it would be stupid to trade a more valuable asset (Tatar) for a more questionable player (Green). There's a real good chance you lose a real good roster player for nothing. 2. Until Teemu Pulkkinen scores a single NHL point, there's absolutely no reason to assume that he's got more value to the team, or a higher ceiling, than the guy who just scored 19 goals and 39 pts. in his rookie year. There's also no reason to assume that Pulkkinen can replace his production. Assuming so would be dangerous, regardless of what your gut feelings are, or your eyeball tests, or anything else. If you're going to trade Tatar, get good value for him, or keep him. He was one of the few bright spots that our team had a year ago and he's only going to improve off his rookie year. Trade him as part of a package for a top four defenseman under contract, or a top six forward under contract, or don't trade him.

You'd move Tatar for a rental player who'll give you less than 50 pts.? Would you have moved him for Legwand last year? At least that rental gives your over 50 pts. How is moving a guy who scored 19 goals and 39 pts. as a rookie for a rental with injury problems a fair value? That's fine, but given that Tatar has "more value" don't you think you should ask for something worth that value? As I said before, if Iginla went for a 1st and two guys who never played regularly in the NHL, what do you think a guy who just had a better rookie season that Datsyuk would bring in return? If your best answer is Mike Green you have incredibly low standards. You don't have to keep Tatar, but don't give the ******* guy away for a 2nd pairing d-man with injury problems.

Hell, sweeten the pot and give them Glendening or Andersson for the trouble and you might bring the price down a little more. Fact is, they'd be helping us out by trading us Green. But we'll be helping them too. He's expensive, his cost/benefit ratio is probably not better than their other top four defensemen, and they need forwards that they don't have money for. If they can get a decent prospect or two and a pick OR a low end (cheap) roster player and a decent prospect, they'll be making out. If they expect to get an up and coming roster player (Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco) or a top end prospect (Mantha, Sproul, Ouellet) they're ******* nuts. I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded either. But if he was traded for Mike Green on an expiring contract then Ken Holland should be drawn, quartered, burned, buried, exhumed, drawn, quartered, and burned again for being a ******* toolbox.

A decent prospect or two and a 2nd or 3rd round pick will likely get this done if two prospects and a first got Iginla as a rental. Pulkkinen (or Backman) and either A) a 2nd round pick, or B) a 3rd plus Callahan or Ferraro, would get this deal done.

To be fair, literally half of our defense can NEITHER play defense NOR score points. He's at least an improvement in that regard.

That's the well known starting place when we were inquiring about guys under contract, like Myers and Yandle. Not for expiring contracts. Just because one trade scenario would require Mantha in return doesn't mean ALL trade scenarios would require Mantha in return. Also, it's only been "reported" that the starting point is Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco...by people like Helen St. James no less. The very same people that had Niskanen going for 6+ million a year, Ehrhoff going for 5 years, Boyle for 5.5 mil a season, and Vanek for over 7 million a year. In short, the very same people who ALSO don't know s*** about the value of hockey players.

Why O Why does everyone think that the starting point for every single trade on earth is a high end prospect or roster player with upside? None of Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, or Mantha would go the other way in a trade for Green. Good god, just look at every other deadline deal for guys who aren't superstars. You ever see those kinds of roster players or prospects going the other way for a teams fourth defenseman? Anaheim got ONE top prospect, a mid tier prospect, and a 1st for Bobby Ryan...and he was under (a very affordable) contract. Mike Green will DEFINITELY not cost us more than that. Where do these relative values come from?

I sure hope not. A year and a half or so ago I stated that Pulkkinen would be a bust and Nedomlel would be a sleeper. Pulkkinen is already making me look bad, Nedomlel really needs to step up.

This is just me being a fanboy. But I'm always ok with the idea of "going with Sproul". This kid is going to be the next Doughty. He was an absolute steal. Size, speed, shot, athleticism, smarts. I legitimately think he'll be a better player than Mantha even, but that's just me. Anyway, back on topic. Green would help, but I'd definitely not trade too much to get him. AND it would be wise to dump salary where you could to offset the acquisition (Kindl and Andersson).

I agree with you guys, chances are that both Dats and Z play more than 45 games. They almost certainly will. But I think it obscures the point a little. Sure they'll play more than 45 games, but what if they only play 60...65? We're f***ed either way. Hell, what if each Datsyuk and Zetterberg only miss 10 games but they happen to be games against the teams we're competing with for a playoff spot? Remember how bunched together everyone was last year? To me, the important point is that without those guys playing 100% on almost every given night, our team isn't very competitive. Maybe the emergence of Nyquist, Tatar, etc. will render this a moot point...but I'm not sure everyone is convinced of this YET. Hence the allure of signing or trading for an impact player. Then everyone could sigh a little when Dats goes down and say "whew, at least we've got Kesler, or Stastny, or Spezza, or whomever", and not "whew at least we've got Weiss, Helm, or Sheahan".

Every single person I mentioned came to those teams before they were contenders. That's why I mentioned them. And no, Billups didn't suck before coming to Detroit. I usually agree with you, but you're off base on this. The Lions have never been a contender, the Pistons were one AFTER they signed Billups and traded for Hamilton and Wallace, and the Tigers were a contender after signing Guillen, Ordonez, and Rodriguez.

Another thing about Green is, I'm not sure how bad he really is defensively. I mean, I'm positive he's not going to be some stud shutdown defender. But I always take reports about Washington players being "lazy" or "bad defensively" or "not a team player" with a grain of salt. They've bred a culture of lazy, defensively irresponsible, play for years. When guys go there, they play poor defense and are lackluster, and when they leave they play good hockey. I think part of the reason why they picked Trotz was to change all that. Green has the skating and size to be a decent defender, not great...but decent. Like Rafalski. Could Green be that for someone other than Washington? I don't know. But I'm pretty positive he's never, in his entire career, been asked to be up to this point.

I'll agree with the first part, the city is not the issue...or at least is hasn't been for guys like Ivan Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Guillen, Reggie Bush, Golden Tate, Chauncey Billups, etc. etc. etc. On the subject of Babs I'll say this. What happened in FA wasn't his fault. He's not in charge of managing the roster. I do, however, think that players don't look at him like they did at Bowman. Sure, Scotty was a d*ck, but he coached a powerhouse team that realistically could win the cup every year. Babs is a d*ck whose team isn't going to win s***. So why deal with him? Ken Hitchcock is notoriously difficult to play for, and he gets FAs because his team is a contender. I think players would tolerate Babs if we could compete, but we can't, so they don't. Not his fault, but it does play a part.

Garrison going for a second might have been the best deal made last week. While he's no means a superstar, a 2nd for a guy that can move the puck, run the powerplay, and give you 30-40 pts., is a steal. I'd have given a second for him...oh wait...what happened to our 2nd again? Edit: Also, how does everyone feel about this Mike Green speculation? He's got dynamic offensive skills from the back end, despite his pretty obvious lack of defense. But most importantly, I can't imagine that his cost would be too high given his injury history, expiring contract, big salary, and defensive limitations. The downside, of course, is that he's not great defensively and he's expensive, but I don't think there's any doubt he can move the puck and quarterback a PP. For me it depends on if he's finally got the injury woes behind him.

There are probably a lot of reasons why we didn't have any luck landing FAs this year, but I thought this was interesting. A quote from Patrick Eaves about joining the Stars... "He's got a real good thing going down there. I know they're a hard team to play against and yeah, they're making moves. They're going places and I want to be a part of it," Eaves said on Monday. Seems like if you haven't been successful in the recent past, and you're doing things to address that, players pay attention. I'm certainly not suggesting that you "do something just to do it" or that Patrick Eaves is the kind of FA you want. But rather that guys want to win, and they recognize when a team is trending upward or downward.

What do you think the Wings biggest problem is?

I totally agree. I was being a smart ass about how bad Holland had been at trading lately. I agree, it would take more than Helm and a first. I also don't think it would be worth it, because Tyler Myers isn't very good.