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'm asking people for players that have actually been traded, because at least then we know it was possible they were to be traded. And we don't know Holland could have landed them, but at least we know they were tradeable in hind-sight rather then just making up that a player we think was tradeable when he never ended up switching teams.
I'm not shooting things down, I'm asking for rational moves that Holland could have made to avoid this situation. Just saying he's done a bad job isn't good enough for me, I want to know individual events that he should have and could have made. It might be different for other people, and they are content with criticizing people without any knowledge of events that could improved the situation. I guess I'm different and want to know what move Holland should have made instead of what he actually did rather then just looking at the result and complaining.
I just don't understand the complaints without evidence. If Enstrom gets traded tomorrow for a reasonable price, then boom there's my evidence that Holland isn't doing a good enough job. But there hasn't been a top tier defenseman that I know of that's switched teams that would fill what the Red Wings need other than Suter, I want people to bring up Erhoff, Burns, Carle, Shultz etc., and discuss how those players would make a better Red Wings team in the future, for my angle at least I know those players actually moved to a new team.
I understand this is a forum, and this is my defense of Holland. I feel if you criticize someone you should have reasonable reasons as to what he didn't do, rather then he didn't anything.
I'm not trying to quell anything, I feel people can criticize Holland for trading for Quincy, signing Ian White, drafting McCollum etc. Because these are things that happened, and we look back on other options and how the franchise would fair with different moves. But just blaming Holland for not doing anything? I just don't understand it, and am posting on the forum to get a better understand of it.