• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"Svech (as well as Jurco and Pulk) aren't anything more than what Holland has traded in the past"? When has Holland traded a Svechnikov type prospect? He hasn't and I'm not so sure he would. And that there is a problem...

"We did just trade our 1st, so obviously picks are on the table in the right deal"? That's a little misleading don't ya think? Yes, we did technically trade our first, but we did so to trade a dead contract and move back in the draft. Not really the same thing as trading next year's first for a player, to upgrade out team now...

Why do you keep talking about more players not necessarily making the trade better? I'm aware of that and I'm not the one that is suggesting throwing together a bunch of middling prospects, hoping to get a stud... Mantha and Svechnikov are not middling prospects though. Nyquist and Tatar are legit top 6 wingers. First round picks (as well as second round picks) carry a ton of value in trades (again, look at the Hamilton trade)...

We have a lot of nice pieces. You don't think teams would have interest, I do. Like you said, we're both making assumptions and we clearly disagree here, so let's leave it at that...

I just don't understand the logic for why Holland would want to hoard assets like you and others seem to be saying. Doesn't make any sense. We won't be able to keep everyone anyway.

Is it that hard to believe that there might be some team out there that isn't all that interested in the few good pieces we have to offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would think Holland is willing to move top players / prospects / picks in a trade to acquire an impact player. And I'm not talking about a past their prime rental at the deadline, I'm talking about a top end player that can help us this year and in the future... He hasn't. He doesn't. What makes you think he would?

No, we won't be able to keep them all, and unless he's able to pull something off, we will lose one of Ouellet or Sproul and possibly Frk...

Why are other teams' *picks* more valuable than ours? Again, the Hamilton trade was just picks... Calgary is the only team capable of pulling off that sort of trade?

"We don't have the assets" is flat out wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a catch 22. You don't want to trade a prospect with potential but you need to trade someone to get that piece you need.

Jarnkrok was our #1 prospect, he got traded, do we miss him? If we're getting a legit #1 guy, if Mantha needs to be included....damn, but it has to be done. But if it's a #2/#3 guy, no. I'd love to see an upgrade, but if not, play the right guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would think Holland is willing to move top players / prospects / picks in a trade to acquire an impact player. And I'm not talking about a past their prime rental at the deadline, I'm talking about a top end player that can help us this year and in the future... He hasn't. He doesn't. What makes you think he would?

No, we won't be able to keep them all, and unless he's able to pull something off, we will lose one of Ouellet or Sproul and possibly Frk...

Why are other teams' *picks* more valuable than ours? Again, the Hamilton trade was just picks... Calgary is the only team capable of pulling off that sort of trade?

"We don't have the assets" is flat out wrong...

Really? I think you're stretching a little trying to be flippant.

Yes, Hamilton was traded for picks. That doesn't mean that every (or any even) other team out there is willing to trade a top defenseman for picks now. Even if one was, doesn't mean they would want to trade with us, especially right now. Our *picks* may not be worth any less than anyone else's *picks*, but the 15th overall pick in that draft could easily be valued differently than our uncertain-position-1st-rounder in next years draft. A team like Boston could easily see more value in sending a good player to a team outside the conference than to a division rival.

Every deal, every team, every player, every prospect, every situation is unique. I'm not saying "We don't have the assets." as some absolute. The value of what we could potentially offer, to the extent that we can make an objective valuation, is enough to potentially make a deal. More than one even. But that doesn't matter. It's not the National Hypothetical League.

What matters is that there has to be a specific situation where a team is willing to move a player we think is or will be what we want AND that team has to want whatever it is we are willing to offer AND want it more than any other offer they get AND it has to work for both teams in terms of the cap AND we have to actually find that deal.

Only the last part and half the cap fit part are things Holland has any control over. I think history proves pretty well that the first part is uncommon to say the least. Second and third is pure speculation. But in the absence of any kind of rationale for why Holland would be intent on keeping all of Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, AA, Svech, our higher picks, and whatever else, I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rationale is evidence. Trades have been made, Holland is on record saying he doesn't want to trade the top prospects. He has made a ridiculously low number of trades compared to even the conservative teams. Two years ago he wouldn't consider trading Mantha but won't give him a legit shot at making the roster because he had to sign guys like Vanek and Helm. It's like he's stuck between when they were contenders and needed immediate help and knowing they have no real shot short term and need to plan for 5 years down the road and he's trying to do both and screwing it up both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly am I stretching??? You're saying that because a trade hasn't been made, there just isn't a trade out there worth making. I'm saying that's bulls***. There's always trades out there to improve your team. Good GM's find and make those trades, for whatever reason Holland hasn't been able to that.

No, just because Hamilton was traded for picks, it doesn't necessarily mean that another team would be willing to trade a defenseman of his caliber for picks. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't either. You think just because Holland hasn't done it, that such a trade is not available to be made? I believe because it's been done before (a year ago), it could potentially be done again. It's just a matter of finding it...

I realize you're talking about why Boston wouldn't trade with us, and I'm not suggesting they would have, but not a single team I have mentioned as possible trading partners is a divisional rival. So why wouldn't Winnipeg, Anaheim, St. Louis, Colorado, Arizona, Carolina or Columbus want to trade with us?

A trade needs to make sense for both teams? The other team would actually have to want what we have to offer? What a concept... Come on man, stop trying to dumb down the conversation...

"I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal". Yes, some may be available if the right deal fell in his lap. If Cheveldayoff called and said he's shopping Trouba, and he wants some of those pieces, then maybe he'd be willing to move some. Of course, that's not going to happen. Has Holland called Cheveldayoff, offering those pieces for Trouba? We'll never know for certain, but I have my doubts...

Do you honestly think it's a coincidence that Holland trades WAY less than any other team? It's not. I'm not suggesting we should blow up the team, but there is a middle ground...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without any more information it is a circular argument, I agree. So let's just wait and find out more unless someone has an inside scoop on this search for a defender debacle.

If you were to ask me, KH will press for a defender trade even if it is not optimal, but he's savvy so he'll wait. I don't know if that's a good thing though. Right now I'm mostly preferring to get Trouba or Lindholm. They will match Larkin, Mrazek and AA in roughly the same age slot and are already showing mastery at their trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Holland ranks dead last in trades over the last x amount of years, that tell me their are two main reasons.

1) Holland refuses to make a bad deal (think the Seguin trade). He likely turns down alot of trades, which on one hand pisses off a lot of fans, but on the other who wishes in retrospect that he pulled the trigger on the supposed Larkin/Myers deal.

2) Holland is not creative. To make trades sometimes you need to be able to get creative, maybe Holland and his team are just not good at that.

Most likely answer, a combination of the 2 things above. When you have a GM who refuses to risk losing on deals AND is not creative, you rank dead last in trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly am I stretching??? You're saying that because a trade hasn't been made, there just isn't a trade out there worth making. I'm saying that's bulls***. There's always trades out there to improve your team. Good GM's find and make those trades, for whatever reason Holland hasn't been able to that.

No, just because Hamilton was traded for picks, it doesn't necessarily mean that another team would be willing to trade a defenseman of his caliber for picks. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't either. You think just because Holland hasn't done it, that such a trade is not available to be made? I believe because it's been done before (a year ago), it could potentially be done again. It's just a matter of finding it...

I realize you're talking about why Boston wouldn't trade with us, and I'm not suggesting they would have, but not a single team I have mentioned as possible trading partners is a divisional rival. So why wouldn't Winnipeg, Anaheim, St. Louis, Colorado, Arizona, Carolina or Columbus want to trade with us?

A trade needs to make sense for both teams? The other team would actually have to want what we have to offer? What a concept... Come on man, stop trying to dumb down the conversation...

"I have to assume that some if not all would be available for the right deal". Yes, some may be available if the right deal fell in his lap. If Cheveldayoff called and said he's shopping Trouba, and he wants some of those pieces, then maybe he'd be willing to move some. Of course, that's not going to happen. Has Holland called Cheveldayoff, offering those pieces for Trouba? We'll never know for certain, but I have my doubts...

Do you honestly think it's a coincidence that Holland trades WAY less than any other team? It's not. I'm not suggesting we should blow up the team, but there is a middle ground...

I think we're going in circles. "Trades to improve your team" is one thing. A trade for a top D is very different, and much more rare. Most trades around the league are minor. Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players. Agree or not it does explain why we've made so few trades.

My point about Boston is that every situation is unique, and you can't infer anything from any trade. And maybe I am stating the obvious in saying teams have to want what we have, but you don't seem willing to accept the possibility that some team out there might not. Maybe Wpg and Ana want a player and not just picks, but they don't want the players we have to offer. Or whatever, I'm not going to try to speculate reasons for every hypothetical scenario.

I'm saying there are a lot fewer real trade opportunities than there are potential ones, and it makes far more sense to think we just haven't found a good match than it does to think Holland just isn't doing anything or willing to give up anything.

And look at it from a different perspective. You think Wpg, Ana, StL, Col, etc. would all want what we're willing to offer, and you think all of them have a D they're willing to trade. Why wouldn't they have called Holland? Aren't they trying to improve their teams? Isn't that the whole reason they're willing to trade those D? Holland has said several times over the last several years that we'd like to add a top D, so even if you think Holland isn't taking any initiative it still seems likely that at least some teams would have contacted him. So again that puts us at "Holland must not be willing to give up anything". And I just can't believe that's true.

Quote from Doug Armstrong:

“Maybe my asking price is too high, or maybe I value him higher than other people,” Armstrong told reporters Friday, via the Post-Dispatch. “But I haven’t been anywhere close to what I think is representative of the value of Kevin Shattenkirk.”

There are rumors that several teams have talked to StL about Shattenkirk, including the Wings. But he hasn't been traded. Same goes for many other rumored-to-be-available defensemen. There are reasons for that and it can't all be Holland.

Now, maybe there's some price that Wpg would accept for Trouba, for example, that you would think is fair but Kenny thinks is too high. But you have to admit that maybe there isn't. And maybe the same is true in each of the few cases where some team has what we're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a self proving argument. Holland would make a trade if available therefore nothing is available because he hasn't made a trade. Just ignore all the trades every other team has made.

No more so than yours: A trade is available therefore Holland must not be willing to make a trade because he hasn't.

Maybe it's true for small trades, but of "all the trades", very very few of them involve the kind of defenseman we're looking for.

If Holland had made 30 trades over the last few years, and the team was still in the same position, would anyone be any happier? The reality is that most of the roster juggling around the league is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're going in circles. "Trades to improve your team" is one thing. A trade for a top D is very different, and much more rare. Most trades around the league are minor. Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players. Agree or not it does explain why we've made so few trades.

My point about Boston is that every situation is unique, and you can't infer anything from any trade. And maybe I am stating the obvious in saying teams have to want what we have, but you don't seem willing to accept the possibility that some team out there might not. Maybe Wpg and Ana want a player and not just picks, but they don't want the players we have to offer. Or whatever, I'm not going to try to speculate reasons for every hypothetical scenario.

I'm saying there are a lot fewer real trade opportunities than there are potential ones, and it makes far more sense to think we just haven't found a good match than it does to think Holland just isn't doing anything or willing to give up anything.

And look at it from a different perspective. You think Wpg, Ana, StL, Col, etc. would all want what we're willing to offer, and you think all of them have a D they're willing to trade. Why wouldn't they have called Holland? Aren't they trying to improve their teams? Isn't that the whole reason they're willing to trade those D? Holland has said several times over the last several years that we'd like to add a top D, so even if you think Holland isn't taking any initiative it still seems likely that at least some teams would have contacted him. So again that puts us at "Holland must not be willing to give up anything". And I just can't believe that's true.

Quote from Doug Armstrong:

“Maybe my asking price is too high, or maybe I value him higher than other people,” Armstrong told reporters Friday, via the Post-Dispatch. “But I haven’t been anywhere close to what I think is representative of the value of Kevin Shattenkirk.”

There are rumors that several teams have talked to StL about Shattenkirk, including the Wings. But he hasn't been traded. Same goes for many other rumored-to-be-available defensemen. There are reasons for that and it can't all be Holland.

Now, maybe there's some price that Wpg would accept for Trouba, for example, that you would think is fair but Kenny thinks is too high. But you have to admit that maybe there isn't. And maybe the same is true in each of the few cases where some team has what we're looking for.

On LGW it's always Holland fault, regardless if the other team wants to move a defenseman or not. Apparently Holland should hold Armstrongs family hostage until he pays up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more so than yours: A trade is available therefore Holland must not be willing to make a trade because he hasn't.

Maybe it's true for small trades, but of "all the trades", very very few of them involve the kind of defenseman we're looking for.

If Holland had made 30 trades over the last few years, and the team was still in the same position, would anyone be any happier? The reality is that most of the roster juggling around the league is pointless.

Anything better than what they have now would be am improvement. They don't just need a Subban or Trouba. A physical winger capable being a legit top 6 forward, an upgrade over Smith/Quincey. Hell, if he didn't make trades but made room for the prospects that are too good to give up I'd be OK with that. The problem is he won't make trades or leave room for them. Like I said in another thread earlier, a team with Mantha and AA instead of Helm and either Vanek or Nielsen isn't likely to be that much worse, and if they take a step up, it might be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all aware that trades for top players are rare, but they do happen. Just about every year (sometime multiple times a year) a big name is traded, sometimes for more than he's worth, sometimes for less, some are known to be on the trading block, some aren't... Big name players do get traded, just never to the Wings. I don't know the trade history for every team, but I would bet most (except Detroit) have been in a trade involving a top player in the last 10+ years...

"Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players." How would this be considered trading "just for sake" of trading? We've had a hole on our defense for the past 4 seasons. The only way to fill that hole in such a short time is to make a trade. That's trading out of necessity, not just for the sake of making a trade...

Serious question, is there a team that has been in more desperate need to acquire a top pairing defenseman in the past 4 years? I don't think there has been. There are a couple that may be close, including New Jersey, but they just traded away their future number one for Hall...

There are 29 other teams in the league, all of which I would argue have a better, in some cases, two or three better defensemen than our current number one. There are also quite a few teams that are absolutely stacked with defensemen and are starving for offense. We have a surplus of forwards, and a need for defensemen. You think because a trade hasn't been made, that there must not be a fit. Like I said, I don't buy that.

And yes, this debate is going in circles, with no way to tell who's right or wrong, so let's just end it there. I think there are trades to be made that would bring in a legit number one defenseman. You don't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if it takes adding Mantha in a trade in order to secure a #1 guy, do it. No to AA, no to Larkin.

If all we can get is a #2#3 guy, no to Mantha.

I roll with:

DD - Smith

Kronwall -Green

XO - Marchenko

E

Screw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if it takes adding Mantha in a trade in order to secure a #1 guy, do it. No to AA, no to Larkin.

If all we can get is a #2#3 guy, no to Mantha.

I roll with:

DD - Smith

Kronwall -Green

XO - Marchenko

E

Screw it.

AA is probably going to be a 20 goal 45 point player. A #2 D is lore valuable than that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On LGW it's always Holland fault, regardless if the other team wants to move a defenseman or not. Apparently Holland should hold Armstrongs family hostage until he pays up.

This was my original point. Holland is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, and I'm the farthest thing from a Holland apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally off topic here lol..but this game really needs new users, it's free to play.

Hey, right now I'm playing METROHO - a free online hockey game - and think you should join. In METROHO, you manage your own hockey team by signing and trading players and can join a league with friends to compete in a regular season, and if you have what it takes, the playoffs. The game is very easy to learn, and although addictive, does not take up too much time.


KEY FEATURES INCLUDE:
- Line change control.
- Shinny games.
- Action-packed seasons.
- Playoffs.
- Arenas/Awards/Endorsements.
- 24 hour Live Chat & Forum.
- Informative, helpful community.
- $65 million salary cap for all teams.
- 3 round draft.
- Trading while in a league or in the off-season.
- Free Agents (Unrestricted & Restricted)


When you sign up, please use the following link so that I receive referral credit.

http://www.metroho.com?reference=2443

P.S. My user name in the game is vinman and my team name is The Windsor Spits.

See you there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all aware that trades for top players are rare, but they do happen. Just about every year (sometime multiple times a year) a big name is traded, sometimes for more than he's worth, sometimes for less, some are known to be on the trading block, some aren't... Big name players do get traded, just never to the Wings. I don't know the trade history for every team, but I would bet most (except Detroit) have been in a trade involving a top player in the last 10+ years...

"Holland has never been one to make trades just for sake of trades, and he's been pretty clear that he's not interested in just swapping players." How would this be considered trading "just for sake" of trading? We've had a hole on our defense for the past 4 seasons. The only way to fill that hole in such a short time is to make a trade. That's trading out of necessity, not just for the sake of making a trade...

Serious question, is there a team that has been in more desperate need to acquire a top pairing defenseman in the past 4 years? I don't think there has been. There are a couple that may be close, including New Jersey, but they just traded away their future number one for Hall...

There are 29 other teams in the league, all of which I would argue have a better, in some cases, two or three better defensemen than our current number one. There are also quite a few teams that are absolutely stacked with defensemen and are starving for offense. We have a surplus of forwards, and a need for defensemen. You think because a trade hasn't been made, that there must not be a fit. Like I said, I don't buy that.

And yes, this debate is going in circles, with no way to tell who's right or wrong, so let's just end it there. I think there are trades to be made that would bring in a legit number one defenseman. You don't...

Sorry, not going to give you the last word just because you say I should.

You're the one bringing up how few trades Holland has made, as if it's evidence. I'm saying that the majority of trades are not "big" ones, and the reason Holland hasn't made a lot of trades could be very different than the reason he hasn't made the one big one he's said he wants to make. If Holland trades for Trouba tomorrow, he'll still have the lowest number of total trades.

I would say that every team that does not currently have a Norris candidate is in a situation pretty similar to ours. Moreover, we have finished in the top half of the league every year, so I would assert that at least half the league has as much or more of a "desperate need" to acquire something big. Yet most of them haven't.

You say there's quite a few teams stacked with D but starving for offense. Then why haven't there been more big trades? Are we the only team in the league with forwards we could part with?

But I don't want to endlessly debate hypotheticals. I've already said that, hypothetically, the possibility for a trade exists. What I don't like is that you don't seem willing to accept that trading for a top defenseman is not entirely under Holland's control. You're reasoning that because big trades have happened before, they must always be available to every team and every situation. You're wrong.

And you have no logic for Holland's motivations. You're just making an assumption, then drawing a conclusion based on it without even considering the possibility that the assumption could be wrong. It may look like I'm doing the same, but it's actually just the opposite. I'm looking at what's actually happened (or hasn't, in this case), then using logic to derive an assumption.

I think the logic for why I believe Holland would want to add a top D, and be willing to part with some good assets to get one, and why some teams may not be interested in the assets we have are all pretty self-evident, but I'd be happy to explain my reasoning if you want.

So what is your supporting logic? I know you think he's just unwilling to give up whatever, but why, in your mind, is he unwilling? What is his motivation in your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Buppy, I'm not wrong just because you say I am... There are ALWAYS trades to be made to improve your team. There are currently number one defensemen available, and we could acquire one if Holland were willing to part with the assets to get it done... Unfortunately I don't believe he is...

Yes, I am assuming Holland isn't willing to part with some of his bigger assets to make a big trade, and yes, Holland's trade history (or lack thereof) is evidence that he doesn't actively seek trades / want to give up top players / prospects / picks.

Yes, you are assuming Holland is willing to part with some of his bigger assets if a trade were presented to him. What exactly makes you think that though? At least I'm using his trade history as an indicator, you're basing your assumption on what exactly? That not many big name players are traded, so that must mean Holland is willing but not able?...

Internet.Unknown mentioned that he/she isn't a "Holland apologist", which I would probably consider myself. I've defended Holland countless times on here, but the fact that anyone is trying to defend Holland's ability to make trades is mind boggling to me. He is and has been a phenomenal general manager for the Red Wings, but he hasn't been adequate at making the necessary trades to fill holes in quite some time...

I found this really funny though... "Sorry, just not going to give you the last word just because you say I should"... "But I don't want to endlessly debate hypotheticals"... Haha when did I say you should give me the last word? I said "we" should stop this debate because it is an endless argument. We don't agree. Who cares? Are you sure you don't want to endlessly debate though? Anyway, that's it for me. Go ahead and "get the last word"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Buppy, I'm not wrong just because you say I am... There are ALWAYS trades to be made to improve your team. There are currently number one defensemen available, and we could acquire one if Holland were willing to part with the assets to get it done... Unfortunately I don't believe he is...

The only one we know that is on the market is Shattenkirk. And there are a lot of team interested with STL in no rush to move him. So I'm not bemoaning the lack of action from KH. I do hope he's talking about Shattenkirk. I hope he's talking about Trouba. But its not like we have a glut of studs to trade, the only one is Larkin and there is not a single person on this forum who would be ok with moving him.

I'm not surprised a trade hasn't happened and I believe KH is looking to make a deal. I still give him a failing grade though, after the ridiculous Helm, Glendening contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.