What to do about Vanek

[chaps80 1,591]

I understand the reasoning behind trading him at the deadline for assets, then re-sign him after the expansion draft, but no one knows if he will resign with Detroit. If he continues playing like he has been all season and is traded and doesn't come back to Detroit, that would suck.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

We need to find out what that's going to take.

 

Hamonic, OEL, Byfiglien, etc

It would take half the farm and/or multiple first rounders to get a player like OEL if he was ever on the market. 

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here. 

We'd basically be Arizona without any of the good young players or prospects...

[chaps80 1,591]

1 minute ago, Son of a Wing said:

It would take half the farm and/or multiple first rounders to get a player like OEL if he was ever on the market. 

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here. 

We'd basically be Arizona without any of the good young players or prospects...

Exactly. Teams don't trade young #1D's in the cap era, especially ones they've drafted and developed, unless it's a deal like Subban/Weber. And those are very rare.

[kipwinger 8,771]

If it looks like we're a playoff bubble team, or if we're out of the picture by the trade deadline, I'm taking offers on any UFA to be, any veteran, and any underperformer.  That means Jurco, Sheahan, Ott, Smith, Vanek, Green, and Neilsen.  You have to.  If we're out of the playoffs this season we are obviously going to need to rebuild going forward.  Given that we'll be a lottery team we'll want to bank as many picks as possible this season in order to have the flexibility to move up in the draft.   Say you're drafting 8th overall and you got a 1st for Vanek and a 2nd for Smith (not unreasonable given what Kris Russell got last season).  Move that extra 1st and the 2nd and you may be able to move into the top 5.  Lots of good centers going in the first part of the draft this year.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

We need to find out what that's going to take.
 
Hamonic, OEL, Byfiglien, etc

Larkin, Dekeyser, Chevy, and a couple firsts gets the talks started. There's no reason for those guys to be moved short of a stupid overpayment.

[kickazz 5,459]

What to do with Vanek?

Take him out and Vanek at the disco

[kipwinger 8,771]

If we're out of playoff contention by the deadline I'd like to see us explore trade talks on all the guys I mentioned above.  In addition, I'd move Dekeyser, Svechnikov, and a 2nd for Dougie Hamilton.  Losing Svech would suck, but we've got a ton of wingers.  It's an organizational strength.  The only thing I absolutely wouldn't do is trade our 1st rounder if we're having a draft lottery kind of season.  Trade for Hamilton and put yourself in the best possible position to draft a high 1st round center. 

[MDCard 48]

Vanek is a positive addition to this team.  He has great hands, passes well, and has a high hockey IQ.  He can score (which is something we need).  When he was out, we suffered.  And we seem to be turning things around a bit with him back in.  We have enough dead weight on this team that truly needs to go.  I would not include Vanek in that category.  

I am not sure why we overpay guys like Helm, Abby, Errickson, and others and then when a guy comes in and outplays his contract we are ready to trade him for a second rounder.  If we are out of it at the deadline and want to trade him as a rental for someone else we should demand a 1st rounder (or more...like an added prospect).  Vanek is a difference maker.

[kliq 3,763]

I think the most likely scenario with Vanek is that come the trade deadline we are either in the playoffs, or out by 2-4 points and we hang on to him. I cannot see Holland trading a difference maker away if we are still in it.

[e_prime 1,936]

Serious question:  When was the last time the Red Wings "sold" at the deadline, if ever?  Furthermore, is Ken Holland capable of selling?

Edited November 28, 2016 by e_prime

[DickieDunn 2,571]

5 minutes ago, e_prime said:

Serious question:  When was the last time the Red Wings "sold" at the deadline, if ever?  Furthermore, is Ken Holland capable of selling?

1) A long time ago

2) I doubt it

[chaps80 1,591]

3 hours ago, MDCard said:

Vanek is a positive addition to this team.  He has great hands, passes well, and has a high hockey IQ.  He can score (which is something we need).  When he was out, we suffered.  And we seem to be turning things around a bit with him back in.  We have enough dead weight on this team that truly needs to go.  I would not include Vanek in that category.  

I am not sure why we overpay guys like Helm, Abby, Errickson, and others and then when a guy comes in and outplays his contract we are ready to trade him for a second rounder.  If we are out of it at the deadline and want to trade him as a rental for someone else we should demand a 1st rounder (or more...like an added prospect).  Vanek is a difference maker.

This. 

[kliq 3,763]

51 minutes ago, e_prime said:

Serious question:  When was the last time the Red Wings "sold" at the deadline, if ever?  Furthermore, is Ken Holland capable of selling?

I cant ever remember him selling, but to fair that is a bi-product of having your team contend for around 20 years straight. It wasn't until 2013 that you could argue the re-build started, and since then he has had more of a stand pat mentality with the exception of the season he got Zidlicky and Cole.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Because he's 32 and this is a rebuilding team

[kliq 3,763]

 

10 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Because he's 32 and this is a rebuilding team

I hate to say it, but if he can get us a 1st rounder I dont see how we cant do it. We are not winning the cup this year. I dont want to tank, but there is a difference between tanking and acquiring assets for expiring contracts.

[e_prime 1,936]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

I cant ever remember him selling, but to fair that is a bi-product of having your team contend for around 20 years straight. It wasn't until 2013 that you could argue the re-build started, and since then he has had more of a stand pat mentality with the exception of the season he got Zidlicky and Cole.

Agreed. ...but that's why I'm wondering if he's capable of selling.  Will his mentality always be: Make the playoffs see where we go... even if he doesn't buy?  Like you, I don't condone taking per se, but I do see standing pat or "liking our team" too much as dooming our forseeable future to a continuation of having a  middling on ice product.  We may never get our hands on one of those elusive number one d-men through a hockey trade. We just don't have the expendable assets that teams really want.  I absolutely believe that Ken Holland needs to find the guts to trade away pieces that other teams will want for their prospective playoff runs for picks, prospects, and/or expiring contracts, if ours is truly out of reach or destined for a first round exit.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

So basically, do we tank and trade him? Or do we try to make the playoffs?

Playoffs.

[chaps80 1,591]

Holland sucks at trading, besides Hasek (who fell into his lap), Schneider, an Stuart. Rest have been worthless deadline deals (Legwand, Zidlicky, Cole, KFQ. Although KFQ stayed and was decent last season.). I hope he's not as bad at selling as trading, or it could be a s*** show.

[kliq 3,763]

36 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Holland sucks at trading, besides Hasek (who fell into his lap), Schneider, an Stuart. Rest have been worthless deadline deals (Legwand, Zidlicky, Cole, KFQ. Although KFQ stayed and was decent last season.). I hope he's not as bad at selling as trading, or it could be a s*** show.

Holland is not bad at trading, he just doesn't really do it. GM's that are bad at trading are GM's that make huge mistakes. Had Holland traded Larkin + for Trouba, that would be him being bad at trading.

When i think of of GM's who are bad at it, I think of Mike Milbury, Paul Holmgrom and even Peter Cirelli. Though its hard sometimes to know 100% where blame lies as fans never know if ownership is getting involved.

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

On 11/27/2016 at 6:47 PM, kliq said:

 

I hate to say it, but if he can get us a 1st rounder I dont see how we cant do it. We are not winning the cup this year. I dont want to tank, but there is a difference between tanking and acquiring assets for expiring contracts.

Unfortunately I feel the only way he gets us a 1st rounder is if he is up near 25 goals at the deadline. With this team anemic offense I dont see that. 

 

1 hour ago, kliq said:

Holland is not bad at trading, he just doesn't really do it. GM's that are bad at trading are GM's that make huge mistakes. Had Holland traded Larkin + for Trouba, that would be him being bad at trading.

I see it the other way. He doesnt do it much because he rarely gets good results. Sure he is no Milbury in the failing department but hes also not really a winner in the long game of trades during his tenure. 

1 hour ago, chaps80 said:

Rest have been worthless deadline deals (Legwand, Zidlicky, Cole, KFQ. Although KFQ stayed and was decent last season.)

I wouldnt call KFQ a worthless deal. The contract he was given after that was the mistake. 

[kliq 3,763]

51 minutes ago, GoalieManPat said:

I see it the other way. He doesnt do it much because he rarely gets good results. Sure he is no Milbury in the failing department but hes also not really a winner in the long game of trades during his tenure. 

I have to disagree. I can't say he is bad at something he never does. To be fair, who is a winner in the trading department in the past few years? Unless you are trading with Cirelli, trades now a days are pretty much insignificant. Other then Subban/Weber, the Seguin trade, and the Hall trade I can't remember off hand a trade of significance in years. Trades now a days are typically just rentals.

[kickazz 5,459]

Does anyone actually do significant trades now? Like when was there an actual trade that one side actually won? Seguin? 

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

8 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Does anyone actually do significant trades now? Like when was there an actual trade that one side actually won? Seguin? 

Hall - Larsson and Subban - Weber?

[kickazz 5,459]

17 minutes ago, Son of a Wing said:

Hall - Larsson and Subban - Weber?

Read my post, I'm asking for trades where one side actually won (like the Wings did with Shanahan or Montreal did with Roy). Subban / Weber deal was one for one. Pretty much a stalemate. Each side had a major piece to contribute. That's like trading Seguin for Kane or something. Or Toews for Bergeron. 

Hall - Larsson seems lopsided but one team needed a D-man and had overstock of young players that couldn't get into the playoffs. Maybe that will be another "once in a blue moon" lopsided trade like the Seguin one was.. ? 

Someone previously was talking about how Holland is bad at trading. And my point is that it's not actually true. The guy just doesn't do much trading to begin with. And when he does, it's usually low risk. And my second point is, who actually in the league does bad trades? Once in a while maybe? Everyone is too smart to make the wrong move now.  And when they do make moves, they have something worthwhile to give and receive. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Holland is not bad at trading, he just doesn't really do it. GM's that are bad at trading are GM's that make huge mistakes. Had Holland traded Larkin + for Trouba, that would be him being bad at trading.
When i think of of GM's who are bad at it, I think of Mike Milbury, Paul Holmgrom and even Peter Cirelli. Though its hard sometimes to know 100% where blame lies as fans never know if ownership is getting involved.

Unless Trouba turns into a #1 D whike Larkin ends up a really good 2C