Dabura

Boedker is crap and Radulov is staying in Russia. _______ Okposo. Offer-sheet Kucherov. Kick the tires on Hanzal. Acquire Shattenkirk. Do stuff.

Ouch.

Khan and HSJ have been beating the Ladd and Brouwer drums to death. This is pants-pissingly scary to me. I fear there's real potential there for an albatross contract or two. Same with Nielsen, who I love, but is already 31 and doesn't necessarily make us a substantially better team. I guess Backes falls into this category as well, but the one thing about him is that he can still function as a 1C (I think? Maybe? Possibly? If he tries really hard?) and he's coming off an impressive postseason -- though, granted, excelling as a winger on a deep Blues team that can prop you up is very different from driving the bus as a top-line centerman on a middling-at-best Wings team. And, of course, he -- like Ladd and Brouwer and certainly Lucic -- is inevitably going to wear his body down to nothing, and it's not going to be pretty when it happens. I'm not big on Lucic, and I don't think we're on his radar anyway. I do like Okposo quite a bit. Seems we all do. I'd say the talent gap between him and Stamkos isn't actually all that big, though he's a winger and Stamkos is a centerman, which is a crucial distinction. (Ideally, your best player is not a winger.) He's a couple years older then Stamkos, for what it's worth. Martin Hanzal is still My Guy. If not him, maybe Jordan Staal? Either one of these would be a serviceable 1C. Staal's contract is pretty massive, though. I don't know what either player would cost. I'd like to think it'd be, like, Tatar/Nyquist + Ouellet/Marchenko, but I dunno. Sheahan or Athanasiou might have to be in play. Larkin may have to step into the 1C role straight-away. Athanasiou may have to ascend to the 2C role quickly. Things could get really dicey next season. Oof. In terms of defensemen.... Try for Shattenkirk. If it costs Tatar or Nyquist, swallow the pill and pull the trigger; you'll feel better in the morning. As I've said, I'm not high on Fowler. Great skater, but that's about it. I fear he's our primary D target. As I've also said, I love Mattias Ekholm. I wonder if the Preds wouldn't take Tatar or Nyquist for him, as they're always looking for scoring depth. Granted, we should also be thinking about scoring depth, but Ekholm would give us a true two-way defenseman (like Dekeyser, but, arguably, better), someone who can suppress shots with the best of them but also drive possession and offense. Ryan Ellis is another "possible possibility," I guess.

Boom. I would like the s*** out of this if I could. As things currently stand, we have zero proven elite-level players on the roster. This has been a growing issue for the past few years. A lack of top-level talent has an effect on your whole lineup. Suddenly a Nyquist or Tatar is asked to win matchups against the best players in the league. Everyone has to play out of their depth. What you get is a team that, while perhaps defensively sound, can't score for beans.

We don't really have the assets needed to land a 1C like Matt Duchene. This is why it's so important that we sign Stamkos. The alternative is hoping Larkin and Athanasiou become legit top-six centermen (IMHO, Larkin is a future 1C and Athanasiou isn't necessarily far behind) and/or we tank.

This has probably been mentioned, but Andy Strickland has refuted the report that says the asking price for Shattenkirk is Larkin. https://twitter.com/andystrickland/status/747171869145575424 HSJ and Khan have suggested/stated the asking price for Shattenkirk is Larkin. Because, like I've said, if you're getting your info from Detroit media, then the asking price for any and every high-end player is always our best young player.

Miller and Glendening are possession black holes. Whatever positives they bring are outweighed by the fact that they spend all of their time at even-strength without the puck (often against top players, because reasons). You don't win with a fourth line that's "gritty and real good defensively." You win with a fourth line that's talented enough to be a third line and can devour other teams' bottom-sixers. Also, this is one less spot for a kid, which is always good to see. (yeah but thoes kidzn arnt real gud defensivly)

There are a couple of factors that might favor the Wings, or at least work against the top competition. One, and you've touched on this here, is that the Sabres and especially the Leafs are probably two or three years away from being truly competitive. At that point, Stamkos will be right around 30 years old and may be in the early stages of decline. (Truth be told, he may already be in decline.) Is he willing to wait two or three years for the team to become competitive? Would he be ok with being eaten alive by the Toronto media at the first sign of trouble? Is he willing to joing an organization that has no recent history of success, one that may not become a perennial powerhouse? (Does he want to play on a bad team coached by Mike Babcock, who will inevitably put him on the wing and coach him to play "heavier" and "more defensively"?) These teams, by their own admission, have to "learn how to win." That's not necessarily as true of the Wings. A second, related issue is the fact that all of the Sabres' and Leafs' top young talent will need substantial pay raises, which means they might find themselves where the Lightning now find themselves -- full of young talent, but lacking the cap space it'll take to keep all of those top players. Does Stamkos want to be the twelve-million-dollar reason why the Sabres can't keep Sam Reinhart or the Leafs can't keep William Nylander? Does he want to be counting for that much against a young team's cap when other players on the team are matching or exceeding his production and doing so for a fraction of his pay? Would that cause problems in the locker room? Would it lead to the younger talent demanding bigger money than they might otherwise demand, because "Well, Stamkos is getting paid this much to put up 65 points and I'm putting up 80+ points. And that's f***ed." Did I mention Toronto eats its young? Please no Boedker. He's not the player people think he is. We're talking substantially less competent than Tatar or Nyquist.

I would do $12M, yes. Why? Simple: our need is that great. Buffalo's need isn't nearly as great as ours, which is why I'm not convinced that they're prepared to go two or three million higher than the consensus market value. They don't need a Steven Stamkos. We absolutely do. (Unless, perhaps, we can acquire a guy like Martin Hanzal. But even then, there's a big talent gap between Hanzal and Stamkos.)

Either one of which guys? Ladd, Lucic, Okposo are wingers. Who believes they could fill our void at center? Dude, c'mon. Chychrun is a prospect. Stamkos is an elite 1C and one of the best players in hockey -- and we have a legitimate shot at signing him. (If we didn't, I don't think Holland would've pulled the trigger on the trade.) And if we don't get Stamkos? Then we pursue the next best thing. We'll be able to do this because we'll have a lot of cap space. If we don't trade Datsyuk's contract, we don't have that flexibility, and, consequently, we're stuck with a bottom-basement roster. Other teams would be making significant improvements to their rosters. We wouldn't be able to do the sane. You're telling me you would've been ok with that? Does Chychrun mean that much to you?

Like I said a few days ago, Cam Fowler is bleh. http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2016/6/24/12026360/red-wings-ducks-trade-rumors-cam-fowler-is-not-that-good-of-a-defenseman IMHO, Mattias Ekholm is the player that Fowler is mistakenly believed to be.

You're assuming 1) those four considerations are what's most important to Stamkos, 2) he would rank the importance of said considerations in that same order, and 3) his assessment of the given teams would match your own. Truth is, we know next to nothing about Stamkos's motivations and preferences and opinions etc. For all we know, he finds the prospect of becoming the seventy-million-dollar captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs more terrifying than tantalizing.

Dreger: Red Wings top contender for Stamkos Just Saiyan.

"Love that we can tuck [Cholowski] away in college." I think Ken Holland is a sadist.

Jimmy Howard (probably retaining some salary) + Nick Jensen for Rasmus Andersson. Boom.

Can Lucic play without the puck? You've got to be able to play without the puck if you want to have any success in this league. The best offense is never having the puck and always defending. Can Lucic never have the puck and always defend? Can he block shots? Can he kill penalties? Can he take faceoffs? Can he Luke Glendening? Can he Drew Miller? Can he fourth line? Is he a proven winner? Is he a guy you win with? Is he elite, elite? Is he real good? Is he heavy on the puck? Is he real responsible defensively? Is he real good defensively? Is he grit? Is he leadership? Is he veteran? Is he leadership veteran? Is he experience? Is he big? Is he physics??? Is he from the Michigans?????

So your argument for Tatar being a poor possession player is that "anyone who watched him last year can see how he ignored open linemates and tried to do everything else himself instead, leading to the other team getting the puck." Yes, anyone and everyone who watched Tatar's 2015-16 season 1) saw that he is a bad possession player because he totally gave the puck away all the time and 2) understands that one season in an NHLer's career (or parts of one season, or parts of parts of one season, or parts of parts of parts of one season, or some people's shared perspective on parts of parts of parts of one season...) is definitely the unequivocal measure of an NHLer's possession prowess. That's some rock-solid analysis, full of evidence and all that good convincing stuff. I'm sure it's not at all subjective or anecdotal or possibly even mistaken. The eye simply doesn't lie, especially when it's Your Eye doing the eyeing. Not that I hate the eye test. I just find it amusing that so many people think they need to resist stats like they're the Borg or something. If we're talking about a player's worth, the eye test isn't necessarily going to tell you as much as you'd probably like to think it will, unless you're paying damn close attention every night and and taking notes and keeping a record of at least some form of meaningful statistic (hopefully beyond the basic stats, because, otherwise, what's the point?) Of course, then it wouldn't be the eye test. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

cool story bro

You're making it sound like Babcock doesn't care much for stats as an evaluative tool -- which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth... Babcock looks to learn more via advanced stats I think this might be the quote you're referring to: His point there isn't "At the end of the day, the stats don't matter. The only thing that matters is what you see." His point is more that the data isn't the final word. That you have to assess and assimilate the information and be willing and able to think critically about it. One shouldn't make decisions based on stats alone, nor should one rely solely on the eye test. The two should complement each other.

Holland talks about our young talent out of both sides of his mouth. "We've got to draft and develop and promote from within -- but this is A Man's League and we feel that, right now, Joakim Andersson adds an important element to our team that Anthony Mantha doesn't. We feel Anthony has the potential to be a real good player. But you've got to be able to play without the puck in this league. If you can't play without the puck, you're not going to have any success in this league. You've got to be real good defensively, on the defensive side of the puck, in the defensive zone. Defense. Also, I know our defense group sucks, but every GM wants our top young talent, so there's no hockey store I can go to and magically acquire a top defenseman." (Drew Miller will be re-signed.)

https://twitter.com/romulusnotnuma/status/544711479937601537 (I'm "Taro Tsujimoto." Been meaning to make some kind of a fake Dreger Twitter account, or maybe a blog. The idea is, I wouldn't say anything of value, but you'd end up learning as much as you do from the real Dreger. Which is nothing.)

It's also called the Detroit media. It's always, always, always, always the same line. "Ken Holland is trying to find a deal that makes sense for the organization, but every GM wants our top young talent. So his hands are tied. So you can't get mad at him. Being a GM is really hard. Sometimes the best trade is the one you don't make. Ken Holland has a hottt bod and dreamy eyes."

So, Sami Vatanen is off the market, the Avs have said they won't be trading Tyson Barrie (and I doubt they'd trade with us anyway), and, perhaps most disappointing of all, it's sounding like the asking price for Hampus Lindholm would be the kind of outstanding and proven young talent that we simply do not have at this time, aside from maybe Larkin. Think Leon Draisaitl or Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. I believe Athanasiou and Mantha have the potential to be that kind of player, but they're totally unproven at the NHL level. Cam Fowler would come cheaper, but I'm not sure he'd be worth it... I always say that the names in the rumor mill are not the only players that can be acquired via trade. There are always good defensemen out there. Anyone can be had, for the right price. ...But I'm starting to think we're probably going to focus on the forward group this summer. Keith Yandle is legit, Jason Demers (UFA) is underrated, and Kevin Shattenkirk might be obtainable, and we should consider all of them and many more. But, personally, I'm more concerned about our center situation right now. We need to go all-in for Stamkos, that goes without saying, but I think we should also be looking at Martin Hanzal and/or maybe a sleeper like Zemgus Girgensons (who I think has the potential to be a very good centerman in this league, though, admittedly, his numbers -- surface and underlying -- don't really support that. Hence "sleeper.")

Well, if the question is "Are Tyler Seguin and Jamie Benn among the best players in hockey?" then the answer is yes, unequivocally. Seguin's point totals for the last three seasons, in chronological order: 84 (80 games played) 77 (71) 73 (72) Benn's point totals for the last three seasons, in chronological order: 79 (81) 87 (82) 89 (82) If that isn't elite, I dunno what is. (Seguin put up 67 points in 81 games for the Bruins in the 2011-12 season. And he was drafted second overall. So I wouldn't say he's come out of nowhere. I think Benn is the much bigger surprise, as he was drafted 129th overall.)

$3.25M x 4 years for a 32-year-old Jonathan Ericsson is criminal. If it's the Oilers we're selling to, our sweetener would almost certainly have to be much sweeter than Pulkkinen/Frk, neither of whom would address any of the Oilers' most pressing needs.