DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 Good? Bad? Indifferent? I give him an A-. I thought he had three jobs: trade Vanek, trade Smith, get what you can for anyone else. He did all three. He got more than expected for Jurco and Smith, less for Vanek, but overall did well. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come and we won't see any more Abdelkader/Helm/Glendening type deals. 5 DatsyukianDekes, PavelValerievichDatsyuk, derblaueClaus and 2 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
e_prime 1,936 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 At 1:07pm -- Incomplete. ...but I'm giving your post an A++ Dickie. I see some positivity from your POV. Refreshing! 4 Hey man nice shot!, ChristopherReevesLegs, krsmith17 and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 So you'd rather get nothing? Looking at what other players brought, Holland did well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringBack19 110 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I am happy overall 1 DatsyukianDekes reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyukian-Deke 722 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 It was an A coming into today. But getting an F on the Vanek trade brings it to a C. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wing Across The Pond 196 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 29 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said: Complete F. Failed Miserably. What we lost: Thomas Vanek. Former 1st rounder, proven top 9 winger, on a more than reasonable salary. Brendan Smith. Former 1st rounder, proven top 6 NHL defenseman, on a more than reasonable salary, wanting to sign for a reasonable salary (4 mil per), with 7 years of Red Wings family history. Tomas Jurco. Prospect at best, reasonable salary, with 5 years of Red Wings family history. Steve Ott. Rental player, reasonable salary. What we got in return: Late 2nd round pick, 3 late 3rd round picks, late 6th round pick, and McGrath. All of this could amount to ZERO NHL players very easily. The goal this year was to gain picks that would help us get players that project into part of the rebuild. Holland did not do that. He waited til the last minute, as usual, and then made crappy deals at the last minute, as usual. He is an imbecile. F- Wait... I'm seriously struggling to tell if this is sarcasm. If not your language is loaded. "Proven Top 9 winger", so anywhere not on the 4th line? "Proven Top 6 defenseman", so basically a bottom/second pair guy who was first pair on a team that had no one else? Damn I hope I'm getting played (if so, kudos to you ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greenrebellion 415 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) B+ Very happy with the overall returns we got but...would've liked to see an effort to move Green as I think his value is higher this year especially if we held back salary. Edited March 1, 2017 by greenrebellion 1 DatsyukianDekes reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dirtydangles 1,328 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 We had to get rid of vanek at any price - losing him helps us tank and get better draft picks. Im happy overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 It's hard to be all that critical of this performance. I mean, really, the only disappointment is the Vanek trade, and I happen to believe Holland when he says that was the best return he was gonna get. A 3rd is more than I'd thought we'd get for Jurco. A 2nd and a 3rd is more than I'd thought we'd get for Smith. I would've taken future considerations for Ott; a 6th is a win. Holding on to Green, Nyquist, Tatar, et al. (if only for the time being) is the smart move. We've cleared out some bodies and potentially freed up a spot or two for some younger players. Honestly, this deadline was never really about the picks. I mean, it was. But I think it's fair to say The Big Thing we all wanted to see was Ken Holland -- and the Red Wings organization -- taking that first step towards something better, a brighter future. "One small step for Ken, one giant leap for Hockeytown." Of course, there's really nothing to say that the ghost has officially been given up. Maybe Holland and/or management don't see this as Step 1 in a rebuild plan, in which case we're f*****. And, tbh, that possibility is sort of a gray cloud hovering over my feelings on these deadline moves... BUT. Based on the moves themselves, I'll give Holland...a B+? Maybe an A-? I guess? Bueller? 4 BringBack19, derblaueClaus, krsmith17 and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShanahanMan 473 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 D. Unloaded some pending UFAs but didn't move anything else, which means not committing to full rebuild. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ami 273 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 Quote Grade the deadline It passed 1 BringBack19 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bump 20 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I'll be generously and give a C+. He got good value for Smith and Jurco. Ott was a fair trade. However, our most tradeable asset was given away for a conditional 3rd and D who had cleared waviers earlier this year. I'm hoping McIlrath can improve to become an ok D but that's unlikely at this point. My bigger problem is Holland, apparently, doesn't see the state of the team. The guys he parted with were spare parts who were unlikely to be a part of the long range plans of the team. The team needs a shake up, they need an influx of talent like we haven't needed since the 80s. The only way to accomplish that is to give up assets that they had big plans for (Tatar, Nyquist, Abdelkader, Helm, Mrazek, etc) in exchange for a prospect an a high pick or a couple of high picks. Holland seems unwilling to do that because he thinks the roster is capable of competing in the near future. I don't see it. We lack the depth of quality forwards and D-men to be among the elites. At best we could be looking at making the playoffs and a 1st round exit. Maybe those trades where we give up a quality asset are coming this summer but Holland has shown a reluctance to give up those assets in exchange for prospects as he prefers veteran forwards who are on the wrong side of 30. It's time for a complete rebuild but Holland's actions doesn't show he recognizes that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 D I do not understand how he can get so little for these players when others can get so much for their garbage. The one that dragged the grade down was Smith. Everyone continues to say how impossible it is to get Defensemen now. They really are the gold of the realm, and you have a proven youngster with a lot of skill there when there are next to no other options and you don't get a first round pick out of it? He didn't even wait until the biggest part of the deadline. This feels like a trade that should have happened at 3:01 to me. Yes Smith isn't a stud. His faults are defensively oriented and would vanish if paired with the right defenseman. The entire team is broken because there isn't the right people on the backend to build pairs. This is the same problem with Green, who btw should have been moved as well if the goal was a true rebuild. Getting anything for forwards is tricky... but usually you can get a 2nd for someone like Vanek. Getting a "basically a fourth" for him is crap in my book. I have been calling for Holland's head for years, I left the forum because people gave me too much crap about it. I think it is clear he shouldn't be at the helm come draft time. L 37 minutes ago, dirtydangles said: We had to get rid of vanek at any price - losing him helps us tank and get better draft picks. Im happy overall. Lotto system, no it doesn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scotzman 29 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I'd give him a B- overall for this year. The Jurco, Smith and Ott trades were fair to good. Disappointed with Vanek, but understand what he had to do. He got what he could. This was just more of the same from Kenny in my book. I don't hate the guy, but I think it's time for something new. He plays it safe far too often and as has been pointed out, doesn't seem to see this team crumbling around him. Maybe he does, but I don't see any urgency to get it back on course. We'll see what happens around the NHL Draft. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I would have liked to see us own our disaster and go full tilt at rebuild. If you had to get rid of smith, get a better return. Otherwise, why not give him a huge short term deal that will make us terrible next year cap wise? Move everyone that isn't untouchable, which is Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Defense under the age of 27 that look decent. Don't be afraid like when Gustav could have yielded us a Top tier Dman but we assumed he would get even better. Then I would have made outside the box trades. Approach teams and offer draft picks for one of their high quality expensive players with a condition... They would agree to a second trade right away... Take their player, give them the pick, and then trade them back and keep half of their salary for this year, next year, and the year after that. Get back your picks plus a rich reward for eating cap for them. Make sure everyone you want is locked up, and go ahead and give them stupid large short term deals. So you are left with people you like and enough cap to bring up prospects. Next year buyout any bad contracts that would give us a hangover that last past the three year hell window and move on. Repeat the strategy for 3 years. While not bringing up any top prospects during that period without letting them go through the minors like everyone else. Tanks for the memories, we might have a Penguins style team after that. Plus the guys you signed for huge overpayments, you go back to their agents and pitch them that it was a 10 year deal, and you want an average that is market appropriate. If they say no. you keep half their salary as a rental and move them, no harm. 1 scotzman reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 BTW... How has no one addressed that we still have the three goaltender problem. That is a serious fail. Or is it that there isn't anyone left that cares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dirtydangles 1,328 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I think this isn't the draft where we make things happen. Next year will be a stronger draft where we should be trading away our better asset like Tatar/nyquist. Seemed like there wasn't much of a market for wingers so better to sell later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringBack19 110 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 27 minutes ago, Majsheppard said: BTW... How has no one addressed that we still have the three goaltender problem. That is a serious fail. Or is it that there isn't anyone left that cares? We don't have a three goaltender problem. Howard is hurt, and when he returns Coreau is sent down. 3 nyqvististhefuture, DatsyukianDekes and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 I'm happy. It would have been nice to get more for Vanek, but I guess there isn't a big market out there for a 33 year old UFA Winger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bump said: our most tradeable asset was given away for a conditional 3rd and D who had cleared waviers earlier this year. Vanek might've been our most tradable asset, but there was never any guarantee that he was going to fetch a big return. It's sort of like assessing the value of, say, trading cards. How much is a certain card worth on the open market? Well, it's worth what someone's willing to pay for it. You might think it's worth $100, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone's going to pay $100 for it. Maybe it's worth $100 to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to find someone who's willing to pay that price. A lot of people were using Hanzal as a comparable. Like I said yesterday...I can absolutely understand why Hanzal would be the far more attractive option for any number of GMs. We can compare point totals, but, at the end of the day, Hanzal is a big-bodied second-line centerman who can play tough minutes against top talent and hold his own. He's mean, he's a good playmaker, he's a great two-way player, he works well with speedy, creative wingers, he can play in all situations, and he can slot in as a 1C if need be. He's also a bit younger than Vanek. And, fair or not, he doesn't have Vanek's "reputation"/"baggage." It's entirely possible Hanzal becomes a force on what is a very good Wild team (probably the best NHL team he's ever played on). Vanek is extremely skilled and highly motivated, but he's not necessarily someone who a number of GMs look at and say, "This is the piece that could put us over the top." I think, for a lot of GMs, Hanzal was That Guy. Jonathan Willis goes into detail: Why Thomas Vanek was traded for such a small return 48 minutes ago, Bump said: My bigger problem is Holland, apparently, doesn't see the state of the team. The guys he parted with were spare parts who were unlikely to be a part of the long range plans of the team. The team needs a shake up, they need an influx of talent like we haven't needed since the 80s. The only way to accomplish that is to give up assets that they had big plans for (Tatar, Nyquist, Abdelkader, Helm, Mrazek, etc) in exchange for a prospect an a high pick or a couple of high picks. The vast majority of players moved during trade deadline week are rentals. Even if Holland had succeeded in moving Nyquist or Tatar, he would've been selling low. If we're going to move a big piece like Nyquist or Tatar, the draft is probably the best market for that. Trying to unload albatross contracts like Helm's and Abdelkader's definitely isn't something that'd happen around deadline time, barring some special circumstances. In theory, the closer we get to next year's trade deadline, the more attractive and tradable Mike Green will become -- because, at the moment, he's got a big cap hit and still has a full season left on his contract, which makes him very difficult to move. I share your basic concerns about Ken Holland and the state/future of the team and I want someone from outside the organization to run the rebuild. But, in fairness to Holland, I think he did a pretty good job with these trades. 2 krsmith17 and derblaueClaus reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 Except Coreau has earned a backup job and Howard is an anchor dragging the team down. He should have been already shipped out with us eatting his contract. I feel like he is destined to be a buyout, or worse. Many writers suggested we would keep Coreau and Howard, move Mrazek and start from there. To me that is the WORST possible option. Howard is the one past his prime. Coreau and/or/neither Mrazek could turn into a legit starter and to move either is risking giving away a solid piece. Howard is past it. His body hasn't been holding up, nor has he been able to win a cup with solid teams in front of him. We have to get rid of him, and I know you cannot trade him when he is hurt. But the issue is, he shouldn't have been on the team at this point anyways. That has to factor in on his grade. 12 minutes ago, BringBack19 said: We don't have a three goaltender problem. Howard is hurt, and when he returns Coreau is sent down. 39 minutes ago, dirtydangles said: I think this isn't the draft where we make things happen. Next year will be a stronger draft where we should be trading away our better asset like Tatar/nyquist. Seemed like there wasn't much of a market for wingers so better to sell later. I don't think we should trade away Tatar for just anything either. However, we have to get past the idea that Gustav is worth anything. He isn't... I doubt we could get more than a 5th for him right now, he just is too inconsistent. Sure makes us look stupid, when there were trade spoke of in the past where we could have added a top 2 Dman for Gustav and picks... and we passed because he was just SOOOOOOOO good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 Okay, maybe that is being too down on Gustav. However, he isn't a piece to build around. Tangent question... Did anyone really think we would be a first pick overall candidate coming into the season? I thought we would be a 9-10th team in the East type... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, Majsheppard said: Howard is an anchor dragging the team down. He should have been already shipped out with us eatting his contract. I feel like he is destined to be a buyout, or worse. Teams aren't interested in an injured player. I'm all for trading Howard, but he needs to be playing before we can trade him. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 Just now, Barrie said: Teams aren't interested in an injured player. I'm all for trading Howard, but he needs to be playing before we can trade him. I addressed that a few sentences later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nyqvististhefuture 1,002 Report post Posted March 1, 2017 49 minutes ago, Majsheppard said: Except Coreau has earned a backup job and Howard is an anchor dragging the team down. He should have been already shipped out with us eatting his contract. I feel like he is destined to be a buyout, or worse. Many writers suggested we would keep Coreau and Howard, move Mrazek and start from there. To me that is the WORST possible option. Howard is the one past his prime. Coreau and/or/neither Mrazek could turn into a legit starter and to move either is risking giving away a solid piece. Howard is past it. His body hasn't been holding up, nor has he been able to win a cup with solid teams in front of him. We have to get rid of him, and I know you cannot trade him when he is hurt. But the issue is, he shouldn't have been on the team at this point anyways. That has to factor in on his grade. I don't think we should trade away Tatar for just anything either. However, we have to get past the idea that Gustav is worth anything. He isn't... I doubt we could get more than a 5th for him right now, he just is too inconsistent. Sure makes us look stupid, when there were trade spoke of in the past where we could have added a top 2 Dman for Gustav and picks... and we passed because he was just SOOOOOOOO good. Coreau has earned the backup spot?how the f*** do you figure? If Howard or mrazek was gone he'd be the backup by default , kids played 12 games and hasn't earned s*** 1 chaps80 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
