Dabura

Vanek might've been our most tradable asset, but there was never any guarantee that he was going to fetch a big return. It's sort of like assessing the value of, say, trading cards. How much is a certain card worth on the open market? Well, it's worth what someone's willing to pay for it. You might think it's worth $100, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone's going to pay $100 for it. Maybe it's worth $100 to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to find someone who's willing to pay that price. A lot of people were using Hanzal as a comparable. Like I said yesterday... I can absolutely understand why Hanzal would be the far more attractive option for any number of GMs. We can compare point totals, but, at the end of the day, Hanzal is a big-bodied second-line centerman who can play tough minutes against top talent and hold his own. He's mean, he's a good playmaker, he's a great two-way player, he works well with speedy, creative wingers, he can play in all situations, and he can slot in as a 1C if need be. He's also a bit younger than Vanek. And, fair or not, he doesn't have Vanek's "reputation"/"baggage." It's entirely possible Hanzal becomes a force on what is a very good Wild team (probably the best NHL team he's ever played on). Vanek is extremely skilled and highly motivated, but he's not necessarily someone who a number of GMs look at and say, "This is the piece that could put us over the top." I think, for a lot of GMs, Hanzal was That Guy. Jonathan Willis goes into detail: Why Thomas Vanek was traded for such a small return The vast majority of players moved during trade deadline week are rentals. Even if Holland had succeeded in moving Nyquist or Tatar, he would've been selling low. If we're going to move a big piece like Nyquist or Tatar, the draft is probably the best market for that. Trying to unload albatross contracts like Helm's and Abdelkader's definitely isn't something that'd happen around deadline time, barring some special circumstances. In theory, the closer we get to next year's trade deadline, the more attractive and tradable Mike Green will become -- because, at the moment, he's got a big cap hit and still has a full season left on his contract, which makes him very difficult to move. I share your basic concerns about Ken Holland and the state/future of the team and I want someone from outside the organization to run the rebuild. But, in fairness to Holland, I think he did a pretty good job with these trades.

It's hard to be all that critical of this performance. I mean, really, the only disappointment is the Vanek trade, and I happen to believe Holland when he says that was the best return he was gonna get. A 3rd is more than I'd thought we'd get for Jurco. A 2nd and a 3rd is more than I'd thought we'd get for Smith. I would've taken future considerations for Ott; a 6th is a win. Holding on to Green, Nyquist, Tatar, et al. (if only for the time being) is the smart move. We've cleared out some bodies and potentially freed up a spot or two for some younger players. Honestly, this deadline was never really about the picks. I mean, it was. But I think it's fair to say The Big Thing we all wanted to see was Ken Holland -- and the Red Wings organization -- taking that first step towards something better, a brighter future. "One small step for Ken, one giant leap for Hockeytown." Of course, there's really nothing to say that the ghost has officially been given up. Maybe Holland and/or management don't see this as Step 1 in a rebuild plan, in which case we're f*****. And, tbh, that possibility is sort of a gray cloud hovering over my feelings on these deadline moves... BUT. Based on the moves themselves, I'll give Holland...a B+? Maybe an A-? I guess? Bueller?

Yeah, I was never sold on the notion that Vanek was absolutely going to bring us a 1st "because [x] garnered [y]." There are so many variables with this kind of thing. (Look at what happened with Ben Bishop.) I'm really disappointed with the return, and, like you, I wonder if Holland simply waited too long. But I think it's fair to conclude that there was never a truly serious market for Vanek. It was "Well, if we can't get our guy, maybe we circle back to Vanek on deadline day. But we don't necessarily need Vanek. It'd just be nice to have him as a third-liner or whatever. I guess."

lol

Well, it is Vegas...

Quit harshin' my buzz, haterz.

Maybe Kenny's passive-aggressively threatening to expose Vanek to potential injury if the interested party doesn't pony up within the next hour? That would be kinda badass.

boooooooooo

There is no weak, no strong. No win, no lose. No draft. There is only Andrei Svechnikov. Keep an eye out for Andrei Svechnikov, 2018 draft frontrunner Andrei Svechnikov shows why he's 'Russia's next big thing' at WJAC Interview With Young Phenom Andrei Svechnikov

NOTE: Not verified. Treat accordingly.

Tsujimoto or bust!

I am him. Nah, I just remember owning a lot of Ulf Dahlen trading cards as a kid. Was sort of a running joke for a while -- I could walk into a hobby shop, pick a pack of hockey cards at random, and there would almost certainly be an Ulf Dahlen card in the pack.

Huh, how 'bout that. (Coincidence? I THINK NOT!)

Ulf Dahlen. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

One step closer to drafting Andrei Svechnikov in 2018.

Stuff? Stuff is...happening? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY???

There's nothing unreasonable about it, but, at the same time, I can absolutely understand why Hanzal would be the far more attractive option for any number of GMs. We can compare point totals, but, at the end of the day, Hanzal is a big-bodied second-line centerman who can play tough minutes against top talent and hold his own. He's mean, he's a good playmaker, he's a great two-way player, he works well with speedy, creative wingers, he can play in all situations, and he can slot in as a 1C if need be. He's also a bit younger than Vanek. And, fair or not, he doesn't have Vanek's "reputation"/"baggage." It's entirely possible Hanzal becomes a force on what is a very good Wild team (probably the best NHL team he's ever played on). Vanek is extremely skilled and highly motivated, but he's not necessarily someone who a number of GMs look at and say, "This is the piece that could put us over the top." I think, for a lot of GMs, Hanzal was That Guy. (Still, I'll be disappointed if we don't get at least a 1st for Vanek.)

And the more high picks you get, the more shots you get at landing that kind of talent. Not that cornerstone talent can't be found in later rounds, of course. But, point is, you want to give yourself the best odds you can. Getting some high picks in any given draft doesn't necessarily mean you're going to draft a single truly great player in that draft -- but, at this point, that path is pretty much our only way forward. We have to commit to it. While I love some of our young talent, we are in desperate need of at least two or three players who are even better than our best young players (Mantha, Larkin, Athanasiou, Mrazek). That's how far away we are from winning our next Cup, IMHO. Again, the draft is pretty much the only way we're getting that kind of talent, so...we've gotta draft, and we've gotta be aggressive about it.

I love Jensen's game (most of all: his skating, mobility) and I definitely want a youth movement. Just sayin'. Jensen's only played in a few games at the NHL level and he's been pretty sheltered in terms of his responsibilities, so it's not entirely clear what we have in him. That's one of the reasons I like this deal -- it's a zero-risk "show me" contract.