Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

[Echolalia 2,961]

I never understood all the love for Jurco, and in continues to baffle me as more time passes. At first it was just Babcock not utilizing him properly, but then his boy Blashill became the head coach, whom he had a good working relationship with in the AHL. And then Blashill repeatedly scratched him and played him primarily in the bottom six as well. Its difficult to imagine two separate head coaches mismanaging the same player in the same way, especially when one of those coaches used him liberally in the AHL. Jurco has had opportunities in the top six and he has been unable to run with it on any of the chances he was given. To this, people respond that his opportunities weren't long enough and he needs more time to gel with his linemates. I can appreciate this to an extent, but at the same time, how long should a head coach attach an anchor to one of his top two lines to bog down the rest of the line with before he cuts the cord? If Jurco struggles on the top six for five games and we end up losing one or two of those games we're already talking about the difference between making and missing the playoffs. Should he go 10 games on the top six? 15? 20? I don't know the correct answer, but I do know that Larkin, Nyquist, Tatar, Abdelkader, even Helm had no problem making the most of the opportunity when they were put alongside Datsyuk or Zetterberg. The NHL doesn't reward potential. It rewards performance. And that's Jurco's biggest issue. Pulkkinen as well, for that matter. I would love for him to suddenly click and become the power-forward we've all been hoping for, and I'm not saying that it won't happen yet. But we can't hold the rest of the team back while we wait for Jurco to develop.

[krsmith17 7,191]

Anchor? When the hell has Jurco ever been an anchor on any line? Just because he's not producing as much as we would like offensively, doesn't in any way make him an anchor... I remember back to back games last season in which Jurco played some of the best hockey of his career. He was instrumental on two goals for, by driving the net and providing traffic in front. He was then scratched, either the very next game, or the following game.

Jurco has not been given the same sort of opportunity as others on the team, since his rookie stint 3 years ago. He hasn't regressed and he has improved, but like so many others on this team, some fans refuse to see the positives in a player once they've determined in their own mind that they're "not good"...

I think the biggest misconception is that people think that when someone defends a player, that person must think that player is amazing... Not at all. I think Jurco is a very good player, and in time has the potential to be a very good middle six, skilled winger that can throw his weight around a little. No, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we lost him, but it would be a huge mistake to get rid of him as a throw in just to trade Datsyuk's contract. Unless of course, like I said, if the only way we can acquire a big name player is to trade Datsyuk, and the only team willing to take on the contract is demanding a player like Jurco in the deal...

[kipwinger 8,524]

To put things into perspective, Jurco played every game in November of last season and scored 1 goal and 1 assist. He also played every game in February and scored two goals. That's 24 games, in two 12 straight game segments. So while I agree that he's seen spotty usage at times, he's also seen prolonged usage at times as well. In neither case has he produced to the extent that he should given his skill set. He may need more time, and maybe he'll get it, but he's been undeniably disappointing thus far in his career.

For comparison's sake, Teemu Pulkkinen played every game in October a scored 4 goals and 2 assist, and every game in November and scored 2 goals and 3 assists.

Edited June 5, 2016 by kipwinger

[marcaractac 3,963]

To put things into perspective, Jurco played every game in November of last season and scored 1 goal and 1 assist. He also played every game in February and scored two goals. That's 24 games, in two 12 straight game segments. So while I agree that he's seen spotty usage at times, he's also seen prolonged usage at times as well. In neither case has he produced to the extent that he should given his skill set. He may need more time, and maybe he'll get it, but he's been undeniably disappointing thus far in his career.

For comparison's sake, Teemu Pulkkinen played every game in October a scored 4 goals and 2 assist, and every game in November and scored 2 goals and 3 assists.

Another issue is that most of the roster had bad years as far as production goes. Outside of Larkin and Abdelkader, it's been a disappointment all around (only counting players on the team all season). Nyquist and Tatar were invisible for long stretches during the season.

Hell, even Abdelkader took a couple seasons to start producing playing with Pav and Hank. His production early on playing with those guys was not good. Yet the coaches always stuck with it because he brings more to the table than just putting up points. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think that Jurco can have a similar impact on the team given some consistency in the lineup.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Anchor? When the hell has Jurco ever been an anchor on any line? Just because he's not producing as much as we would like offensively, doesn't in any way make him an anchor... I remember back to back games last season in which Jurco played some of the best hockey of his career. He was instrumental on two goals for, by driving the net and providing traffic in front. He was then scratched, either the very next game, or the following game.

Jurco has not been given the same sort of opportunity as others on the team, since his rookie stint 3 years ago. He hasn't regressed and he has improved, but like so many others on this team, some fans refuse to see the positives in a player once they've determined in their own mind that they're "not good"...

I think the biggest misconception is that people think that when someone defends a player, that person must think that player is amazing... Not at all. I think Jurco is a very good player, and in time has the potential to be a very good middle six, skilled winger that can throw his weight around a little. No, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we lost him, but it would be a huge mistake to get rid of him as a throw in just to trade Datsyuk's contract. Unless of course, like I said, if the only way we can acquire a big name player is to trade Datsyuk, and the only team willing to take on the contract is demanding a player like Jurco in the deal...

Listen man, I've been wanting him to succeed as much as anyone else here. When he's had solid games I'm one of the first to point that out in a GDT when I'm here, and I evaluate players beyond just point totals, so even if he isn't scoring I'm not necessarily going to jump to the conclusion that he's a bust. My post history can vouch for this and is readily searchable. Jurco has had games where he's hustled hard, where he's forechecked well, where he's forced turnovers and crashed the net, where his presence was known for the right reasons on the ice. I'm not saying every game of the entire year was terrible, and for sure you can go back and find some games like the ones you are referencing in your post. But for every one of those games there are several where he was invisible, where he wasn't contributing in any real way, where he was a step behind the play. And if you're not pulling your weight on your line, then you're an anchor. A line is only as good as the weakest link, so if Jurco is playing poorly then the whole line suffers. Jurco has done this and he's done it many times. Hence the repeated benchings over two separate coaching regimes, the stint in GR last season, the frequent and hasty drops from top 6 opportunities to fourth liner. He has the tools and hes proven to us all he has the tools. But its a matter of putting it all together and playing that way regularly instead of sporadically. And again, how long do you wait and give him that opportunity with players like Zetterberg or Tatar or Larkin, where he could easily go many games and be invisible and not contribute at all to the line?

[kickazz 5,459]

The unfortunate situation for Jurco is that a lot of players are leaping ahead of him. There may not be a roster spot open for him unless he really starts putting some points up. Just in one year, Larkin, AA and Mantha have made the line up. Next year these 3 will likely be with the squad full time. Within the next two years, I won't be surprised is Svetch makes the lineup too. Tatar will get another contract and Abby is already locked in along with Nyquist. Zetterberg will retire as a Wing. Jurco is running out of spots and already spend half the season out of the line up. Imo the next chance he gets, he's going to have to take full advantage. This is the hand he has been dealt. He's going to have to play it.

Edited June 6, 2016 by kickazz

[sjr2012 439]

i like jurco but i myself wonder how long we can wait for him to improve i dont want to lose him for s*** but if he can help us get the big name than i dont mind moving on

[xtrememachine1 795]

Jurco is still pretty young and it's still too early to say either way, how good his career will be. Markus Naslund didn't get good until he hit 25 and I see Jurco as a similar player to him. Having said that, if trading Jurco to get rid of Datsyuk's contract is what we need to do in order to improve our team, then we should do it. This could be a great move for Jurco's career too. We have a lot of young (and younger) forwards and he's going to be fighting for ice time. With another team, he might see the ice more or fit into their system better or click with his teammates better.

[LeftWinger 4,961]

Trade Pav's contract - $5.5M

Trade Howard - $5.3M

Franzen LTIR - $3.9M

You now have $27.8M of cap space before any increase, if at all. Is that enough to get Stamkos and a top 2 D-Man? Plus re-sign Mrazek, DD and Sheahan... I guess you may have to deal someone else for a top 2 guy to make is all fit. Plus we'd still need a back up...

[kickazz 5,459]

Trade Pav's contract - $5.5M

Trade Howard - $5.3M

Franzen LTIR - $3.9M

You now have $27.8M of cap space before any increase, if at all. Is that enough to get Stamkos and a top 2 D-Man? Plus re-sign Mrazek, DD and Sheahan... I guess you may have to deal someone else for a top 2 guy to make is all fit. Plus we'd still need a back up...

Datsyuk's cap hit is $7.5 million not $5.5. Trading Howard's contract might require some salary retention. As far as backup is concerned, is Jonas Gustavsson available again? He'd be a cheap $700 k backup.

We should be able to re-sign Sheahan, DK, Mrazek as it is, so not worried about them. The space we create would definitely be to try and bring in new players.

Edited June 6, 2016 by kickazz

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

Datsyuk's cap hit is $7.5 million not $5.5. Trading Howard's contract might require some salary retention. As far as backup is concerned, is Jonas Gustavsson available again? He'd be a cheap $700 k backup.

We should be able to re-sign Sheahan, DK, Mrazek as it is, so not worried about them. The space we create would definitely be to try and bring in new players.

I believe putting down 5.5 mill for Datsyuk's cap hit is assuming that if we do move his contract, we would prolly have to eat a portion of it.

[Jacksoni 418]

I gotta give props to Jurco for still being elusive. I have no idea what to do with him still.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Jurco spent a lot of his time with plugs like Glendening and Miller. Any say he had a chance. When we was with skilled plauers, it usually never lasted a full game. Maybe he's just not doing what he's told.

Edited June 6, 2016 by DickieDunn

[kickazz 5,459]

Ansar Khan was asked about Wing's chances of landing Stamkos -

Q: In what universe do you see it being a possibility that Stamkos goes to the Red Wings? – Ben

A: The stars and planets would need to be perfectly aligned.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/06/ask_ansar_on_the_red_wings_cha.html

[VM1138 1,921]

Signing someone like Radulov just replaces Datsyuk and puts us even with where we were last year. We still need a Stamkos like signing to make us improve. So if it's so unlikely we might just be screwed.

[VM1138 1,921]

And honesty the more I hear from our beat writers the more it seems we haven't changed our mentality at all. It's Radulov OR Stamkos? They aren't even on the same ballpark. No one should hesitate to pay Stamkos $10 million. That's just the cost these days and we HAVE to have a ready number one center to compete.

[joesuffP 1,746]

Huge difference between signing someone for two years at 5M and 6 years at 10M. Radulov is a stop gap guy and Stamkos is the face of your franchise for the next decade. This team has way too many holes to expect Stamkos to magically make them a contender. We don't even have a ready #2 center, big body top six, we only have one good defense men etc... That's not a good thing when you're up against the cap as well. Wings won't be a real serious team until Z, Kronwall and E are gone even if they did add Stamkos

Edited June 6, 2016 by joesuffP

[kickazz 5,459]

And honesty the more I hear from our beat writers the more it seems we haven't changed our mentality at all. It's Radulov OR Stamkos? They aren't even on the same ballpark. No one should hesitate to pay Stamkos $10 million. That's just the cost these days and we HAVE to have a ready number one center to compete.

The "or" is because Stamkos will likey reject Detroit's offer. Stamkos is obviously Plan A. They also want to have a Plan B, C and D etc.

Edited June 6, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,524]

And honesty the more I hear from our beat writers the more it seems we haven't changed our mentality at all. It's Radulov OR Stamkos? They aren't even on the same ballpark. No one should hesitate to pay Stamkos $10 million. That's just the cost these days and we HAVE to have a ready number one center to compete.

I don't think it's Radulov or Stamkos in terms of their desires. It's math. If we sign Stamkos, that's pretty much the only impact forward we will be able to afford. Maybe a depth signing, but that's about it. Otherwise we have to re-sign our RFAs. I think if they sign Radulov early they'll still be in the hunt on July 1st. But if they wait and sign Stamkos on July 1, I wouldn't expect much more. Which is why I've always favored passing on Stamkos, signing Okposo AND someone else.

[Wingnut1989 165]

I don't think it's Radulov or Stamkos in terms of their desires. It's math. If we sign Stamkos, that's pretty much the only impact forward we will be able to afford. Maybe a depth signing, but that's about it. Otherwise we have to re-sign our RFAs. I think if they sign Radulov early they'll still be in the hunt on July 1st. But if they wait and sign Stamkos on July 1, I wouldn't expect much more. Which is why I've always favored passing on Stamkos, signing Okposo AND someone else.

Im a big stamkos fan, but i have to agree Okposo + another would be more effective, We need more then just one guy

[VM1138 1,921]

But why are we pushing so hard so early for Radulov before even talking to Stamkos? That's my issue.

And we do need more than one player but we need a high caliber superstar like Stamkos the most. We can always hope for Larkin or Mantha or AA to explode, or pick up someone next season.

We can't fix all the problems in one summer but there may not be another superstar available for many years.

[xtrememachine1 795]

I probably said this earlier in this thread, but Stamkos is the fun move I'd like to see. We'd have an elite all-star franchise center on our roster again for many many years. He'd score tons of highlight reel goals and generate excitement. Plus, I'd like to see us win something. Anything. Landing the big UFA would be fun.

However, the "adult side" of me feels like using that money to build up the team as a whole would be better. Dumping $10 mil into one player, that's coming off of blood clot issues, will leave holes in other areas of the roster and based on how well we finished this year, we already have a ton of holes. Maybe Stamkos's goal production helps cover those holes (giving up 3-4 goals isn't a big deal, when you score 5) or maybe it just makes those holes bigger as they don't get addressed.

Either way, the Wings management need to convince Stamkos that Detroit is serious about rebuilding a contender fast and that probably means signing someone else like a Radulov. For all the crap we give Holland on this forum, I don't envy this task of trying to lure Stamkos away from a warm weather championship caliber team (Bolts) or an up and coming team with loads of young talent, the first pick in the NHL draft and a great coach (Leafs).

[xtrememachine1 795]

Forgive my laziness - where is CBJ in terms of cap space?

Could Holland give them Dats's last year under contract as well?

If so - I'd be alright with this.

They have like $3 mil in cap space. They have a surprising amount of bigger contracts for long term on their team.

http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/columbus-blue-jackets

[VM1138 1,921]

I probably said this earlier in this thread, but Stamkos is the fun move I'd like to see. We'd have an elite all-star franchise center on our roster again for many many years. He'd score tons of highlight reel goals and generate excitement. Plus, I'd like to see us win something. Anything. Landing the big UFA would be fun.

However, the "adult side" of me feels like using that money to build up the team as a whole would be better. Dumping $10 mil into one player, that's coming off of blood clot issues, will leave holes in other areas of the roster and based on how well we finished this year, we already have a ton of holes. Maybe Stamkos's goal production helps cover those holes (giving up 3-4 goals isn't a big deal, when you score 5) or maybe it just makes those holes bigger as they don't get addressed.

Either way, the Wings management need to convince Stamkos that Detroit is serious about rebuilding a contender fast and that probably means signing someone else like a Radulov. For all the crap we give Holland on this forum, I don't envy this task of trying to lure Stamkos away from a warm weather championship caliber team (Bolts) or an up and coming team with loads of young talent, the first pick in the NHL draft and a great coach (Leafs).

The problem is, we're not going to get an elite superstar through drafting, and probably not through UFA if we miss out on Stamkos. These types of players don't come along very often, and we're not going to win a Cup without one. Sure, money is a big issue but if we're serious about rebuilding and COMPETING, we have to make a huge play for Stamkos. Filling the team with capable but non-spectacular players is exactly how we ended up being a perennial playoff team with no shot at the Cup. I agree that you can't rely on one player, but you also can't move forward without a big superstar.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

But why are we pushing so hard so early for Radulov before even talking to Stamkos? That's my issue.

And we do need more than one player but we need a high caliber superstar like Stamkos the most. We can always hope for Larkin or Mantha or AA to explode, or pick up someone next season.

We can't fix all the problems in one summer but there may not be another superstar available for many years.

We're not allowed to talk to Stamkos yet, since he's under contract with another NHL team. We - and other team - can talk to Radulov, so we have to make the pitch while he's inquiring and still available.