Would you do these deals?

[TNBT 3]

These are not deals that I advocate the Wings making, they are deals that I was either offered by another team or pursued with another team in EA Sports NHL 2006.

DEAL 1:

DETROIT TRADES: Eric Manlow

ST. LOUIS TRADES: Christian Laflamme

DEAL 2:

DETROIT TRADES: Mark Mowers

COLORADO TRADES: Peter Worrell

St. Louis offered me the first trade (and I agreed) and I initiated the second trade with Colorado to add toughness. So my question to you is if these two trades were available in real life, would you pull the trigger?

[Rice 42]

I dont know much about the above prospects but Worrel is no longer with Colorado. Hes playing with New York's farm team. And yeah, I would trade Mowers for him.

[eva unit zero 271]

I would rather keep Manlow.

LaFlamme is terrible. Manlow is not great but he has size and scoring ability. Detroit has tons of defensemen better than LaFlamme, who is neither offensively skilled nor defensively stalwart, and does not play a strong physical game.

Mowers for Worrell I'm not sure I would do...Worrell is a goon in the classic sense...that's not what Detroit needs. Worrell wouldn't contribute any more toughness than Mowers does because he wouldn't play any more than Mowers doe,s likely less because Mowers at least can be used on the PP or PK if needed, while Worrell is just a fourth line scrub who can fight.

I would rather have Manlow than Worrell given the choice.

[BeeRYCE 2]

Worrell would not be good in the new NHL. Even worse than he was.

[fightfan24 0]

http://mars.walagata.com/w/hucko/JacobsonvsWorrell.wmv

Big Pete can still fire 'em but has no wheels...

[TNBT 3]

I don't really know much about LaFlamme, but I accepted that trade because Manlow was never going to get a game for the Wings with all of the other forwards on the roster, and my depth at the blue-line was quite low.

As for the Mowers/Worrell trade, I really do think that was a good idea. Mowers doesn't really contribute anything special to the team, and when we have a fully healthy team, he's not even going to get a game. Even if we lost him for nothing, we wouldn't miss him at all. Worrell may be worse as an overall player, but he brings a specific ability (fighting/toughness) that we really need. As for him being a liability on the ice, we don't have to play him much because we can give his minutes to other player(s) and just send Worrell out there when needed. The way I look at it is that Mowers hardly plays anyway, and Worrell would hardly play, so it all balances out. The only difference is that is having Worrell, we have a guy who can go out and get into it with the opposition when the need arises.

[redwings1914 18]

Nay on both

[eva unit zero 271]

I don't really know much about LaFlamme, but I accepted that trade because Manlow was never going to get a game for the Wings with all of the other forwards on the roster, and my depth at the blue-line was quite low.

As for the Mowers/Worrell trade, I really do think that was a good idea. Mowers doesn't really contribute anything special to the team, and when we have a fully healthy team, he's not even going to get a game. Even if we lost him for nothing, we wouldn't miss him at all. Worrell may be worse as an overall player, but he brings a specific ability (fighting/toughness) that we really need. As for him being a liability on the ice, we don't have to play him much because we can give his minutes to other player(s) and just send Worrell out there when needed. The way I look at it is that Mowers hardly plays anyway, and Worrell would hardly play, so it all balances out. The only difference is that is having Worrell, we have a guy who can go out and get into it with the opposition when the need arises.

Worrell would play less than Mowers.

Unless of course you are suggesting putting him in the top 12 forwards.

In which case, who do you drop to #13?

Dats, Zata, Lang, Shanny, Yzerman, Holmstrom, Draper, Maltby will play if healthy.

That leaves Samuelsson, Williams, Cleary, and Franzen as potential dropees.

Would you SERIOUSLY replace one of those guys with Worrell??

Worrell doesn't bring ANYTHING in EITHER end. That's two of our better offensive players and two of our better defensive players (who still bring more offensively than Worrell)

I'd rather get a guy who has toughness AND skill. Even if he's a defensive specialist who can't play offense, he'd be better than Worrell because he could play decent minutes without hurting the team.

Mowers is perfectly capable of playing a decent number of minutes. To use the tune of the Cult of Manny, he's never been given a chance to show his ability past what you can do in a few sparse minutes a night.

Ideally, we would be trading for a tough, physical defenseman and getting rid of Lilja at the same time...

[lamf 0]

I don't really know much about LaFlamme, but I accepted that trade because Manlow was never going to get a game for the Wings with all of the other forwards on the roster, and my depth at the blue-line was quite low.

As for the Mowers/Worrell trade, I really do think that was a good idea.  Mowers doesn't really contribute anything special to the team, and when we have a fully healthy team, he's not even going to get a game.  Even if we lost him for nothing, we wouldn't miss him at all.  Worrell may be worse as an overall player, but he brings a specific ability (fighting/toughness) that we really need.  As for him being a liability on the ice, we don't have to play him much because we can give his minutes to other player(s) and just send Worrell out there when needed.  The way I look at it is that Mowers hardly plays anyway, and Worrell would hardly play, so it all balances out.  The only difference is that is having Worrell, we have a guy who can go out and get into it with the opposition when the need arises.

Worrell would play less than Mowers.

Unless of course you are suggesting putting him in the top 12 forwards.

In which case, who do you drop to #13?

Dats, Zata, Lang, Shanny, Yzerman, Holmstrom, Draper, Maltby will play if healthy.

That leaves Samuelsson, Williams, Cleary, and Franzen as potential dropees.

Would you SERIOUSLY replace one of those guys with Worrell??

Worrell doesn't bring ANYTHING in EITHER end. That's two of our better offensive players and two of our better defensive players (who still bring more offensively than Worrell)

I'd rather get a guy who has toughness AND skill. Even if he's a defensive specialist who can't play offense, he'd be better than Worrell because he could play decent minutes without hurting the team.

Mowers is perfectly capable of playing a decent number of minutes. To use the tune of the Cult of Manny, he's never been given a chance to show his ability past what you can do in a few sparse minutes a night.

Ideally, we would be trading for a tough, physical defenseman and getting rid of Lilja at the same time...

Samuelsson, Cleary and Franzen arn't on the team in NHL 06, but theirs Whitney and Thomas.

[TNBT 3]

OK, scratch the Mowers for Worrell idea.

I just played my first game last night since the trade and midway through the first, Worrell gets into a fight. Now keep in mind that the entire reason I traded for him was to add toughness. Anyway, he gets into this fight (the game is against Chicago) and he absolutely gets his ass handed to him by Matthew freaki' Barnaby of all people.

I think my nan could beat Barnaby in a fight, what the hell is wrong with Worrell?

[fatcat6 0]

I would do the trade of Manlow for Laflamme. Manlow just isn't really that good, and Laflamme he some good experience, and has played in a lot of games. He's better in general.

The Mowers for Worrell is pointless like you said, but you stated that there were pros and cons in that trade, which was good. I like Mowers better in that trade, because he's a fast young skater, and Worrell can't skate if his life depended on it.

[CupCrazy22 6]

I wouldn't take either trade. Mowers for Worrell, well we all know that answer.

Manlow for Laflamme, well I would keep Manlow as he can score, but Laflamme is nothing. He doesn't have any offensive flare and is not a strong physical defenseman.

[Seth 0]

pass on both.