kliq

It sounds to me that you are saying winning = good GM, losing = bad GM. What moves in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were you upset with? The reason why I ask, is because there are plenty of things to criticize Holland over, but having your team go on a down slide after being contenders for 20 years is not one of them. EVERY team goes on a down swing, the fact it took us so long is an example of our FO doing a good job, not a bad one. IMO there are only two major mistakes that Holland makes. 1) He is way to tentative to make a trade, sometimes you have to take a risk. 2) He puts too much value on vets. I agree that vets are crucial as with no vets you become a joke like Edmonton this past decade. But Holland needs to sometimes let vets walk (ie. A Helm situation) and give a kid a shot instead. I am just using Helm as an example, I actually really like Helm, but Holland just keeps signing vets when he should be allowing kids to play. Plus, having all vets keeps you at the cap, and keeping you at the cap can restrict your ability to pull off certain trades. The second part is just untrue. A GM's job is to acquire and retain high end talent, and place them with good secondary talent. Holland did that for a very very long time. To say that the talent he acquired and retained masked him being a poor GM goes against the fundamentals of what his job is. The fact that he was able to acquire Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and then get them to stay along with Lidstrom their entire career's is part of what made him a great GM. There is no denying that Holland has dug himself into a hole, if he is still a good GM he will climb out, if he's not he won't. Simple. Unless of course the players he acquires moving forward do really well and mask his abilities again

What are you basing this on?

I m pretty sure I read that Sproul will not be ready for the start of the season.

Agreed I would as well. I dont know much about Bean, but if he fits the part of top pairing/#1 d-man down the road, I say do it.

Are you seriously trying to sell that Rasmussen was the "safe pick"? I think 99% of people would agree that the "safe pick" would have been Vilardi. Rasmussen is the epitome of a "risk" being that from all accounts he is no sure thing. I'm not even defending the pick, but it clearly was a risk. I also don't see how signing Butcher to a minimum contract is a risk. I agree that Holland needs to take more risks, but these are horrible examples. I think you are equating "risk" to Holland just doing what you want him to do. A risk would be trading AA for a potential top pairing D-man. Would you want this? I'm guessing no.

Do you think we can win now? Because "win now" mode is the only time you should be buying players out. Kronwall has 2 years left on his deal, let it play out or if eligible place on LTIR. I know you love to spin loyalty into being a bad thing, but when you have a guy like Kronwall who's knees are breaking because of what he has done for us over the past 15 years, you don't just tell him to get the F out. The way we treat our players is a reason why even though we suck, UFA's still are willing to come here. I get the frustration with the Kronwall situation, I think all of us either want a full recovery, or him to go on LTIR, its the middle ground that is frustrating, but by the time we are legit contenders anyways, he'll be gone.

lol yes. I could see 60 points.

I hope you're right, sky's the limit for the kid. Not sure about 90 points lol, but I think he can be a solid 2nd liner.

My only concern about that second line, is I could see them having problems getting the puck out of the corners if Blashill has them dump and chase.

Not disagreeing with the overall message here, but as far as the bold goes.....they were though. I'd rather see him play 2C then 1W.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Sproul is likely not going to be ready for Opening night. So with him being out, where does that leave us cap wise?

In fairness I cant dispute any of this, when it comes to the cap the guy walks the line and we really haven't lost anyone of note, or not been able to sign someone we wanted because of it. This is why I am against buying out E, doing that today would help nothing for this year, and just adds on time with a cap hit. Rather waste it now.

E - No way Helm - I believe so. His contract on this team is bad, but in a bubble on a team with a lot of room and a need for a player like him, I think he is definitely tradable (not going to get much back, but that wasnt the question) Glendening - I think so if we retain some salary. I could see TO taking him if we say retained 400K, I think him at 1.4 is better then Moore at 1. You know how Babs feels about him. Players like him may be mocked around here, but coaches like Babs love these guys.

Condolences to his friends and family, so sad.

Agreed, very good points. I think Holland has always been this way, but when there was no salary cap and it was high end players, it was considered genius I think all of us talking logically can agree that Hollands strengths as a GM are the ability to establish a great culture within the organization, the ability to retain players and for the most part acquire the UFA's he wants. I know some like to say we can't acquire UFA's because of Suter and Niskanen, but when you look at the last 20 years he almost always get the players he wants. Loyalty to a fault I can agree with, Lefty's over the top rants about Loyalty being such a bad thing and the motive for everything he does, I call BS on (ie. Tatar was re-signed only because of "loyalty"). When we were an elite team, and the players he kept were elite, everybody loved him. Now that we haven't been able to acquire an elite player in a very long time, he is doing the same thing, but it's with mediocre/good players and he appears to be clueless in understanding the salary cap ramifications. But the bigger problem is he appears to be scared to take ANY risks, hence his over reliance on vets. I dont think this team is screwed like some believe, and luckily to this point we haven't lost anyone of note because of these contracts (sorry, but I dont count Ferrero, Frk, Nesty, and Pulk as players of note) and if Holland could make just a few trades and dump just a few contracts I think we would be just fine. Trade away E, Howard, and Nielsen and our cap situation changes considerably. That would be about 15mil not even counting Green's 6mil coming off in the off season. The problem is I don't think he see's it as a problem. I know people will say you can't trade those players, but I think you can trade at least some of them. NOBODY though Shanny could trade a healthy Clarkson, and he did. Just need to be creative.

That's my point. I dont even think he was at 23 goals when this thread was made, if I remember correctly the main reason for the term "elite" being used was his plus/minus and speed. He's definitely not elite, but saying 2C "at best" is kind of an ultra pessimistic way of looking at it. The realistic way would be 1C at best, 3C at worst, 2C most likely.

Do you still think he's elite?

lol, I didnt realize I used it twice. I think we all know a contender he would easily be the 1C on

I didn't read this anywhere, but not shocked you jumped to this. As far as the rest goes, its just way to ridiculous to even address. You seriously sound ridiculous.

I was talking top 6 because of this comment by Bill. "Zetterberg is a 3C on the Stanley Cup winning teams." Either way, even if we are talking top line, Panik is listed on Chicago's top line, and Sheary is listed as being on Pittsbugh's top line.

Saying nobody on our team would be a top 6 player on a Stanley cup winning team is such a weak argument, its as if they think that all top 6 players on elite teams are elite. Having an elite line, does not mean EVERY player on that line is elite. Right off the top of my head, I can think of many top 6 players on top teams that were not elite and could likely have their spot taken from Z. Richard Panik and Artem Anisimov on Chicago, Mike Fisher on Nashville, Conor Sheary on Pittsburgh etc. I'm sure I could list countless examples.

What CRL said. Neither Holland or AA's camp have released the actual offers which is to be expected in a clean contract negotiation. In the recent TSN article about the Red Wings cap situation, this is the snippet that I am basing my statement from: "Holland told MLive he's made 'a number of offers' to the 23-year-old centre." http://www.tsn.ca/red-wings-expect-pre-season-cap-crunch-1.825634

AA has been offered contracts, he has turned them down. You make it sound like Holland is not speaking to him. Its not like Holland will only talk to 1 RFA at a time, and then once that RFA is done he jumps to the next one. XO signed right away, AA didnt. Also, Tatar was signed during his arbitration. That is MUCH MUCH MUCH more time sensitive then signing AA.

When I googled it, it said he was a "Blackhawks announcer".