Dabura

Mmmmm...Dasha Zhukova...mmmmm....

I'm not denying Tavares is an elite player. I'm saying, as a general rule, you don't trade key pieces of your contending roster for a rental unless you're damn sure that player is going to sign with you (and even then, I'm not sure). If Yzerman trades Johnson + Palat for Tavares without a deal in place that will keep Tavares in Tampa beyond 2018, the Bolts likely end up without all three of Johnson, Palat, Tavares at this time next year. And there's no guarantee that Tavares would bring them the Cup in 2018. Hell, there's no guarantee that they don't have another season like the one they just had, injuries knocking them down so hard that they don't even qualify for the playoffs. (A lot of pre-season predictions had the Bolts winning the East.)

You people are ridiculous.

Well, sure. But how much are you, as a GM, willing to overpay? Late first-round picks and promising-but-unproven prospects are one thing. Johnson + Palat? To me, that's quite another thing.

It's more plausible if we're assuming there's a deal in place. But then, if Ovie's age is a reason why the Caps would want to make that trade, wouldn't Ovie's age also be a reason why the Isles would be reluctant to make that trade? Not to mention the fact that Ovie is a winger and Tavares is a centerman. Ovie remains a top talent, but he's a declining winger -- and even in his prime, he was never able to power his team past the second round of the playoffs. I imagine the Isles would want a centerman or a defenseman. (...Kuznetsov?) As far as I can tell, no centerman in the Isles' system is capable of adequately replacing Tavares right now or in the near future.

Ovie for Tavares is not a plausible deal -- unless, perhaps, Tavares puts it in writing that he'll sign with the Caps. Johnson + Palat would be an overpayment -- unless, perhaps, Tavares puts it in writing that he'll sign with the Bolts. If Garth Snow shops Tavares, it'll be because Tavares has informed him that he won't be re-signing with the Isles. Snow, then, would be in the unenviable position of having to trade him for something or lose him for nothing -- and every GM would know it. Snow, then, wouldn't have much in the way of leverage in any Tavares trade talks. Unless it's some form of sign-and-trade or there's a *Firm Handshake Agreement* or Tavares's agent has Darren Dreger put it out there that the team that trades for Tavares will have a very meaningful advantage over other teams re: signing him...you treat Tavares as a rental and negotiate with Snow accordingly.

If we're looking at the "full context," we should be looking at more than just goal totals and goals-per-game rates. VANEK Vanek did what he did in an extremely sheltered role: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/thomas-vanek-traded-small-return/ Vanek started 49.5 percent of his shifts in the o-zone and 21.4 percent of his shifts in the d-zone. Despite this cushy deployment scheme, his possession numbers were poor: https://s11.postimg.org/hqdpwzo8z/Story_40.png (His CF% on the season was 47.5.) Tatar started 31.8 percent of his shifts in the o-zone and 29 percent of his shifts in the d-zone. Despite the tougher deployment scheme, Tatar's possession numbers were better: https://s9.postimg.org/ol2t5m5a7/Story_41.png (CF%: 50.6.) ATHANASIOU For much of this past season, I really disliked how Blashill was handling AA. Towards the end of the season, I watched AA more closely and monitored his underlying numbers. I concluded that Blashill was fully justified in being hard on AA. Let's look at zone starts again. AA started 40.7 percent of his shifts in the o-zone and 25.9 percent of his shifts in the d-zone. Despite this cushy deployment scheme, his possession numbers were poor: https://s14.postimg.org/6tbiywn0h/Story_42.png https://s1.postimg.org/ywnl9amb3/Story_43.png (CF%: 47.5.) A lot of people will treat those charts as self-evident proof that AA is a great player. "If he scored that many goals in such a limited role, it only makes sense that increased ice time would lead to outstanding production, probably 60+ points." Personally, I don't think it's safe to assume his numbers will scale up like that. IMO, AA's game is, at this time, immature and one-dimensional and problematic. If he's going to be hard-matched against top players next season, he's probably going to be a liability when the going gets tough. Even if you take away Tatar's goals and assists, he -- Tatar -- is still an outstanding possession driver (i.e. not a liability): https://s9.postimg.org/p46zhzfz3/Story_44.png https://s2.postimg.org/jmq8d4kfd/Story_45.png https://s4.postimg.org/aw0tr34el/Story_46.png https://s22.postimg.org/a3d852h4x/Story_47.png I think AA has a high ceiling. At this point in time, however, Tatar is the superior player. AA has to grow his game. He has a lot to prove. MANTHA & LARKIN They've arguably shown more promise than AA has shown, but the sample size is still incredibly small. At this point in time, Tatar is the better player. (I have to head out soon and am rushing this last bit.) * * * Mantha, Larkin, and Athanasiou are, I think, capable of surpassing Tatar. And if Tatar wants a mega deal, yeah, you're probably getting more bang for your buck with any of the aforementioned younger players. And that's not even considering the return that Tatar could bring in a trade. So, yeah -- if Tatar wants unreasonable money, I'm ok with signing the one-year deal and trading him. But, like I've said before, we shouldn't be eager to part ways (unless his demands are unreasonable and he doesn't budge). "He's not a gamechanger and all of our kids are probably better than him anyway, so he's expendable" = "I don't fully understand and appreciate what we have in Tatar." He can score 25 goals and drive possession in a top-line role on a terrible possession team that can't score goals and doesn't have a functional power play and has a s*** blue line. (And it's worth noting that he only put up 8 points on the power play this season. Which is, to me, an indictment of the terrible power play.) He's a very good player. He's the kind of player you try to keep. T.J. Oshie is a similar player and he just got $5.75M x 8. If we can get Tatar for just a bit less on the money side and two or three fewer years, I say that's a good deal (assuming his shoulder isn't A Thing). If that's what he's looking for and Holland feels our cap situation can't allow it, I'm going to call that mismanagement. Dump some salary! It's not like our roster is overloaded with "gamechangers" who'd leave gaping holes in our organizational depth chart. On the other hand, if Holland has very good reason to believe he could get an exceptional return for Tatar on the trade market, maybe that does tip the scale in favor of moving him, even if he's asking for market value on this contract. That would be risky, though.

I figure Vanek is a contingency plan, re: the Tatar situation.

I'm not saying he will. (Though, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say he's capable of doing it.) I'm saying he and Tatar have consistently performed like respectable top-line wingers -- and they have. I'm saying your argument that Nyquist and Tatar are average, run-of-the-mill players is dumb -- and it is. I'm saying your argument that Nyquist and Tatar can't score 40 goals between them is dumb -- and it is. Tatar had more assists than goals in 2013-14 and 2015-16. Having more goals than assists does not equal "doesn't help those around him." Tatar puts up points and drives possession. He does what a top-six winger should do. He does what a solid (if unspectacular) top-line scoring winger should do. Nyquist had more assists than goals in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Name them, and make a strong case for why they're all "much better players." 2014-15: 14 power play goals, 24 power play points. He was lethal in that role. How much power play action have they seen at the NHL level? How many power play points have they put up at the NHL level? You've totally convinced me. The evidence is overwhelming. But Svechnikov is definitely much better than Nyquist and Rasmussen should definitely get a look in the top nine in 2017-18. Seems legit. Agreed. Or you draft them. (Wait, so you think average, run-of-the-mill Nyquist/Tatar could get us a top-end player? That would seem to imply they're not average, run-of-the-mill players.) I'm ok with trading Nyquist or Tatar if we get a really good return that helps advance the rebuild. I'm not ok with being in a great hurry to move Nyquist or Tatar "because kids" and/or "because cap space" (unless, perhaps, we have a real shot at Tavares). I'm not ok with assuming Mantha, Svechnikov, Rasmussen are going to be better than Nyquist and Tatar. We don't know that Mantha is a future 30-goal man. He hasn't even played a full NHL season. Svechnikov has played two games at the NHL level, and he hasn't exactly obliterated the AHL. Have you examined Rasmussen's numbers? https://canucksarmy.com/2017/02/02/let-s-talk-about-michael-rasmussen/ Read that piece. If you want to talk about average, run-of-the-mill, one-dimensional players who don't make others around them better and who won't be consistent 30-40 goal scorers at the NHL level, I dare say you should be a little more critical of a guy like Rasmussen.

2014-15: Nyquist scored 27 goals, Tatar scored 29 goals. 27 + 29 = 56. That's more than 40. 2015-16: Nyquist scored 17 goals, Tatar scored 21 goals. 17 + 21 = 38. Call it 40. 2016-17: Nyquist scored 12 goals, Tatar scored 25 goals. 12 + 25 = 37. Call it 40. If our power play doesn't go to hell when Babcock and Hiller leave, their 2015-16 and 2016-17 numbers are significantly better. I still have no idea why Nyquist wasn't kept in the slot on the power play. He was lethal in that role in 2014-15. And the power play was lethal with him in that role in 2014-15. Hmmm.... (P.S. This whole combined 40 goals thing is arbitrary and dumb.) Based on what? Run-of-the-mill players who have consistently performed like respectable top-line scoring wingers. And one of them ranks 31st in goals scored over the past three seasons. Meaning only 30 players in the league have scored more goals than he has over the past three seasons. Nyquist and Tatar are not The Problem. Though, moving one of them could, in theory, be part of The Solution. Svechnikov and Bertuzzi are probably another year away from full-time duty. Rasmussen is years away, and that's assuming he ever reaches the NHL. I have no great love for Helm, Sheahan, Glendening, Witkowski, Abdelkader; we could trade all of them, for all I care. These are run-of-the-mill players. Like I said, unloading a few non-essential players could get us the cap space we'd need to sign Tavares. Larkin and Mantha are due for substantial raises, but we could make it work if we really wanted to. Moving Tatar would help the cause, yes. LTIRetiring Kronwall would also help. If Mrazek's on his way out, that also helps. We don't need all of Sproul, Ouellet, Jensen, Russo, McIlrath. Point being: you're presenting a false dilemma. In theory, we could keep two or all three of Nyquist, Tatar, Athanasiou and still have room for Tavares. And Svechnikov will be playing for peanuts for the next several years. And, honestly, Rasmussen shouldn't even be in the picture at this point in time. Nyquist, Tatar/Bertuzzi, Larkin, Mantha, Nielsen, Tavares, Zetterberg, Svechnikov, Athanasiou. That could be our top nine next year. In theory. It's not happening, of course. And, no, that's not on Nyquist and Tatar.

Secondary scorers who have consistently performed like respectable first-line scoring wingers. Nyquist 2014-15 Nyquist 2015-16 Nyquist 2016-17 Tatar 2014-15 Tatar 2015-16 Tatar 2016-17 And? ...And? It would be a problem if they were getting paid like Kane, Crosby, Stamkos, McDavid, Ovechkin. Fortunately, they're not. Nyquist's cap hit is $4.75M. Tatar is coming off a value contract and is reportedly asking for Oshie money, in terms of the cap hit. Which makes sense, as he and Oshie are roughly the same player. Speaking of Oshie, you know how much money the Caps have tied up in Oshie (their 1RW) + Kuznetsov (their 2C)? Oshie (age: 30) is $5.75M against their cap until 2025. Kuznetsov is $7.8M against their cap until 2025. That's $13.5M every year for the next 400 years. How many times has Oshie scored 40 goals? How many times has Kuznetsov scored 40 goals? How many of their past several seasons were spent on a middling post-Lidstrom Red Wings team? How much has playing for some powerhouse Capitals teams boosted Kuznetsov's impressive point totals? Food for thought. Why not all six? Unload Green ($6M) and Mrazek ($4M) and Sheahan ($2.075M) and, when the time comes, LTIRetire Kronwall. BOOM! Cap space. Look, I'm not firmly opposed to trading Tatar. Actually, there's a part of me that's kind of hoping he gets a one-year deal and we end up trading him. Having two prime slabs of trade bait in Green and Tatar could, potentially, accelerate the rebuild in a big way. It could establish the rebuilding effort as a "rebuild-on-the-fly" effort that might actually have more than a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Next year's draft class is shaping up to be really good; if Holland could somehow turn Green and Tatar into two additional 2018 first-round picks... And even if we don't get any additional 1sts, I'm guessing we still get a solid return. (And it's not like there aren't players I wouldn't take over a first-round pick.) And that's the only thing, really. If we're trading Tatar, I want a really good return. I don't want "Well, Tatar's just a secondary scorer [who ranks 31st in goals scored over the past three seasons and can score 25 goals on a team that can't score goals] and we have Svechnikov, so, basically, Tatar is holding us back and he needs to go." Fortunately, Holland wouldn't be so cavalier. (...Right?) If Tatar gets a multi-year deal, it's going to be a good deal (assuming his shoulder isn't A Thing). If Tatar gets a one-year deal and we trade him, it's going to be a good return. I have my problems with Holland, but I'm sure the gravity of this situation isn't lost on him.

(Now watch me be completely wrong. Tatar gets a one-year deal and we trade him for a stud defenseman at the deadline.)

Hards are trade.

Holland will make it work. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. The situation is not "Holland was under the impression that Tatar and Athanasiou would sign for peanuts, so he went out and signed Daley and Witkowski, but then Tatar and Athanasiou didn't want to sign for peanuts, and now we're probably going to lose Tatar or Athanasiou." I repeat: Tatar is arguably our best player not named Zetterberg. He scores goals. The hardest thing to do in the NHL is score goals. Again: over the past three seasons, only 30 players have scored more goals. He's shown he's good for at 20 goals and 45 points. The same can't be said of the vast majority of our forwards. He's shown he's a very good possession driver. The same can't be said of the vast majority of our forwards. He's shown that he can do what he does in a demanding, non-sheltered role. The same can't be said of the vast majority of our forwards. Tatar and Nyquist are our top wingers right now. They've established themselves as respectable first-liners. With a better power play and a better supporting cast (especially on the back end), they're probably 55-60 point players. The jury is out on Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou. Svechnikov is totally unproven at the NHL level. There's no guarantee that any of these players will become a perennial all-star. Trading Tatar for futures so we can "develop [insert younger forward]" makes no sense. We can keep Tatar and still develop younger players. Remove Tatar and we're short a top-line winger (and a mentor for younger players), and it becomes that much harder for our team to manufacture offense and score goals and win games. Tatar routinely goes up against top players and holds his own. Do we want to throw a kid into that role? Even if he can handle it, is that what's best for the kid? Is it what's best for the team? Does it push the rebuild forward in a meaningful way, or is it just change for the sake of change? Tatar and Nyquist are not problematic. Our most fundamental problem is that we lack top-tier talent. That's not on Tatar and Nyquist; they are what they are, and what they are is very good.

I assume you're referring to this: http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/tatar-hopes-to-avoid-arbitration Firstly, it's a translation. I don't speak the language, but I assume a degree of nuance has been lost in translation. Secondly, players tend to be more candid when talking with non-North American press in the offseason. Seems like we get this kind of thing every summer -- [Red Wing] says something in a foreign-language interview, it's interpreted by a loud minority of fans as a Gutless Declaration of Gutless Discontent (Gutless! Absolutely Gutless! Gutless! Gutless! Gutless!), and...nothing comes of it. Because it wasn't a big deal in the first place. Thirdly, he's not wrong: if he gets a one-year deal, it would probably be his last season in Detroit, because a one-year deal is the final outcome of an arbitration process, unless the organization and player compromise at some point during the process. I don't think it'll get to that point. I don't think it even gets to arbitration. Fourthly, like I said in my previous post: ~$5M x 5 years is a very reasonable ask. If the two sides are butting heads, it's probably because Holland wants/needs just a little, *tiny bit* more wiggle room, because we're that hard up against the cap and Tatar is technically still an RFA and Larkin and Mantha are due for big raises soon.

Did I miss something?? Tatar filed for player-elected salary arbitration, but that wasn't unexpected. I'm going to "unironically" quote HSJ: http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2017/07/05/red-wings-tomas-tatar-arbitration/452176001/ Did everyone catch that titillating truth bomb there at the end? Tatar is arguably our best player not named Zetterberg. I rate him as a legitimate first-line winger. That he's reportedly seeking $5(.5)M x 5 years is encouraging, as he would be justified in asking for more and he would surely get more on the open market. So, if anything, it appears he's (not un)happy in Detroit and is even willing to take a bit of a hometown discount to stay. ... What a bum!

We should look at those defensemen on a case-by-case basis. DALEY -- Was he given an NTC? As others have pointed out, CapFriendly says no... GREEN -- One year left on his deal. I see him being traded this season and I see us getting a decent return for him. DEKEYSER -- Holland has no appetite for moving him + he's coming off an awful season + the money and term of his contract will only become really attractive to other teams if he establishes himself as a Real Good top-four defenseman. Of course, if he establishes himself as a Real Good top-four defenseman, Holland will be that much more uninterested in moving him. He's probably a Red Wing for life. He's probably being groomed for a leadership role. KRONWALL -- Two years left on his deal, will probably spend most of that time in LTIRetirement. Will retire a Red Wing. ERICSSON -- meh, whatevz

Zetterberg.

I mean, define "smart." If an NTC is the difference between signing Daley and not signing Daley, I'm ok with giving him the NTC and having a top three of Green, Daley, DeKeyser instead of a top three of Green, DeKeyser, Ouellet/Jensen/Ericsson. It won't make moving him impossible, it'll just make it a bit harder. I think bigger obstacles to trades are, in our case, questionable contracts -- in terms of money and term -- and the fact that Holland just isn't big on trading roster players.

He's gritty and he's from Michigan; he'll be playing every night.

Huh. I feel like they could do better than Tocchet. But what do I know. I'll take it!

Ideally, you don't give anyone an NTC or an NMC. I'm just saying the reality is that these are handed out with regularity, right or wrong, for better or for worse. If it's true that Holland didn't give Daley an NTC...well, I like the signing even more.

That's the price you pay for a good UFA these days, standard business practice. Holland isn't the only GM who hands them out.

Right, goes without saying. #DidHollandTradeForAReallyGoodPlayerWhoIsn'tANobodyOrAVeteranRental? #AreTradesStillHard? #IsThereStillNoHockeyStore?

I've actually been considering making one of these. And by "making one of these" I mean getting someone else to do it, because I'm lazy.