Defense

[blgillett 48]

This has probably been asked but here it is again. What are the Wings going to do for a Defenseman we really need a number one guy and could use a second top three guy to go along with that?

[kickazz 5,459]

Asking Lidstrom to come out of retirement would be a start. 

[kliq 3,755]

The 1D position is one that IMO is the hardest in all of sports to acquire. They don't hit UFA anymore, they don't get traded as EVERYONE wants one, and drafting them is extremely hard as most of the elite d-men are late round picks due to their late development. 

Look at the 2008 draft as an example, 4 of the top 5 picks were D. Doughty, Bogosian, Pieterangelo, and Schenn. Half of them are nowhere near 1D. So even tanking to get a top 5 pick is a HUGE risk and guarantees nothing

The answer? Draft a lot of d-men and hope one develops into a stud, or make a trade where you are not going to be fleeced. Just look at the price Edmonton paid for a guy that COULD be a 1D, they gave up Taylor Hall. This is not an easy answer. Damn you Suter!

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

The only way the Wings are getting a true #1 dman is if they develop one from in the system. They dont hit the FA market anymore and if you do try and find one via trade you are going to end up overpaying. The Wings have nowhere near the top end assets to swing a trade for a #1 dman without crippling the team worse than they were before. Simply put this is a hole that we can look forward to them having for a few more years atleast.

[krsmith17 7,191]

I was really hoping to land Trouba in the offseason, or Hamilton by now, but like has been mentioned, these types of players are very difficult to acquire via trade. In order to pull off such a trade, we would have to give up Larkin / Mantha ++, and that would likely be a lateral move at best.

I agree that the best option in today's NHL is through drafting / developing, and unfortunately I don't think we have anything close to a true number one in the system right now. In hindsight, I really wish we hadn't made that Datsyuk / Chychrun trade, but what's done is done. Hopefully Cholowski really takes a few huge steps over the next few years and becomes something special. From everything I hear about the kid, he thinks the game at an elite level, so if his skill set develops, he could become a top pair guy, just not sure about a legit number one...

I think Holland should be looking to trade off some assets at the deadline, and do whatever he can to go into the '17 draft with a couple firsts and a couple seconds, take at least three defensemen, and hope to strike gold with one of them...

[LeftWinger 4,961]

Your best D was a healthy scratch last night

That being said, I'd still take a short at Fowler this season, but not at what the asking price was early on. If they'd swap for Nyquist, I'm in. But.....

 

Anyhow maybe take a run a Shattenkirk come July. Other than that, we need to dump the Swedish twins and let XO and Sproul play 100% and just hope they keep getting better.

[RusDRW 155]

Well, it is kind of obvious that we are not going to get true #1 D in a trade, simple because we have no assets to trade for one... However, it does not mean we need to continue having Kronwall-Green as our first pairing, Try to land a Fowler type of defenseman in a trade for Tatar+ or Nyquist+. Try to sign Shattenkirk next summer. Keep Green and we are going to get something like

Shattenkirk-Fowler
Green - DeKeyser
Sproul - Kronwall

and this is much better than what we have now, a kind of D by committee (too offensive minded though).

However, to do this you need a GM who is willing to work on the phone.

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, RusDRW said:

Well, it is kind of obvious that we are not going to get true #1 D in a trade, simple because we have no assets to trade for one... However, it does not mean we need to continue having Kronwall-Green as our first pairing, Try to land a Fowler type of defenseman in a trade for Tatar+ or Nyquist+. Try to sign Shattenkirk next summer. Keep Green and we are going to get something like

Shattenkirk-Fowler
Green - DeKeyser
Sproul - Kronwall

and this is much better than what we have now, a kind of D by committee (too offensive minded though).

However, to do this you need a GM who is willing to work on the phone.

That hasn't been our top pairing at all... It's been DeKeyser - Green and Kronwall has been paired with one of Smith, Sproul or Ouellet.

I wouldn't count on getting both of Shattenkirk / Fowler. I think either is a long shot, both is never going to happen.

[RusDRW 155]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I wouldn't count on getting both of Shattenkirk / Fowler. I think either is a long shot, both is never going to happen.

There is nothing unrealistic in getting a trade done around a good winger and some additional pieces for a good defenseman. Also, one can always slightly overpay for a free agent to fill the most critical need. However, this is not going to happen with KH.

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 minutes ago, RusDRW said:

There is nothing unrealistic in getting a trade done around a good winger and some additional pieces for a good defenseman. Also, one can always slightly overpay for a free agent to fill the most critical need. However, this is not going to happen with KH.

The bolded was my point. Ken Holland does not make blockbuster trades, and although he does tend to overpay for free agents, I'm not even sure if that will be an option next offseason. Unless a few big contracts are moved, which leads us back to the whole lack of trades thing...

[Jacksoni 418]

Yep doesn't look good. We really needed a top defender this offseason and maybe that would not have been enough to bolster things up for 4-5 more wins.

I'll go out and skate now and polish my own d-skills. Helps ward off the bad-season mood.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Our GM is an imbecile, so we can forget about acquiring one.  Holland can"t pull off a trade for #2D, so how is he going to get a #1D?

Hamonic: Wasn't even traded and rescinded his trade request

Trouba: Wasn't even traded...

Hamilton: 1st+2 2nds. We could have done that, but Boston might not have wanted to deal with us since Calgary had higher picks and are out of their conference.

Subban: Come on, we don't have Weber. This was a very special situation. 2 of the top Dmen in the league swapped.

Fowler: Despite the talk around here like it's inevitable, Ducks don't even want to trade him. They'd rather trade Bieska or some other player to make the room that they need.

Yandle: possibly could have done this: 4th,6th for his rights by the PAnthers. But rights are not a guarantee that he'd sign and It would would've been horrible if we lost those picks just to have him sign with a contender at free-agency.

Larsson: Don't have an equivalent to Hall that we could trade

There's many valid criticism of Holland, but calling him an imbecile is way over the top. 

Just listing D trades that happened doesn't mean that we missed out on them. Only a couple of those could be possibilities and it's even debatable if they could have happened. Trading for a top D man happens very rarely and you have to give up elite talent to get it - which we either don't have or in the case of developing players like Larkin, Mrazek, Mantha etc. it could be argued that giving them up would create as big a hole in the greater picture.

I don't think the D is as bad as it's been depicted as. I've been really impressed with Sproul and think he'll develop into a solid top 4 guy. Green is 2nd in scoring and been very solid. These 2 could supply the offence from the blue line that we've been missing in the past 5 years. And we have good depth - having a player like XO hanging around as the #7 (or #8) speaks to that.

We do lack a top guy, but for a rebuilding team who've never missed the playoffs - we have young solid goaltending, a bunch of young developing forwards (AA, LArkin, Mantha). Top D man is the big search - It'd be great to pick up Shattenkirk as a UFA or pull off a trade that makes sense. Otherwise I'm glad that the young players (Sproul, Marchenko, XO) have been plenty of playing time. That has been the other big complaint about Holland and nobody's commented on this aspect of this year's team. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[LeftWinger 4,961]

Problem is, he holds on to vets too long. Re-signs them for too long, then we have no room for the kids to play.  IMO, he should not re-sign anyone for more than 3 yrs at a time. 

[chaps80 1,591]

Drafting Chychrun instead of dumping salary would have been cool. But it got them Nielson I guess. And some skinny ass Cholowski kid.

 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

22 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

Drafting Chychrun instead of dumping salary would have been cool. But it got them Nielson I guess. And some skinny ass Cholowski kid.

I was leaning that way for a while, but I'm not sure where I stand on that now. Chychrun was recently a healthy scratch for the Yotes in 5 straight games. He's a very young player so that doesn't say much about where he'll end up, but it does say that he wouldn't have been a boost for us right away and that he wasn't as NHL ready as was reported at the beginning of the year. Anyway, we wouldn't have had roster space and so we wouldn't have seen him for a year with the most optimistic thinking. We'll have to wait to see Chychrun and Cholowski develop.

Chychrun has 4 pts (1 goal) in 16 games and a -3

Cholowski has 7pts (all assists) in 14 games in the NCHC and a -3

He's listed at 185 lbs and 6'1". I don't think that's really skinny for an 18 yr old.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=247137

Edited December 5, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[kliq 3,755]

38 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Problem is, he holds on to vets too long. Re-signs them for too long, then we have no room for the kids to play.  IMO, he should not re-sign anyone for more than 3 yrs at a time. 

I agree with this up to the last line, you give yourself a "3 year max" on signing free agents and you are going to lose every unrestricted free agent you have. Bye bye Larkin, Mrazek, AA, Mantha etc. once they become UFA's.

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

The bolded was my point. Ken Holland does not make blockbuster trades, and although he does tend to overpay for free agents, I'm not even sure if that will be an option next offseason. Unless a few big contracts are moved, which leads us back to the whole lack of trades thing...

I completely agree with the trade thing, as far as Shattenkirk goes, I could see Holland signing him. Free Agency has been one area where Holland tends to go all in. He seems to be able to make moves when he has to, the Datsyuk trade is the perfect example.

If Howard is taken in the expansion draft, and we dont re-sign Miller/Ott/Smith/Vanek, I think we would have the cap space to sign him. If not, I could even see him signing him then trading away Green for picks.

[kliq 3,755]

1 minute ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

You are proving my point.  These are all guys that were either dealt or could have possibly been dealt.  And only Subban is truly a #1 D.  So if Holland can't get a deal done for a number 2, 3, or 4 defenseman, there is zero chance he can pull off a move for a number 1D.  And you hit the nail on the head = our assets aren't strong enough.  But I ask you this: Who do you think is in charge of the portfolio?

We dont need anymore #3 or #4 d-men, our team is filled with them. I dont think Holland has failed to acquire something that we dont need.

What we are missing is a top pair guy. These guys just don't get dealt. It is so easy to sit on this side and point the finger, but in reality I dont know if anyone could pull off a trade for one of these types of players as nobody is looking to move one. Like I said earlier, Edmonton had to trade Taylor Hall a 1st line winger, first overall pick, potential Art Ross nominee to get a possible #1 in Adam Larsson.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

You are proving my point.  These are all guys that were either dealt or could have possibly been dealt.  And only Subban is truly a #1 D.  So if Holland can't get a deal done for a number 2, 3, or 4 defenseman, there is zero chance he can pull off a move for a number 1D.  And you hit the nail on the head = our assets aren't strong enough.  But I ask you this: Who do you think is in charge of the portfolio?

Not so fast - my post doesn't back your point at all. What I was arguing against was that you seem to be using your list as examples of Holland's failures. I guess we do agree that a trade for a 1D is unlikely, but that's pretty much a given: not many #1 D men are traded anywhere in the league. Few teams have good enough assets to trade for a 1D - you pretty much have to trade a cornerstone player yourself or multiple high picks. Even fewer are willing to give up those assets.

As for your question of who's "in charge of the portfolio?", I'm not sure what you mean. If you're asking who controls trades and make the plan for the team, that would be multiple people with Holland being the final decider (probably a final okay from owners on major decisions). 

Edited December 6, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[LeftWinger 4,961]

I think Holland will just go with his current D, if it works, then the streak lives. If it fails, he possibly gets a lottery pick. Either way, I'm willing to bet he is waiting and he will throw the wallet at Shattenkirk if he makes it to ufa. If not, then Fowler is a ufa in 18...if he makes it to July that year. If we could just rid ourselves of the two pylons from Sweden, we could let the kids play and grow, then adding a ufa would make sense. Keeping the Swedish two will only make signing someone better that much harder.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Exactly.  Holland is in charge of making sure this team has assets.  The well is dry right now.  Our finest forward prospects are looking like career 2nd or 3rd liners, and we can't get a defenseman prospect to look better than a career #4.  Something needs to change.

You only read the 2nd half of my post if you're responding "exactly." I think we have some good assets - just I don't think we have ones we could part with that would bring back a #1D (and in the first half of my post I said few do have those expendible assets). For instance, I'd bet if we offered someone Mrazek and Larkin we could get a pretty good D man. But it probably wouldn't be worthwhile. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[BadgerBob 297]

As far as free agents go, Holland took the reigns when players wanted to come here just to come here. He never had to sell players on anything for the longest time because the team's roster and record spoke for itself. Now he has to try to convince players to come to Detroit and I don't think he's very good at selling it.

[kickazz 5,459]

11 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

You only read the 2nd half of my post if you're responding "exactly." I think we have some good assets - just I don't think we have ones we could part with that would bring back a #1D (and in the first half of my post I said few do have those expendible assets). For instance, I'd bet if we offered someone Mrazek and Larkin we could get a pretty good D man. But it probably wouldn't be worthwhile. 

 That's exactly what Bill Berzeench does. It's better not to engage. 

We've all dealt with this style of posting all last year. Not even worth it. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by kickazz

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

Its crazy to see people are automatically dismissing Cholowski based solely on the Datsyuk salary dumping trade. People want to see the kid fail just so they can say they were right about not drafting Chych.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Welcome to the internet

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[chaps80 1,591]

On 05/12/2016 at 5:57 PM, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I was leaning that way for a while, but I'm not sure where I stand on that now. Chychrun was recently a healthy scratch for the Yotes in 5 straight games. He's a very young player so that doesn't say much about where he'll end up, but it does say that he wouldn't have been a boost for us right away and that he wasn't as NHL ready as was reported at the beginning of the year. Anyway, we wouldn't have had roster space and so we wouldn't have seen him for a year with the most optimistic thinking. We'll have to wait to see Chychrun and Cholowski develop.

Chychrun has 4 pts (1 goal) in 16 games and a -3

Cholowski has 7pts (all assists) in 14 games in the NCHC and a -3

He's listed at 185 lbs and 6'1". I don't think that's really skinny for an 18 yr old.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=247137

Chychrun plays a more complete game, hits everything in sight. He's already the size of guys years older than him. 23 PIM in 16 games shows he's willing to get into the battles out there. Might not be completely NHL ready yet, but damn close.

Cholowski is more offence oriented. Going into the draft it was known his defensive game needs work. He is 185lb? Guess i was looking at another site that had him listed at 165lb and 6'1. That's a bean pole for sure. Who knows how long until he gets to the NHL too since he just started college.