• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

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"...

"Trades to improve your team" and a trade for a top defenseman are two different things. A finite number of those players even exist, and only a fraction of them will be available for trade at any given time. Only one team can actually acquire any one player. So very obviously that kind of trade is not always available to everyone.

If what you think was true, those kinds of trades would be far more common.

As for what makes me think that; it's primarily an assumption that Holland isn't an idiot. He says he wants to add a top D. Doing so would cost some good assets, and since Holland's not an idiot he would know that. Therefore, I can only conclude that he'd be willing to do it.

But I'll give you this. We probably could get someone if we were willing to pay any price at all. In that sense, you could maybe even say a big trade is always available. But that shouldn't be the question. No, he's probably not willing to pay just any price at all. The question is what is the right price? And is "right" the same for us as it is for the team we're trying to trade with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not so sure we need a "top defenseman". Would it be nice, sure. But I don't think that's a make or break factor heading into this season. I've said already that we've got to sort out the usage with the guys we've got, but if Blashill pulls his head out of his ass and gears his usage toward possession and offense then we could be dangerous. The other big question mark is whether or not Holland is willing to cut bait with veterans who can't hack it. In some ways I seriously doubt that part.

I realize I keep posting lines. But humor me. There's a lot of offensive potential in something like this provided Blashill doesn't get too caught up in this "shot suppression" type game. This lineup would be adequate defensively, but they could score A LOT if things go right.

Tatar-Larkin-Abby

Z-Neilsen-Vanek

Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan

Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan

Dekeyser-Green

Smith-Marchenko

Kronwall-Sproul

Ericsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you want a guy who is in his second year to center the top line?

The same guy that had a rough time in the tail end of his first season?

You know, the guy who was in the Calder discussion until he fell off the map due to the longer grind of an NHL schedule?

That guy?

I'm really not so sure we need a "top defenseman". Would it be nice, sure. But I don't think that's a make or break factor heading into this season. I've said already that we've got to sort out the usage with the guys we've got, but if Blashill pulls his head out of his ass and gears his usage toward possession and offense then we could be dangerous. The other big question mark is whether or not Holland is willing to cut bait with veterans who can't hack it. In some ways I seriously doubt that part.

I realize I keep posting lines. But humor me. There's a lot of offensive potential in something like this provided Blashill doesn't get too caught up in this "shot suppression" type game. This lineup would be adequate defensively, but they could score A LOT if things go right.

Tatar-Larkin-Abby

Z-Neilsen-Vanek

Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan

Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan

Dekeyser-Green

Smith-Marchenko

Kronwall-Sproul

Ericsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh I wouldn't blame Larkin's drop in production solely on him. The entire team hit a rough patch post all star break. Zetterberg, Mrazek, Datsyuk, Abdelkader all hit a wall. Some had it worse than others but they all definitely did.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you want a guy who is in his second year to center the top line?

The same guy that had a rough time in the tail end of his first season?

You know, the guy who was in the Calder discussion until he fell off the map due to the longer grind of an NHL schedule?

That guy?

Yep. Who else do we have? I expect he'll be better in his second year than his first. But if it makes you feel better you could switch the top two lines considering it doesn't make a difference which order I list them in but only how much ice time they get. It's worth noting that Datsyuk was on our "2nd line" last year and still had top line minutes. You're getting WAY too caught up with designations.

Z-Neilsen-Vanek

Tatar-Larkin-Abby

Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan

Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan

Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not so sure we need a "top defenseman". Would it be nice, sure. But I don't think that's a make or break factor heading into this season. I've said already that we've got to sort out the usage with the guys we've got, but if Blashill pulls his head out of his ass and gears his usage toward possession and offense then we could be dangerous. The other big question mark is whether or not Holland is willing to cut bait with veterans who can't hack it. In some ways I seriously doubt that part.

I realize I keep posting lines. But humor me. There's a lot of offensive potential in something like this provided Blashill doesn't get too caught up in this "shot suppression" type game. This lineup would be adequate defensively, but they could score A LOT if things go right.

Tatar-Larkin-Abby

Z-Neilsen-Vanek

Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan

Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan

Dekeyser-Green

Smith-Marchenko

Kronwall-Sproul

Ericsson

Some good thinking here in spots, so I'll chime in on those, marked in bold:

No defender acquired and not given proper insight in our system will be great the coming season. And it's already to late for that. With that said I'm thinking more long term, I would not bash a young stud defender for not producing on the fly. However in 2 or 3 years that fledling youngling would be leading this team from the back end. Defense takes time. Just need the supreme talent.

I can see the Smith-Marchenko line working well and would like to see it tried out with decent minutes, perhaps as a second pairing as you proposed. They make good hockey sense being paired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh I wouldn't blame Larkin's drop in production solely on him. The entire team hit a rough patch post all star break. Zetterberg, Mrazek, Datsyuk, Abdelkader all hit a wall. Some had it worse than others but they all definitely did.

Agreed. Besides, it's not really that uncommon for a young guy to tail off at the end of the season. From January to March Larkin had 8 goals and 4 assists. For comparison's sake, Jack Eichel had 8 goals and 14 assists. Yet nobody would think it ludicrous to suggest Eichel be a top center. But again, whichever line you designate as 1st or 2nd doesn't really matter. Their usage will determine which line is the "top line" and in most cases the 1st and 2nd lines are interchangeable as far as ice time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good thinking here in spots, so I'll chime in on those, marked in bold:

No defender acquired and not given proper insight in our system will be great the coming season. And it's already to late for that. With that said I'm thinking more long term, I would not bash a young stud defender for not producing on the fly. However in 2 or 3 years that fledling youngling would be leading this team from the back end. Defense takes time. Just need the supreme talent.

I can see the Smith-Marchenko line working well and would like to see it tried out with decent minutes, perhaps as a second pairing as you proposed. They make good hockey sense being paired.

I've posted elsewhere that the usage for the pairings I've proposed would make all the difference in the world. I'd start the Smith-Marchenko pair in the defensive zone most often, for a few reasons. 1) They're the least capable offensive pair so there's no reason to waste offensive zone time on them. 2) Both have the ability to gain possession of the puck because both are big, strong, and aggressive. 3) Smith especially has shown he's good at advancing the puck after gaining possession and Marchenko also makes good outlet passes. They should be able to get possession and get the puck up ice.

As an aside, I'd start Green and Dekeyser in the neutral zone and Kronwall-Sproul in the offensive zone. Green-Dekeyser are offensively competent AND can get back on defense while Kronwall-Sproul would be bad defensively but dangerous if started in the O-zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glendening was here for the year anyhow, the only odd part is that he didn't wait until closer to the end of the season to resign him. Helm was atrocious. Holland has lost his moxy. But remember, his winninf teams were all built bY someone else.

I love it how when the Wings are doing poorly people put the blame 100% solely on Holland, but when the team wins, credit is given to others. Lets just ignore 1998 and 2002, but to not give the credit of the 2008 team to Holland is just ludicrous. Nill and Yzerman may have been there to assist him, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking they did everything while Holland just sat back. It all goes through the GM good or bad. One of the most important aspects of being a GM is the ability to know when to listen to your assistants versus when to overrule what they recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been rambling about usage around here for a few weeks. Blashill really needs to work on figuring out the best usage this upcoming season. Part of the reason we did so much worse last year than the year before (with practically a better team) was because of Blashill's usage issue.

FFS split up Nyquist and Tatar. They were working well for a bit of a stretch but they were just no where near their peak for majority of the season.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to give up Nyquist, Pulkkinen or Jurco in a deal, but no to AA, Larkin and Mantha. ONLY if a legit #1 was coming back would I even entertain the idea of trading Mantha. So if we aren't dealing any of the first three I mentioned, then role with what we got...I only wish E would be #7 though.

Btw, we haven't won a Cup without a tough guy in the lineup, Ott is going to be a hit, if he gets used properly and doesn't ride the pine for 60 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to give up Nyquist, Pulkkinen or Jurco in a deal, but no to AA, Larkin and Mantha. ONLY if a legit #1 was coming back would I even entertain the idea of trading Mantha. So if we aren't dealing any of the first three I mentioned, then role with what we got...I only wish E would be #7 though.

Btw, we haven't won a Cup without a tough guy in the lineup, Ott is going to be a hit, if he gets used properly and doesn't ride the pine for 60 games.

Ott hasn't been that guy in a couple years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither was Downey, nor McCarty nor Drake. We need Otter to play the same role as they did. Protect, hit, disrupt score the occasional goal. I always think back to Downey kicking Laperriere's ass after he clocked Lidstrom. If Z and Larkin et.al are given that type of protection, they may not drop off in production as much, if at all.

All I'm saying is, he's every bit McCarty was in 08 and drake. If he is used the same way, he is going to surprise a lot of fans. I still wish we had room for Mantha, but maybe Holland is thinking the same thing about his Downey signing. I hope that is the reason behind his signing and I hope he is used in the same way, 50-60 games at least is what I'm hoping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my blueadams lines:

Tatar - Nielson - Vanek

Zetterberg - Larkin - Abdelkader

Nyquist - Helm - Sheahan

Miller - Glendening - Ott

I'd love to have Jurco there, but he's not a 4th liner, maybe swap Sheahan with miller and put Jurco on Helm's wing.

DD - Smith

Kronwall - Green

XO - Marchenko

E

That would be the way I'd like the D, but I know E will be in, so XO will be #7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, Columbus got a hell of a deal on Gagner. Would someone like to put up some of those analytics comparing him and Helm...the eye test on hockey-reference.com tells me they have very similar production, But one of them makes $3.2M more than the other...and is 3 years older.

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


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