Red Wings Target Mike Green

[The Secret 304]

Tatar is two years older and spent more time in Grand Rapids developing, so obviously he is going to look more NHL ready than Jurco right now. Tatar is a pretty limited player -- he's very good at that particular skill (scoring goals), but that's about all he brings to the table. At best, Tatar is probably another version of Jiri Hudler.

I think Tatar is already more valuable the Hudler ever was... Tatar is what we wanted Hulder to be rather. And while we are doing comparisons I have a strong gut feeling (and I hope I am really wrong) that Jurco is going to be Filppula Junior.... shows "flashes of greatness" and never reaching his "potential", always on the verge of a "breakout season" but never really earning the money that has been spent to keep him, waiting for the day he "steps up" and "maximizes his chances"

[krsmith17 7,191]

I think Jurco has the one thing that Filppula lacks in his game. Drive. Filppula has always been a very talented player but he lacked the ability to go to the dirty areas, drive the net, and take or give a hit to make a play. Jurco has all the tools to be an elite player in NHL, big body, physical, great skater, deceptively hard shot, crazy stick skills, defensively sound, etc.. Whether or not he puts it all together is entirely up to himself, but I don't see him as another Filppula at all...

[The Secret 304]

I think Jurco has the one thing that Filppula lacks in his game. Drive. Filppula has always been a very talented player but he lacked the ability to go to the dirty areas, drive the net, and take or give a hit to make a play. Jurco has all the tools to be an elite player in NHL, big body, physical, great skater, deceptively hard shot, crazy stick skills, defensively sound, etc.. Whether or not he puts it all together is entirely up to himself, but I don't see him as another Filppula at all...

I hope you are right! Used to drive me nuts to see how often Filp got man handled, and usually when we needed him most. Though Tatar also has all the same skills you've outlined above for Jurco minus the big body... but he makes up for it with his feistiness and has proven ability to scored some wicked goals.

Also, I'm probably not onboard for trading either of them for Green. Green could end up being another Carlo Colaiacovo! I really liked Carlo's game but he spent more time on the shelf hanging out with glassman and his pal useless vagine

Edited July 10, 2014 by The Secret

[krsmith17 7,191]

I love Tatar but I definitely see Jurco as the better player in a few years from now.

I'd also love to add Green to our blue line but there is no way he is worth either of those two guys on his current contract. Over paid and on his last year (more than likely being a rental). Like I said before, if he was extended to a more reasonable cap hit, I would possibly consider trading Tatar, but not Jurco.

[derblaueClaus 1,668]

If Washington puts a 3rd or 4th round pick in the mix to make up for Greenes remaing short contract length I'd be ok with the trade Greene for Tatar. Only problem is I don't think Washington will do it. This team has the chance to get both of their PP-Units run by a (proven) QB. Thats an asset not many teams have and will/would make the Caps a dangerous opponent to play against. I don't think that Tatar would make up for that.

[kipwinger 8,522]

What should Tatar or jurco be traded for? Stamkos? Trading Tatar for a guy like green makes sense and is a fair trade, like it or not.

A top 4 D isn't peanuts. Fans have a highly inflated value of the Wings' prospects and young players. Tatar is a good young scoring winger, more like Kozlov than Datsyuk. Mantha hasn't played a game of pro hockey but people are acting like he's Brendan Shanahan part 2.

A top four defenseman under contract? Sure. I'd trade almost any of our young guns in a package for Yandle. He's that good AND under contract. But losing a guy as good as Jurco or Tatar for a rental is dumb. How much developmental time and resources go into each prospect? A lot. And the absolute best you can hope for is that they turn into top six forwards or top four defenseman. In Tatar, Nyquist, and Jurco, your best case scenario has come true...and it's DEFINITELY not good value to throw that away for a guy who (if recent history is any indication) isn't going to help you compete for a Cup and probably isn't going to re-sign with your team at the end of the year.

[chances14 227]

you guys are acting like green is 100% guaranteed going to walk after one year. he has a no trade clause so if he waives it to come to detroit, i think there's a good chance that he gets resigned

[krsmith17 7,191]

That sounds all too familiar... Legwand?

Besides, I don't think anyone is acting like Green is 100% guaranteed going to walk after one year, but the chance is there. And that is not a chance I would want to take on any of out top players or prospects... That's my opinion anyway.

[chances14 227]

legwand was put into babcock's doghouse after completely misusing him once the wings started getting bodies back

i don't think that would be the case with green.

[amato 3,210]

That sounds all too familiar... Legwand?

Besides, I don't think anyone is acting like Green is 100% guaranteed going to walk after one year, but the chance is there. And that is not a chance I would want to take on any of out top players or prospects... That's my opinion anyway.

the difference is that the wings clearly didn't want to keep legwand.. green, given the state of our d, would likely be a different story.

[kipwinger 8,522]

legwand was put into babcock's doghouse after completely misusing him once the wings started getting bodies back

i don't think that would be the case with green.

Look, you may be right. I'm certainly not saying it couldn't happen. But after free agency I'm a bit hesitant to just assume guys want to sign here.

And that doesn't even address whether or not WE want to resign him. Say you do give up a top young player for him, at that point you almost have to re-sign him, regardless of the season he's had or whether one of your young guys is tearing it up. What if you give up Tatar or Jurco and Green struggles while Sproul has a MASSIVE season in GR. Do you let him walk? If so, you've lost a future top six winger for nothing. If you keep him, you're blocking another young guy with another ineffective vet, and you tie up money that could be used elsewhere.

In any case, these are all reasons why it's not a good idea to give up good young roster players for guys on expiring contracts. Hence, you almost NEVER see anybody do it.

the difference is that the wings clearly didn't want to keep legwand.. green, given the state of our d, would likely be a different story.

Not necessarily, given all the talk about "stop gaps" leading up to FA it's not hard to argue that Detroit doesn't intend to keep whoever they acquire around for very long. That's the whole point of a stop gap.

[krsmith17 7,191]

Just because we would want to re-sign Green, if we were able to trade for him definitely does not mean he would want to re-sign with us. He would be one of the top defensemen in next years free agency class and would be able to sign with any team. He may get here and really like it here, but then again he may opt to test the open market. And like I said, the possibility of him not re-signing here would be enough for me to say no to trading any top players.

You can spin it any way you want but I will be disappointed if we trade for Green if a player like Tatar or Jurco is involved.

[amato 3,210]

Not necessarily, given all the talk about "stop gaps" leading up to FA it's not hard to argue that Detroit doesn't intend to keep whoever they acquire around for very long. That's the whole point of a stop gap.

true. I just think it's more likely that the wings want to keep green, as opposed to not wanting to keep him, if we were to aquire him.. that's all I'm saying.

I don't think there was ever a thought of keeping legwand after this past season.. unless he really impressed.

[kipwinger 8,522]

true. I just think it's more likely that the wings want to keep green, as opposed to not wanting to keep him, if we were to aquire him.. that's all I'm saying.

I don't think there was ever a thought of keeping legwand after this past season.. unless he really impressed.

I agree. Problem is, if they don't really impress, or you don't keep them, then you're losing a big asset for nothing. Conversely, if you lose a big asset, you've got more incentive to keep them regardless of how they play.

For example: Does anybody really think Holland would have been so quick to re-sign Quincey (twice) if he hadn't spent a first on him? If it had been a third rounder Quincey would likely have left. But if you spend a big asset you want to get some mileage out of the return, regardless of how good it's been.

[nawein 324]

I agree. Problem is, if they don't really impress, or you don't keep them, then you're losing a big asset for nothing. Conversely, if you lose a big asset, you've got more incentive to keep them regardless of how they play.

For example: Does anybody really think Holland would have been so quick to re-sign Quincey (twice) if he hadn't spent a first on him? If it had been a third rounder Quincey would likely have left. But if you spend a big asset you want to get some mileage out of the return, regardless of how good it's been.

While I agree with what you're saying and I totally agree if we're trading Tatar or Jurco we better be getting a young top 4 with some term left, your argument should be a two way street. If we trade Tatar for Green and Green sucks then we lost an asset for nothing. But if we trade Tatar for Green, Greens awesome and Tatar falls off the map, then we gained an asset for nothing. While I think that situation is less likely, it's still possible and you still have to consider it. All of our young guns are still relatively unknowns.

[kipwinger 8,522]

While I agree with what you're saying and I totally agree if we're trading Tatar or Jurco we better be getting a young top 4 with some term left, your argument should be a two way street. If we trade Tatar for Green and Green sucks then we lost an asset for nothing. But if we trade Tatar for Green, Greens awesome and Tatar falls off the map, then we gained an asset for nothing. While I think that situation is less likely, it's still possible and you still have to consider it. All of our young guns are still relatively unknowns.

True, but only if Green wants to stay. And as I said before, given how FA turned out that's not a gamble I'm willing to take. Say Tatar sucks, Green plays awesome, and Green leaves. What did we gain?

Too many question marks for me to spend big assets on it. I don't mind Green, and I don't want to suggest that I don't think he'd help. He probably would. But I'm not giving up a guy that just had the year Tatar had for a guy who can't stay healthy, is very "unBabcock" in his style, and can leave in less than a year regardless of anything else. Especially when you consider his addition (if it's only short team) isn't likely to be the thing that puts us over the top.

[kipwinger 8,522]

Thought this was funny. Over on another forum, I just heard one fan say that "the Caps can't trade Green, they need him to replace Orpik when he inevitably breaks down". Lol.

If Mike Green being healthy is your team's back up plan you are in serious trouble.

[nawein 324]

True, but only if Green wants to stay. And as I said before, given how FA turned out that's not a gamble I'm willing to take. Say Tatar sucks, Green plays awesome, and Green leaves. What did we gain?

Too many question marks for me to spend big assets on it. I don't mind Green, and I don't want to suggest that I don't think he'd help. He probably would. But I'm not giving up a guy that just had the year Tatar had for a guy who can't stay healthy, is very "unBabcock" in his style, and can leave in less than a year regardless of anything else. Especially when you consider his addition (if it's only short team) isn't likely to be the thing that puts us over the top.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. If it was up to me he'd be in a package for a much better defenseman. I'm just saying there's always the chance that it works out the opposite way we think it would.

[LeftWinger 4,953]

ARGH! Everytime I log on here I am dying to see Red Wings Sign [missing need] or Red Wings Acquire....all this targeting and face to face meeting and off season needs is getting me riled! Ok, I know, but man I am just jonesin for Holland to make the right move(s) this summer!

and why the hell is Morris still unsigned!?!? Doesn't anybody want him?

[ShanahanMan 473]

ARGH! Everytime I log on here I am dying to see Red Wings Sign [missing need] or Red Wings Acquire....all this targeting and face to face meeting and off season needs is getting me riled! Ok, I know, but man I am just jonesin for Holland to make the right move(s) this summer!

and why the hell is Morris still unsigned!?!? Doesn't anybody want him?

Hah, same. Just want to see something to get excited about.

[kipwinger 8,522]

Hah, same. Just want to see something to get excited about.

Not excited about the possibility of re-signing Cleary and Alfie? If not, here's something that will blow your doors off...if a bunch of other, less deserving guys, get injured you MIGHT see Sproul, Quellet, or Marchenko play some games this year...BOOM! *mind blown*

[WingedWheel91 271]

Here is a simple two-step process I think we should all consider when arbitrarily comparing the Legwand trade to any/every potential trade we have yet to make...

1. The Legwand trade was bad, but would have been a lot better had he re-signed.

2. No-one (Including Mike Babcock or Ken Holland) wanted Legwand re-signed.

So why make the trade? First of all, at the time of the trade - he became our #1 Center and helped us make the playoffs to continue the streak - don't underestimate the chemistry Franzen, Legwand, Nyquist had and the streak they also went on. Forget the name on the back of the jersey but focus on what Legwand represented at the time, and understand any trade deadline deal where you acquire a #1 Center is going to cost you a decent prospect.

Yes - I get it, Legwand was a rental, and he has never been a #1 Center (but was forced into that role because of Injuries) so giving away our TOP center prospect was a HUGE overpayment...

WRONG - Why? Because Calle Jarnkrok was probably NEVER going to play for the Detroit Red Wings - much like what may happen with some of our Defense prospects in the coming years - You either risk losing them on waivers, or risk losing them to Europe when they can't crack your roster (see Adam Almqvist). In terms of Jarnkrok, he is what we already have a surplus of... undersized and a natural Center. Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss, Helm, Glendenning, Sheahan, Andersson and Franzen are all natural centers ahead of Jarnkrok of the depth chart, plus most of them are on long-term contracts that expire way after Jarnkrok was going to stick around for.

[Shinzaki 72]

At the time, I thought it was a worthy gamble , but Clealry, it was abad deal. The Legwand deal would have been OK had Legwand actually showed up and played at something approaching the level they anticipated. He didn't...Babcock soured on him and that was pretty much it. No reason to even consider signing him. In retrospect..a bad trade even if you only consider the 2nd round pick. Jarnkrok is going to get a huge opportunity in Nashville this year. Something that I agree he was unlikely to get here for a number of years.

Could we have used that pick and Jarnkrok to help us get a decent RH Dman in trade? Probably...which is the really bad part of it in my view.

[WingedWheel91 271]

Valid point - The answer is maybe, but maybe not... Any good RH Dman that we are linked too always includes the likes of Tatar, Jurco, Nyquist, or Mantha (a prospect much more valuable than Jarnkrok was) in return. You don't hear Pulkkinen, or Sproul, even Mrazek (our good prospects in a similar class to Jarnkrok) in trade talks for what the Red Wings are currently trying to acquire.

[StormJH1 231]

I don't like the Mike Green thing for a number of reasons. The first time I put serious though into it was when Yzerman and Babcock left him off 2010 Team Canada despite the fact he was basically the leading scoring defenseman at that time. Feel free to peruse these numbers - two things stand out:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=58069

First, the durability is a major concern. Everyone keeps saying "this is David Legwand" all over again because of the rental aspect, but it also may be Stephen Weiss. He has knee problems and played 3 straight years without making 50 games (okay, so one was a lockout year, but you get my point).

Second, his playoff numbers are crap. That would concern me less except for the fact that the offensive production is the whole POINT to a Mike Green, as nobody seems to think he's actually good at defense. I'll buy the whole "puck possession = defense" argument, but that's a systemic problem, and Green is prone to getting caught and making horrible mental errors.

Finally, I just don't agree with the strategy of acquiring him. Even if his rental status lowers the price, this team is not "one Mike Green" away from a Cup. Maybe there's name like Jeff Petry out there who will help rebuild this core without necessarily being a "Top 2" defenseman (and won't cost a top prospect). I know that Tatar is not a surefire "star", but other than Anthony Mantha, we're unlikely to luck into a ringer. We're going to need a depth of quality players that can score a bit, and a one-year patch on defense doesn't address the longer-term issue.