krsmith17

I'm really hoping we can snag Ty Dellandrea with one of our picks (30-36). I have a feeling he may be gone before then though... @Dabura have you seen much of him in Flint or World Juniors to give an opinion? I've read pretty much every article / scouting report and watched every video on him, but have never seen him play live...

Those things you're speaking of that "Holland did or did not do" are things of the past though. He hasn't done much of anything to set this team back in the past couple years. The past year and a half in particular, ever since the rebuild has truly been on, have been great moves from him. Although I wasn't personally a fan of the Daley signing, I wouldn't consider it a really bad move that set the team back in any way. Why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt that he will continue making good moves / decisions to move this team in the right direction? If he trades a pick and a prospect for an aging veteran, by all means, rant and roar, I'll be right there with you, but that's not going to happen. There is no guide book that Holland follows every year, but if there were, don't you think that the pages in the book have changed in the past couple years? The thing is, I was with you on not targeting one of the smaller offensive defensemen (Hughes / Boqvist) with the 6th overall pick. Not because I think they're bad players. I'm sure they'll be great defensemen, but I just think Bouchard would be the better fit / fills a bigger need (no pun intended). I don't think we're in "dire need of a small, fast offensive defenseman". We have Hronek, Saarijarvi and Hicketts that could fill that role some day. None appear to be top pair defensemen (Hronek has an outside chance), but I'm not convinced Hughes will ever develop into a top pair defenseman either. I just don't see the desire to draft another small offensive defenseman in the 2nd round, when we have Hronek, who likely has a higher ceiling, and Saarijarvi, who might as well. If I recall, didn't you freak out when the Wings selected one or both of Hronek and Saarijarvi in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, back to back years? Did it have anything to do with Nationality?

I don't think Bokk will be available at 30 (or 31). It's possible he could be gone before 20. I'd definitely consider moving up in this draft if a player starts dropping. I don't understand you man... You go on and on about how pissed you'd be if Holland goes against what he said about drafting small defensemen, and then you say you want us to draft Addison, who is the exact same size as Hughes and slightly smaller than Boqvist...

LeftWinger, one thing that you need to understand is that no NHL affiliate has a team full of prospects. For two reasons... One, you'll never have enough prospects in the system at one time to fill an entire roster. And two, you need to have veterans to mentor the kids. The same reason it's important to have veterans like Zetterberg, Kronwall and Howard on the big club to mentor the kids. What "prospects" will we have in Grand Rapids this year? Turgeon, Pope, Smith, Sadowy, Holmstrom, Ehn, Cholowski, Hicketts (maybe), Sulak, Hronek, Saarijarvi, Russo, McIlrath, Fulcher, and Rybar. I wouldn't even consider half of them legit prospects. You have to fill out the rest of the roster. Some will be older players for veteran leadership, others will be younger college free agent signings. I'm not sure if Tangradi, Street or Lorito will be back, but if they are, that's great. If not, they'll be replaced by other veterans, not prospects. Because again, there aren't any. What two kids are you referring to playing in goal for Grand Rapids? Fulcher and Rybar? Rybar, maybe, but I wouldn't rush Fulcher. It's not about winning another Calder Cup, it's about developing the few promising prospects we have. You don't do that by rushing them. It will likely be Rybar and one of Coreau / McCollum / UFA in Grand Rapids and Fulcher in Toledo. Petruzzelli and Larsson will remain in college for the time being. Anyway, there's nothing Holland has done so far this off-season that warrants getting upset about. It's all standard so far. Adding depth to the organization. He's said all the right things about getting younger, and I fully expect him to stick to that. This is not the same Holland. He's actually doing a very good job early on in this rebuild. So whatever book you're talking about, put it away, and just wait and see how things play out...

Nope, I've never been a beat writer for the Tigers. Not even much of a baseball fan to be honest... You must be thinking of that other guy, I think his name is Pat Caputo or something...

Yeah, I would have liked to see him given an opportunity. I was pretty hopeful that he'd develop into a steady 3rd pairing guy for the Wings some day. He had a good draft +1 year, but kind of plateaued, maybe even regressed a little last year. Still would have preferred to see him get a shot in Grand Rapids over Lashoff, Renouf or McIlrath. He can still be signed before June 1st can't he? I guess not... That's unfortunate. Yeah, he did regress. I still think his play in junior should have warranted a shot in GR. His ceiling was always likely a 3rd pairing guy though, and we already have a log jam there. I was always rooting for the kid, because of the Draper story, but I guess it wasn't meant to be... Oh well...

What's next? A depth forward signing for Grand Rapids? I hope the f*** not...

Forgive my ignorance but who the hell is this Pat Caputo? I've never heard of him... I did a quick Google search and apparently he's a sports writer and radio talk show host? Does he have any credibility or is he just some schmuck? Is he in any way a reputable source?

... but every single organization does this every single year. Holland isn't the only GM that signs depth UFA's. I just don't understand why this would be viewed in any way as a bad thing. We need depth in goal, so Holland added depth in goal. That's a good thing. We're going to need depth at forward, so Holland will sign some depth forwards as well...

Every team signs "warm bodies" to fill out their minor league system. They may not be long term solutions (most times they aren't), but they do serve a purpose. What's the difference in signing a young European goalie (Machovsky / Rybar) that may or may not amount to anything, and a young North American forward (Lorito / Elson) that may or may not amount to anything? Or do you complain about those signings as well? We need to fill out a roster for Grand Rapids, and not every player down there is going to be a promising prospect. In fact, most are fillers / warm bodies that will never amount to much, if anything at the NHL level. Good depth signing. Nothing more, nothing less. If he becomes a part of the future, bonus. If not, oh well. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

I doubt Montreal would give up three 2nd round picks, but maybe if they were willing to give up 35 and 56 I'd consider it, depending on who is available. If a player drops, or a player we really like is available at 30, I don't think I'd trade back, unless we have a very good idea they'll be available at 33.

Vegas would be a pretty cool story, and I'd like to see them win because it would piss a lot of people off. However, I have to root for Washington in this one. I'd like to see Ovechkin finally win a Cup (this may be his last chance), and I have 160 bucks on the Caps, so that's a bonus.

Well both I guess. I didn't like the Nielsen "contract", which is what made it a bad "signing". Could we have signed him for less money and for less term? If so, why didn't we? If not, I guess we shouldn't have signed him. I'm not saying Nielsen is a bad player or even that he's a bad fit, but at $5.25M for 6 years, it was a bad signing in my opinion. Basically the same applies to Abdelkader.

Of all those players, the only one likely to get 4 years, I would say is Mantha (unfortunately). I doubt any of Athanasiou, Bertuzzi or Frk get 4 years. Bouchard can't get 4 years or $1M. IF we draft him, he'll sign the max ELC which is $950K for 3 years. Athanasiou is eligible for arbitration this year. A deal will likely be made before it gets that far though, unless he's traded. If they do go through an arbitrator (unlikely), I think he would get a higher AAV, and a year or two less term.

To me, Larkin is a no-brainer. I have full confidence he would play above that contract for the duration of the contract. Mantha isn't such a sure thing, but I'd still bet on him playing above that contract as well. The thing is, this is all likely a moot point, because in all likelihood, Larkin and Mantha will both sign contracts closer to what you're suggesting, possibly even less. I think Larkin at 4-6 years and Mantha at 2-4 years is more likely what we'll see. It's just not what I'd like to see. Holland is a master at re-signing his RFA's to bridge deals. We know that. What we don't know for sure is if he's good at re-signing his RFA's to long term deals. I'm hoping he leans more toward long term with these two, but I'm not sure he will. If we have an influx of good young talent that are looking to get paid, we pay them. By the time that were to happen, we'd have more than enough cap space. Nyquist, Kronwall and Howard will be off the books after this season, and Franzen, Ericsson and Daley will be gone after the following season. That's over $26M coming off the books in two offseasons. All of which are mediocre players that can be replaced from within, hopefully by an influx of very talented young kids.

That looks like it'll be a pretty bad contract that will likely bite San Jose in the ass, but there are plenty other bad ones out there as well. Those are the one's that the player's agent will point to. But there are still some very good players on great contracts out there. Those (Pastrnak, Ehlers, Monahan, Horvat, Huberdeau, Wennberg, Niederreiter, Zibanejad, Arvidsson, etc...) are the one's that the GM's will point to.

I have no problem giving a NTC / NMC to a star player, it's when you give them to mid-level players that I have issue with. If Holland wants to offer Larkin a NTC to get his AAV down a bit, I have no problem with it. I don't think I'd give it to anyone else though. The fact that Nielsen, Nyquist, Abdelkader, Helm, Kronwall, Ericsson, DeKeyser and Daley all have some form of NTC / NMC is ridiculous.

Howard was a good signing. Nyquist was a good signing. Ericsson was a reasonable signing at the time. Nielsen was a bad signing. Abdelkader was a bad signing. Every general manager makes mistakes. The issue I have with Holland is his unwillingness to remedy those mistakes.

As you should lol... Nah, I hear ya, I'd personally take the gamble on Larkin and Mantha though, because I feel the reward far outweighs the risk with these two. 8 years is a long term, but Larkin is only 21 years old (22 in two months). It's not like he's 25-26 and the contract would bring him into his mid 30's. He'd still only be 29 when the contract expired. I'd be hesitant to do 8 years with most 21 year olds, but Larkin is a workhorse, and the next Red Wings captain. Lock him up! I'd still do 6 years with Mantha without hesitation, but I do understand the concern from some people. The absolute minimum I'd go is 4 years though, which would bring him until he's 27. You want to lock these players up for as many of their prime years as possible. Locking both up until their 29 (Larkin - 8 / Mantha - 6) would be best case scenario in my opinion. The thing is, they don't even need to become "top tier players" for these deals to work out in our favor though. $6-6.5M for Larkin and $5-5.5M for Mantha is pretty standard for top 6 forwards. Let's say we gave both the max ($6.5M / $5.5M), that would put Larkin as the 33rd and Mantha as the 75th highest paid forwards. Hardly top tier money. That's today. What about in 2, 4, 6 years from now? Those deals would be looked upon as massive steals. Which is why Holland would be wise to try to lock them up as long as possible. Which is also why, Larkin and Mantha would be wise to take shorter term deals... Mantha has already stated that he'd prefer to take a bridge deal because he's confident he has a lot more to prove. A short bridge deal for either, scares the s*** out of me though... This is a bad take...

It seems there's been a few disgruntled ex-Wings over the past several years, claiming they were mislead or mismanaged in some way. Maybe there's some truth behind it...

This is true. Here's what he had to say about Bouchard... Bouchard was fantastic for London this season and was a huge part of why a rebuilding team ended up finishing in a significant playoff spot. He put up monster counting numbers and generated a ton of shots on goal while playing half the game most nights. His counting numbers were one of the best ever by a U19 defenseman in the OHL. Bouchard put up a lot of points for a reason. He has a hard, dangerous shot and can be a primary trigger guy on an NHL power play. The more I’ve watched him the more I appreciate his vision, with one scout referring to him as a general in how well and calmly he moves the puck. He has a lot of poise in the offensive zone to wait out options. I think his hands and skating are good but not great. He can get a little upright in his stride, which takes away power, but he can get up and down the ice well and shows good speed. He’ll need to continue improving defensively in his reads/battles to be solid defensively as a pro, but he’s shown progress there and took the tough matchups this season. London’s assistant coach Rick Steadman said: “His ceiling is very high. We forced him to play D first, he didn’t have much of a leash when he first came in. Now that he’s a good defensive player, now we let him go up and down the ice. His outlets are really good, he’s got great vision, he can really make plays and, once he gets that shot off, it’s hard to stop.” Bokk is also ranked 8th, and he's supposed to be a late first rounder. I really hope we can get him with the Vegas pick, but I have a feeling he'll be gone in the 24-28 range.

Hunter will be a great addition to any organization. It will be interesting to see where he ends up...

Why should expansion teams be ass for years? For a league that's goal for the past several years is parity, it makes perfect sense why they would change the expansion draft rules. You're acting as if they were given a bunch of all-stars. They weren't. They were a bunch of cast-offs. Of course they weren't as bad as players selected in previous expansion drafts, nor should they be. Expansion teams being relevant out of the gate is a good thing for the league. Like I said, Vegas being as good as they have been in their inaugural season is a one-off. You can be guaranteed Seattle won't be half as good under the exact same rules. Like Buppy said, there's a lot of luck that has gone into this amazing run. They were never supposed to be this good, and likely won't be next year...

Probably. F*** Babcock!