haroldsnepsts

I'd take Semin for a year over Doan. Doan is a great player and a warrior, but the guy's 35. His help to this team is limited, especially given how he plays. A 28 year old Semin on a one year deal, you hope he turns it around and then the Wings can lock him up for a handful of years next season. So hypothetical situations you couldn't possibly know are true are ok when used to dismiss a signing? I'd have to think getting Semin away from Ovechkin and around a player like Dats could only help.

Yes but that's the worst case scenario, and the Wings have a lockerroom full of guys like Dats, Z, and Helm to outweigh one potentially lazy player (insert Franzen joke here). And the same could've been said when they signed Cleary. Or Bert. Like I said, a one-year deal also helps that because if Semin wants a good payday next year he has to prove his doubters wrong this season. And I thought earlier Semin's camp was saying they were waiting on the Doan deal. That might have held them back from signing earlier, but they got tired of waiting.

I'm beating this to death, so I'll just say this. The way you and Crymson have constructed the argument, there is no possible answer anyone can give you that will satisfy you. So why have the discussion other than to get to shut people down and try to stop them from criticizing Holland? Let's play this game. We'll go through every loss the Wings had last season. You guys tell me what they should have done differently to win, then I'll let you know if they would've won or not. Get ready for one of these two answers: 1) That wouldn't have been enough because of (some hypothetical reasons I'll make up on the fly). 2) We'll never know because that's not what they did. It could've made them lose even worse.

Certainly not no risk. But for one year, the Wings having cap space, and few options out there, it would've been lower risk than I expected. I seem to remember Holland saying from the get go he wasn't interested in Semin though. I thought maybe that was a poker face, but I guess not. As I said before, Semin seemed like a good candidate for another Holland reclamation project.

We definitely didn't have to. It would've been fun to see what he'd do with Dats though. Of course, there's also the risk that the Wings would've added another extremely talented player with a questionable work ethic. For one year though, that's not a huge risk. Not heartbreaking, but the one-year deal would've made it more attractive. I figured Semin would be looking for longer term headed into the CBA. And with a one year deal, you'd have to think he's more likely to bust his ass to prove his doubters wrong and get the big payday next year.

This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier. You keep asking for examples, so someone gives one. Of course we can't know for sure if it would've made the team worse rather than better. Because it didn't happen. They way you've constructed the argument, there's only two responses from you and either way they negate the proposed trade or signing. One, you criticize the player based on his traits and state as if they were facts the reason why they wouldn't be good for the Wings. Or if the proposal is actually somewhat reasonable suggestion and can't be easily dismissed that way, you can just say there's no way we'd know for sure if it would make the team better like you did above. That is true of all hypothetical situations so there's no way someone can answer your question. Either way there is no possible answer that could satisfy your criteria. It's either "that player sucks for these reasons" or "we don't know for sure that would've helped." You've set it up so no matter what someone says, you "win" the debate, which I'm guessing is why you enjoy this line of reasoning so much. But that's flawed reasoning. Just because they were traded to one team doesn't mean they could've been to the Wings. And on the flipside just because a player wasn't traded doesn't mean that they couldn't have been traded to the Wings. It's all ultimately speculation. I just don't understand expecting people here to prove some other scenario in order to be able to criticize Holland, and arguing from the position of what actually happened. When the Wings lose, you might as well ask someone to prove a shot they could've taken that definitely would've scored so they could win the game. It seems less about actual hockey discussion and more about setting up the argument to win a debate.

I didn't really have any strong opinion on Semin coming here. It seemed interesting, but risky. It's one more option gone though.

Agreed. Poile screwed himself. He probably would've still had to throw around big money to keep him but he could've structured the deal to make it a lot less painful up front. And he would've locked him up before Suter bolted, so you'd have to think Weber would've been more inclined on staying with Nashville. It took the Flyers crazy offer to force the Preds ownership into putting on their big boy pants and finally throwing some money around. And honestly if he wasn't going to be on the Wings, I sure wouldn't have minded Weber going to the Eastern Conference.

I completely agree. What I don't agree with is the expectation that all fans should be happy about that and quietly accept it, even if it is an inevitability. To me trying to get Wings fans to just accept the situation and support Holland is more absurd than expecting Holland to always be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat to keep the Wings a Cup contender. The latter is at least hockey related, if unrealistic. The former is trying to get people to behave rationally by lecturing them, when being a fan is mostly an irrational activity.

Then why did you ask people to do exactly that, to make up trades that were hypothetical and could never know for sure that they could've happened?And how could we possibly know without a doubt the players Holland could have landed, unless he actually successfully brought them here? Holland is among if not the best GM in the league. I'm not unhappy because I think he's crappy at his job. I'm unhappy because I expect more of him. And I'm not talking about not getting Suter or Nash. He basically painted himself into a corner this offseason and is looking very un-Holland like having to chase after all these big free agents. Lidstrom's retirement was a known event. Stuart going back to California was a known event. I would've hoped he'd have a better transition plan. And I can think that without having to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that transition plan could've been. Because no matter what I say, it didn't happen, so it's pretty easy for you to shoot down. You say the burden of proof is on us, but then in the same post you also say you don't see the logic behind arguing hypothetical trades either? So what is it you expect, other than for people not to complain? Your argument is essentially trying to quell criticism and debate here, which is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with a lot of the Holland bashing here, but we're not in a court of law we're on a fan forum. People are allowed to express their opinions, even without irrefutable evidence.

I've already answered this multiple times when Crymson asks it. It's an absurdly difficult request to prove something that didn't happen, and really just sets you guys up so you can shoot down any idea that someone comes up with. When the reality is, you have no idea what could've happened either. As I said before, if I knew all the deals that were available and that they could definitely happen and that they would improve the team, I'd take Ken Holland's job. A lot of these deals you never even hear about it and see coming until they happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the expectation that Holland could do a little better than a fan on a wings forum. The example I use is the Kings. Before it happened, who really could've thought that they'd bring in Mike Richards? That trade would've been shot down as absurd. Surely the Flyers wouldn't get rid of their captain and someone they had signed until 2020. Plus there was all the drama and drinking and questionable work ethic surrounding Richards there. Surely that would be a terrible trade for the Kings. The Carter trade too. There's no way the Kings would give up a talented young defenseman they signed long term in Jack Johnson to bring in Carter. Carter and Richards together is even worse! Bring the drinking buddies together?? and Carter was doing nothing but moping in Columbus. No way the Kings make that deal, right? It would devastate the team. or maybe not.

The deals that have been made so far this off season certainly make it more difficult for the owners to cry about needing to reduce players salaries.

Based on what the owners led with I wouldn't be surprised if the players asked for salaries be 75% of revenue, 40 game seasons, and gold plated hockey pucks.

You just proved stevekrause was exactly right.

I probably shouldn't encourage the anti-Crosby obsession here but this was just too funny. From https://twitter.com/hockeymemes

Kopitar The kid's got ice in his veins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DNukZ9sVBY

Poile kinda screwed himself with the whole handling of Weber this year and last year. It took Holmgren's offer sheet for the Predators to actually act like a franchise that's willing to spend money for its franchise players.

Unless they absolutely weren't financially able to, they really didn't have much choice if they wanted to give that franchise a chance.

Ah. I had scrolled back to try and clarify if that's what you meant and figured it was referring specifically to Ryan. Sorry. My bad.

I'm guessing it's the "minor short term upgrade." Ryan's contract is three more years and he's been a 30+ goal four years running now. He's big and goes hard to the net, which is exactly what the Wings need. It's not like Detroit would be adding a franchise player, but "minor upgrade" is underselling it a bit.

I'm feeling the same way. I don't like Doan much after last years playoffs, but I know he's a talented player, competes hard, and would bring a physical edge to the Wings. He'd make the team better for sure. But as a 35 year old forward, he wouldn't really be a major, lasting improvement to the Wings. And because he's a 35 yr old, if he leaves Phoenix honestly I see him moving to some team that at least on paper looks to be a serious Cup contender for the next couple seasons. That isn't the Wings.

Overrated? or overpaid? I don't know that anyone thinks he's Norris worthy or anything. Honestly I don't see enough of his play to know if he's actually not that good or if he just gets a ton of grief because he's not good enough to warrant his contract.

This. At the very least it's safe to say Howson wasn't going to trade Nash to Detroit without the Wings making a ridiculously lopsided offer in favor of the Jackets. There aren't a whole lot of trades that happen within a division, even fewer (if any, ever?) when you're talking about a franchise player.

If you're going to trade the best player away, to me it makes the most sense to move him to the other conference where you're going to play against him the least. I'm not sure why they'd have conference loyalty. If I were a GM trading a star player, I'd sure want to put him in a place where he can do the least amount of damage to my team.

So I'm assuming the Ranger's first line is Nash-Richards-Gaborik wow. Or Nash-Richards-Callahan?