krsmith17

No f***ing around Scott. I know who you are, where you're from and what you look like...

But what point are you trying to illustrate?... Pope sucks and De Haas sucks worse...

Yeah, for sure. If we do take one of them though, I'd like to shop one or two of the other three undersized guys in the system. I'm not sure if we'd get much interest in any of them, but we have a huge log jam of similar type, smallish, offensive defensive prospects.

Plus flight and hotel and you have yourself a deal...

This isn't what you were saying before though... You previously said that he can sign the qualifying offer and then negotiate for less. That is what people were disputing. If he signs the qualifying offer, he would make a minimum of $4M per for x years. He would be stupid not to accept such a deal, assuming it would be short term. However, unfortunately it may be stupid for the Red Wings to offer such a deal, unless he plays lights out for the remainder of the season. Anyway, yes, Mrazek can and likely will become a UFA this summer, and then he can, like any UFA, negotiate a deal with any team. I hope he remains with the Wings, but he'll probably look for a fresh start elsewhere...

Hahaha I'll take that bet. What's the wager? Future top pair Cholowski - Sambrook? I'll take that.

I want him around, but I don't think what you're saying is correct. It just doesn't make much sense to me. I think if both parties agree on a qualifying offer, Mrazek would be making $4M, regardless of what he or the Red Wings believe he's worth. If management doesn't think he's worth the $4M on a one year deal, they won't qualify him, and either sign him this summer as a UFA (for less) or let him walk. If Mrazek thinks he's worth more than $4M (I doubt that's the case), he wouldn't sign the qualifying offer and test free agency. I've never seen a qualifying offer signed only for the player to take less or the team to offer more. I'm not sure what purpose that would serve...

Good as in a reliable 3rd pairing defenseman? I agree. Good as in a top pair defenseman? Not likely.

I'm not too impressed with a 23 year old putting up those numbers, but he may become a decent bottom 6 winger some day. I was a big fan of De Haas and a little disappointed when we let him walk. I would have preferred to keep him over Lashoff, Renouf or McIlrath.

Well since I'm one of the few that has thought we will get a first, possibly more, I don't think I'll be taking that bet.

I'll take that bet because any contending team wouldn't have a "high" first round pick to trade...

There would obviously have to be more bonus incentives than just points. You'd have to take everything into account, from goals / assists to hits / blocked shots / faceoff percentage, etc. Imagine players actually being motivated to bring their all every night though. Most do anyway, but it would in theory eliminate players from floating, or at least fans calling them out for floating... How many times have we heard, so and so "is useless ever since he signed his big contract"... I know it would never really work though, and the PA would never go for it.

Merkley keeps dropping in most mock drafts, but I doubt he'll be available in the late 1st (24-31 range). I think he'll end up going in the mid 1st (16-23 range). But yeah, I'd love to take him with the pick from the Green trade, if he's still on the board.

Man, I wish I had your money... But yeah, I would too (if I owned / managed the Red Wings), unfortunately though, the most you can retain is 50%. My bet is we retain between 25-50% and get a 1st or 2nd plus prospect... Maybe even a 1st plus prospect if we're really lucky... There will be somewhat of a bidding war for the only pending UFA offensive defenseman available. There will be a ton of teams interested in him (Washington, Tampa Bay, New York, Toronto, San Jose, Vegas, Winnipeg, etc.) Winnipeg just lost Trouba for 6-8 weeks, so maybe they get desperate... Green can log a lot of minutes, but can also produce in a reduced role as a 2nd/3rd pair, power-play specialist. I think he would be a great add for any contending team.

I noticed you edited from Boqvist to Bouchard after I responded. If you re-read my post, the undersized part was referring to Boqvist and Hughes, not Bouchard. I'm really high on Bouchard, and if the former two were a little bigger, I'd be high on them as well. Undersized defensemen can play in the modern NHL, but the best are predominantly guys > 6'1, 190lbs.

The team trading for Green would only have to pay that much in actual dollars, but wouldn't they still have to have $6M in cap space to acquire him? At least that's the way I understood it. Could be wrong though. Regardless, we're in a position where we can retain salary, and if doing so lengthens the list of possible trading partners, it'd be dumb not to retain the max (50%). Not retaining and retaining half could be the difference in a 2nd round pick and 1st round pick.

I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from, but Adam Boqvist is 5"11, 170 lbs, http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=265684 and from what I seen of him in the WJC, I'd say that's being generous. Supremely talented kid though.

I just wish these two guys had a little more size. I still haven't warmed up to the undersized defenseman movement... If we didn't already have Hicketts, Saarijarvi and Hronek in the pipeline, I may be a little more willing to take a smallish defenseman, but I think a blueline with four sub 6', 180lbs defensemen is a recipe for disaster. I know, I know, the chances of all three of those guys plus Boqvist or Hughes making the NHL (Red Wings) is slim to none, but even so, I'd prefer to draft defensemen with a little more size. It may be an outdated way of thinking, but whatever... If we take either of those guys I wouldn't complain too much, but I'd probably prefer Bouchard out of the three. If we do take one of the former two, I'd like to trade one or two of the three already in the system... For what it's worth, NHL.com just released their 2018 mock draft, done by Adam Kimelman, Mike Morreale, Guillaume Lepage and they have us at 8th taking Boqvist (Kimelman), Hughes (Morreale), and Wahlstrom (Lepage). https://www.nhl.com/news/2018-nhl-mock-draft-rasmus-dahlin/c-295263230

I don't think you can really compare a winger getting some of the most sheltered minutes in the league vs a defenseman that logs a ton of minutes and ranks 22nd in the league in points and 9th in the league in power-play points (which is where he would primarily be used if acquired) among defensemen. Both are / were on expiring contracts, and the salary doesn't mean a whole lot, because we can (should) eat half of it. Green at $3M as a bottom 3, power-play quarterback on a contending team should get us a very good return.

I wish more contracts were set up this way... Imagine every player getting the same base salary, but being able to make the big money based on performance. It would eliminate those terrible contracts and buy-outs, but it would also eliminate the entry level guys out performing their contracts. We wouldn't have Nielsen making $5.25M for another 4 seasons, and you also wouldn't have McDavid, Barzal, Eichel, etc. putting up over a point per game and making under $1M. There would be no more signing big contracts and then coasting. Of course it will never happen, but it would be ideal in my opinion... I can see it being a 2nd and a legit prospect playing in the AHL (or juniors / college). We should get more than a 2nd and a career AHLer though. I'm still hopeful for that late 1st and I think we'll get it.

Dinguses you'd love to have on your team... I'd take Matthew in a heartbeat, and Brady is supposed to be even more skilled and tougher... Also, regarding whether or not he's a center or a winger. He's played both, and I think he's skilled and headsy enough that he could play either at the NHL level. It's just a matter of developing him as a center (if that's where we want him to play). Do we need another top 6 center though? Larkin is a legit top 6 center (hopefully number 1), so it just depends on whether or not Rasmussen develops into a 2C or tops out as a 3C. Athanasiou is still an option as a middle 6 center (although I prefer him on the wing). And it's also possible that Turgeon could develop into a legitimate 3rd line center. Point is, while I would prefer to take a center over a winger, I don't think it's that crucial. I just want to take best player available with what should be our highest pick since 1990 when we drafted Primeau 3rd overall...

... or Vilardi... Fair points except the fact that he's a Tkatchuk is a big reason I'd like to draft him. He's solidly in my top 3. Dahlin, Svechnikov, Tkatchuk for me.

Merkley is dropping on pretty much everyone's draft list. He was considered top 10 on most a few months ago. I think he could be a steal if he drops that low. The more I read up on Tkatchuk, the more I want us to take him with our first pick. If we don't win the lottery, and Tkatchuk and Svechnikov are gone, I think we should definitely explore the possibility of trading back a few spots to add another pick to the pile...

Do you have a link? The way I understood it is if he is qualified at the current $4M, he gets that amount regardless. No negotiating the dollar amount (higher or lower) after the qualifying offer is signed. However, Holland can choose to not qualify Mrazek, let him hit free agency with the understanding that he will sign him to whatever contract they see fit as an unrestricted free agent. If that's incorrect, and you have a link stating otherwise, it would be appreciated.

Most would know 3 of the 4, but Denisenko is pretty random. I haven't seen him in the top 10-15 on any reputable draft lists. I'd be thrilled with any of the other three though.