kliq

No, unless there are injuries our roster will be pretty obvious.

I would argue 90% of the people on this site are happy with the Tatar signing, and about 1% happy are happy if AA walk.

I'd say I'm at about a Dean Ambrose (when he's doing his comedy shtick).

This is why I hate buy-outs so much. It may help in the short term, but it literally doubles the term of the contract. This is why I would prefer trading a guy like E and retaining cap over buying him out.

No it wasnt, Helm was signed because Holland rely's too much on vets which is the same reason why he signed Nielsen. Holland is loyal, there is no doubt and IMO that is a good thing, but the Helm signing was not done simply because of loyalty, was he given a tad more then they wanted because of it? Maybe, but the signing was because of loyalty. The only situations on this team that I believe are purely "loyalty" based would be the contracts given to Cleary, Kronwall still having a spot, and maybe E not being traded. If anything, Holland overvalued Helm when deciding if he should sign him. Saying it was because of loyalty sounds like you are just trying to find a single reason to criticize which is not the way it works. Its easier to say "If Holland was not blank, all our problems would be fixed" and here blank has become "loyalty".

I don't buy this, sure the fact that he was a hometown boy didnt hurt, but players are not picked JUST because of where they were born. Either way, at the end of the day Larkin was a good pick and you can't dismiss it. I really don't feel like going through every pick we have made over the past 6 years and cross referencing those picks with others in the same round, but off the top of my head all of our 1st rounders appear to be headed in the right direction (ie. Larkin, Svech, Mantha, Chowolski). Beyond that, Hronek, Saarijarvi, AA, Bertuzzi, and Smith are all guys picked outside the 1st that look good. I'm sure the argument will be "none of these guys are elite" and that may be true unless Mantha or Larkin hit their ceiling, but it's also very hard to find elite talent with the picks we have had. Remember, I never said Holland has been amazing at drafting lately, I said "he has appeared to have done very well".

The year TO got Matthews was also a year they got littered with injuries. Had they been healthy, they likely dont draft 1st overall. You can't dismiss the luck factor. Not to mention the guys that were injured during the season. Here is there IR at the end of that season: James van Riemsdyk Joffrey Lupul Peter Holland Milan Michalek Matt Hunwick Nikita Soshnikov Viktor Loov There lineup near the end of the season was: Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 LW Michael Grabner Brooks Laich Colin Greening Tobias Lindberg C Nazem Kadri Tyler Bozak William Nylander Frederik Gauthier RW Leo Komarov P. A. Parenteau Brad Boyes Byron Froese DP 1 DP 2 DP 3 Goalies D1 Morgan Rielly Jake Gardiner T.J. Brennan Jonathan Bernier D2 Martin Marincin Frank Corrado Andrew Campbell Garret Sparks You want to give KH crap for cap management, I get it. You really cant give him a hard time for his drafting, over the past few years he has appeared to have done very well. I think most of the draft hate comes from him not picking Vilardi which to be fair we will not know how it turns out for a few more years.

I dont know this for fact, but I have a strong feeling that if players had to defer payments to another player because of cap issues, the NHL and the PA would be all over it and it would end up being some type of circumvention.

Cap space and the ability to add to your roster if the right UFA comes along, and the ability to sign RFA's that are due for pay raises.

So to be clear, you are saying that 50 points a year is 3rd line production? Please show me a team that has 9 players putting up points close to that. Nyquist is severely underrated around here because he is no longer the flavor of the month. Just wait until the same group do the same to AA if he's still here in a few years.

So you're saying there is a chance!!!!

Sorry, I really wasn't specific. We are on the same page. I more then anything want Holland to trade for a top end D-man. Ill use Trouba as my example, but it doesnt have to be him. If we could trade a Nyquist, or Abby, or Helm etc. for a guy like Trouba, I would do it in a heartbeat, unfortunately I dont think there is a chance in hell that a team would give up a young D-man like that for anything but a young high end forward (ie. Larkin, Mantha, AA). Of the 3, I think AA easily has the lowest ceiling, and if we have to trade one of these three for a guy like Trouba, AA is the one I would want to trade. So the point I was trying to make, was now that this AA situation is not going well, hopefully Holland will risk trading a young player to get another young player at a position we have a greater need at. Any chance Winnipeg takes AA, 2018 1st round pick, E for Trouba? We get the young stud D-man we need and dump some cap Winnipeg trades for a young forward, and gets a potential lottery pick.

E and Nielsen are my top 2 choices. I'd trade them both in a heartbeat for zero return.

Has it been reported anywhere what offers AA has turned down? The TSN article just says he has turned down multiple offers. http://www.tsn.ca/red-wings-athanasiou-weighing-khl-offer-1.836909 Hopefully this is enough motivation now for Holland to actually trade a young player. AA, 1st, bad contract for a young D-man? Is that even enough?

I would money on it that this is just a negotiation ploy....you never know, but I'm not worried.

That was not the intended implication. If you interpreted my OP that way either you misinterpreted what I said, or its a reflection of the way I wrote it, which is on me. Mostly likely, it's a combination of the two. The reason why I wrote what I wrote, is as of late the majority of your posts are just pointing out minor flaws in everyone's arguments. You may very well be correct a lot of the times, but when you don't post solutions or opinions, it comes across like you are taking on the role of message board "proof reader" and to be honest it can be annoying. We all do this to a degree, especially with the ridiculous level of hyperbole on this board so I guess I do get it, but this is why I wrote what I did. With that being said, you have every right to post however you want so I'll leave it at that.

NEVER once did I say or imply that JT would be a "magic cure". As a GM, you need to assess you your team and make the necessary adjustments to make your team a contender. IMO we have 3 major needs right now. The first is we need an elite Center, by getting one we have the ability of moving Z to the 2C spot where he should be one of the best in the NHL, and by doing this it should make players like Nyquist, Tatar, AA etc. into very very good wingers. As we saw last year, they all excelled playing with Z, then struggled playing with whomever was our 2C. Second is our D. Again, we have good depth, but no true #1 or #2. If we can make a trade, I think this helps a lot. I think Chowolski has potential, but that is a ways away. Lastly i our coaching. We need Blashill to improve as a coach (it is possible) OR we need to replace him. It's clear as day that Blashill is not getting the most out of our players. IF all 3 of these things can happen, I believe we go from being a fringe playoff team to a very good team. I get its easier said then done, but as a GM you have to try, and look at it piece by piece. There is no magic cure, extreme optimists like to think there is, extreme pessimists like to act as if nothing will work. The realistic approach is somewhere in between. You need to sit down, evaluate your team, and make the necessary moves in order to make this happen. Acquiring JT IMO is just 1 piece to solving this puzzle of making us contenders again.

Here is the issue with debating with you Dickie, if I make a good point of what I would like to see, your fallback will always be "Well Holland won't do it, so it's a pipe-dream". However, this is a discussion board, and I am not going to stop giving opinions or idea's. You asked a question, I answered it. If anything I say simply leads to a Holland bashing, then why even ask the question in the first place?

Well for one I would do it if nobody goes on IR to make room for AA. Secondly, I have been very vocal about making a trade for a player like a Trouba (doesn't have to be him) and having more cap space gives you the flexibility to pull off a trade like that because you are able to absorb cap if the other team is looking at dumping cap with an asset. (I realize Holland is unlikely to do this, but I am saying what I would do). Now if things work themselves out for this year, I would hold off until next year as that is when I want Holland to make a move. Thirdly, I would like to take a run a JT because I believe we have very good secondary scoring, but lack elite talent. JT is elite talent. I know your counter will be "Why would JT want to come here?" Well, if you are a GM in the NHL and you think that way, you are in the wrong business.You can't not try because you are scared of failing. Think of a 1-2-3-4 of JT-Z-Larkin-whoever......that changes things big time especially if Larkin really breaks out. Speaking of Larkin, he and Mantha's contracts are due next year. My worry is IF they truly break out, we may be in trouble cap wise if we make other moves. Draisaitl just signed for 8.5mil, not that I see either of the kids getting that, but if they put up say 60 (my personal ceiling for them for this year) they could demand anything between 4-6, add in JT likely wanting 10+, and a d-man likely costing something, I want cap space. Even if you argument is "Holland wont do any of this" none of us even have a clue if he will be here in 1 year. More the reason why I want cap space. So no opinion, I guess you can't ever be wrong that way. Much easier to just point out flaws in other's.

So are you disputing my point of dumping some contracts? Or are you just ranting against Holland?

I will say this, when I first posted, I was thinking of all the trades we did in the 90's (ie. Shanny trade, Larionov trade etc.) forgetting they weren't actually made by Holland. My bad there. As far as the bold goes, I am not saying either. What I am saying is I would like to see Holland a bit more active. With that being said, can you answer what I asked you? My question was "What would you like to see from Holland moving forward?" How do you think he should approach things in regards to bringing us back to being contenders? Its easy to point out flaws in the opinions of others, can you come up with a solution?

Bottom line is that he was willing to make moves. Now that you can't really make major moves in free agency, it would be nice to see him pull off a major trade. Are you against my point? Or are you just trying to find flaws in my argument? What would you like to see from Holland moving forward? I would like to see a trade for a top pairing D-man and a couple contracts being dumped. Sure, easier said then done. But as a GM you have to be creative and that is what I want to see from Holland. I am not a poster who bashes Holland for everything he does, I think Holland takes a lot of s*** for things that really arent his fault, but I also think that sometimes he doesn't do himself any favors. I think if he could pull off a trade for a legit top D-man, it would be huge and would change the minds of a lot of posters/fans in regards to his abilities to lead this team moving forward.

Agreed with the bold, which was essentially my point. I get that it is a lot harder to trade now then it used to be because of the cap and the mind set of teams. I also get that back then it made more sense for us to trade then it does now, but @Buppy there is no denying that Holland trades less then he used as he doesnt make ANY trades with roster players now a days. In all honesty, when is the last time a roster player has been dealt? Was it Kozlov in 2001?

I like Helm, and I've said before that his contract is not that bad in a bubble, but with Z-Larkin-Nielsen-Glendenning AND Sheahan, we have no NEED for Helm and I would be completely ok with trading him even if its for peanuts.

If I had to guess, I would say it's due to the cap and how crappy free agency is. Back in the early 2000's, if he let someone walk or traded away a player that was good, he could always fall back on free agency, or make a trade where they just absorb salary. Not that he can't do that, I think he is scared to make a move.