Targets for the Wings

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Depends on the assets given up. If he can be had for something like Frk and a 3rd you have to pull the trigger.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[krsmith17 7,191]

24 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Depends on the assets given up. If he can be had for something like Frk and a 3rd you have to pull the trigger.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I'd do that. No way he'd come that cheap though.

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Where did I say anything about him never becoming anything more than a bottom 6 winger, and having no potential? All I'm saying is that we don't have room for any more bottom 6 wingers. So like I said, if we're moving out one or two, sure I'd be interested, otherwise, there's no room, so no thanks. I'd rather keep the assets and play Nosek than give up the assets for a player that may or may not develop into a top 6 winger.

Ok, call me confused. You've said bottom 6 like 6 times, plus comparing him to players who aren't even in the NHL yet (including Frk and Callahan who likely never will be). Sure as hell sounds like you you don't think he's any good.

What I'm saying is he had borderline top-6 production as a rookie on the 4th line. Your pessimism seems odd, especially when you admit you don't know much about him.

And how do we not have room anyway? Even if we don't trade anyone or lose a forward to Vegas, we only have 12 forwards counting Nosek. We aren't going to add two high-end top-6 players, nor do we have an abundance of good forward prospects. Players like Anderson are exactly the type we should be looking to add. 

Again, I don't know that he's necessarily the best option, and it would depend a lot on what we had to give up, but you shouldn't just dismiss the idea.

 

[LeftWinger 4,959]

He'd have a good shot at top 6 on this team, as long as Helm, Sheahan, Abdelkaer and Glendening stay where they belong.

[LeftWinger 4,959]

Think about this, lose a forward to Vegas, trade a forward in a package for a Defender. Now we're down to 8 forwards signed. Remembering that if push came to shove, both Mantha and AA are waiver exempt. Not that I'm saying they should start in the A, but it's possible to do if we acquire multiple players at the forward position.

[krsmith17 7,191]

8 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Ok, call me confused. You've said bottom 6 like 6 times, plus comparing him to players who aren't even in the NHL yet (including Frk and Callahan who likely never will be). Sure as hell sounds like you you don't think he's any good.

What I'm saying is he had borderline top-6 production as a rookie on the 4th line. Your pessimism seems odd, especially when you admit you don't know much about him.

And how do we not have room anyway? Even if we don't trade anyone or lose a forward to Vegas, we only have 12 forwards counting Nosek. We aren't going to add two high-end top-6 players, nor do we have an abundance of good forward prospects. Players like Anderson are exactly the type we should be looking to add. 

Again, I don't know that he's necessarily the best option, and it would depend a lot on what we had to give up, but you shouldn't just dismiss the idea.

I'm sure you know all about Josh Anderson don't you Buppy?... I keep saying bottom 6 because that's exactly what he is at this point in his young career. What's so confusing about that? I never once said anything about his potential. He could become a solid top 6 guy, but he's not there yet.

You're counting 12 because you're not banking on anyone from Grand Rapids making a push. I'd rather hold onto our assets and call on Bertuzzi or sign a cheap UFA to play in that role. 

Like I said several times, if it was a one for one swap for a bottom 6 player, I'd probably do it. But I'm not giving up the assets it would likely take, to add to our one position of strength (wingers). It makes no sense.

Hypothetically, what would you trade to get Anderson in Detroit? As I already said, I'd trade a number of guys in our bottom 6, I'd also make the trade Dickie proposed. However, I think it's going to cost much more than that. What would you give up for him in a realistic trade scenario?

15 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Think about this, lose a forward to Vegas, trade a forward in a package for a Defender. Now we're down to 8 forwards signed. Remembering that if push came to shove, both Mantha and AA are waiver exempt. Not that I'm saying they should start in the A, but it's possible to do if we acquire multiple players at the forward position.

Yeah, let's send Larkin down too while we're at it... You keep coming up with these big, elaborate trade / draft scenarios, and good on ya for having a wild imagination, but you know none of it is ever going to happen...

[LeftWinger 4,959]

I said that I wasn't suggesting that it was going to happen, but if it came down to it, you know as well as I do, Holland will send a waive exempt guy down just because he can, if he has too many forwards.  We shouldn't be in that situation, but I was just saying, if we got there, Holland can and would send down waiver exempt players...can't say it hasn't happened. But Ya, I do agree, with only 10 forwards signed, the odds are no way it happens. But even if we do lose a forward to Vegas, that leaves 9 signed, make it 11 with Tatar and AA re-signing, we still have roster room for 3 more forwards, I am kind of doubting he will fill those 3 spots all with Griffins...

[mackel 681]

I was reading an article on tsn or sportsnet that suggested Edmonton, specifically Draisaitl may be a prime target for an offersheet.  I'd love a bold move like this to get a high end player and shake up this roster.   

[Nondescript_D 22]

Ahhh...Draisaitil...THAT was a guy I really wanted Kenny to go balls to the wall and trade up for.  Git him Kenny...Git him

[LeftWinger 4,959]

I don't think Kenny would give up the picks to sign him though...

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Offer sheets are a waste of time

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

Ok, call me confused. You've said bottom 6 like 6 times, plus comparing him to players who aren't even in the NHL yet (including Frk and Callahan who likely never will be). Sure as hell sounds like you you don't think he's any good.

What I'm saying is he had borderline top-6 production as a rookie on the 4th line. Your pessimism seems odd, especially when you admit you don't know much about him.

And how do we not have room anyway? Even if we don't trade anyone or lose a forward to Vegas, we only have 12 forwards counting Nosek. We aren't going to add two high-end top-6 players, nor do we have an abundance of good forward prospects. Players like Anderson are exactly the type we should be looking to add. 

Again, I don't know that he's necessarily the best option, and it would depend a lot on what we had to give up, but you shouldn't just dismiss the idea.

You got my interested started so I did some reading. This article I found says his season will probably be an outlier based on his history and the deeper stats. He was riding an abnormally high shooting % (like Nyquist's 1st year). Also, apparently he was not on the 4th line as you say, but rather on the 3rd line with Karlsson and Calvert.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Berthelot/Losing-Josh-Anderson-to-Vegas-is-not-the-end-of-the-world/224/85097

If he's available cheap then, sure, he might be a good pickup. I like that he has size (6'3" 221) and they say he's gritty. Also, another RH shot never hurts. Maybe the BJs would just want to get something for him rather than just lose him to Vegas. But, even in that situation, since he's just had a breakout season, I doubt he's going to just be given away.

He played on the London Knights for a year while AA was on the team, FWIW.

Edited May 31, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[LeftWinger 4,959]

Also, then we'd have to protect him and expose another forward. 

[LeftWinger 4,959]

Scott Stevens resigned his position as assistant coach in Minny...wonder if he would like a job in Detroit? That'd be a nice target for the Wings. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Also, then we'd have to protect him and expose another forward. 

It'd be a damn shame to expose another overpaid bum

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

It'd be a damn shame to expose another overpaid bum

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

None of the "overpaid bums" should be protected. If Holland were smart he'd be protecting Nielsen, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Athanasiou and Sheahan. Although I think he may protect Abdelkader over Sheahan unfortunately...

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

None of the "overpaid bums" should be protected. If Holland were smart he'd be protecting Nielsen, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, Athanasiou and Sheahan. Although I think he may protect Abdelkader over Sheahan unfortunately...

He should.. Abdelkader is a better hockey player than Sheahan and brings more to the team overall. And his cap hit isn't really that bad. If anything I would be looking for Holland to ask Nielsen to waive his NMC so he can be exposed. Nielsen was a signing to preserve the streak. With the streak out of the way there's no real need for him. He could be replaced with one of our young centers. They may not bad as good as him at certain "Centering" aspects yet but who cares, they'll learn. Nielsen at this point is someone we absolutely do not need unless we were a playoff team. We're not. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Abby's cap hit will be an issue in another 2 or 3 years when he's playing 50 games a year and averaging 20 points. If they could I'd protect Zetterberg, Nielsen, AA, Mantha, Tatar, and Nyquist and expose everyone else

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

You got my interested started so I did some reading. This article I found says his season will probably be an outlier based on his history and the deeper stats. He was riding an abnormally high shooting % (like Nyquist's 1st year). Also, apparently he was not on the 4th line as you say, but rather on the 3rd line with Karlsson and Calvert.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Berthelot/Losing-Josh-Anderson-to-Vegas-is-not-the-end-of-the-world/224/85097

If he's available cheep then, sure, he might be a good pickup. I like that he has size (6'3" 221) and they say he's gritty. Also, another RH shot never hurts. Maybe the BJs would just want to get something for him rather than just lose him to Vegas. But, even at that, since he's just had a breakout season, I doubt he's going to just be given away....

14% isn't that unusual. Nyquist was 18%. And they can call it the 3rd line all they want, but when they're getting similar ice time to the "4th" line and his linemates are two of the three worst scorers on the team... whatever. Call it "limited ice time and less-than-great-linemates".

I acknowledged it might be a fluke season in my first post. It's not like I'm saying he's some superstud we need to get at any cost. Just saying he shouldn't be so definitively labeled a "bottom 6" and dismissed so casually.

All year we've been talking about the possibility of getting some players who might be available due to the expansion draft. I don't know what people were expecting, but Anderson is exactly the kind of player we should be looking for. Young, shows promise, but not so good that he should cost a lot. 

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm sure you know all about Josh Anderson don't you Buppy?... I keep saying bottom 6 because that's exactly what he is at this point in his young career. What's so confusing about that? I never once said anything about his potential. He could become a solid top 6 guy, but he's not there yet.

You're counting 12 because you're not banking on anyone from Grand Rapids making a push. I'd rather hold onto our assets and call on Bertuzzi or sign a cheap UFA to play in that role. 

Like I said several times, if it was a one for one swap for a bottom 6 player, I'd probably do it. But I'm not giving up the assets it would likely take, to add to our one position of strength (wingers). It makes no sense.

Hypothetically, what would you trade to get Anderson in Detroit? As I already said, I'd trade a number of guys in our bottom 6, I'd also make the trade Dickie proposed. However, I think it's going to cost much more than that. What would you give up for him in a realistic trade scenario?

Not saying I know that much about him, just that your dismissal would make more sense if it were based on some particular knowledge.

No, I'm not banking on anyone from GR, other than Nosek, but two open spots (even if we don't lose a forward) still leaves room for one even if we added Anderson. It's not any different than considering a cheap UFA an option, in terms of impact on the opportunities for our prospects.

What I find confusing is that you'd label him at all at this stage of his career. Particularly coming from you, given you generally tend to think of prospects and young players in terms of potential rather than strictly the present. I doubt you would so emphatically refer to AA as a bottom 6 winger, or Nosek and Bertuzzi as AHL players.

As for what I think it would take...it's probably a pointless discussion. I'm sure whatever I say you'll just argue that either it wouldn't be enough to get him or would be too much to pay. But whatever.

A generous RFA deal for him would be $3-3.5M, which has a compensation of a 2nd-round pick. The next level up from that is a 1st and a 3rd. That should set the upper and lower boundaries, with the 1st being a low pick since he would at most be at the very bottom of that compensation range. Given the Blue Jackets' situation, and the possibility they could lose him for nothing, I'd say a fair price would be a 2nd plus something (depending on how desperate they get) ranging from basically nothing (like swapping our 5th for theirs) up to a 3rd-rounder or a second-tier prospect.

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Buppy

[krsmith17 7,191]

30 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Not saying I know that much about him, just that your dismissal would make more sense if it were based on some particular knowledge.

No, I'm not banking on anyone from GR, other than Nosek, but two open spots (even if we don't lose a forward) still leaves room for one even if we added Anderson. It's not any different than considering a cheap UFA an option, in terms of impact on the opportunities for our prospects.

What I find confusing is that you'd label him at all at this stage of his career. Particularly coming from you, given you generally tend to think of prospects and young players in terms of potential rather than strictly the present. I doubt you would so emphatically refer to AA as a bottom 6 winger, or Nosek and Bertuzzi as AHL players.

As for what I think it would take...it's probably a pointless discussion. I'm sure whatever I say you'll just argue that either it wouldn't be enough to get him or would be too much to pay. But whatever.

A generous RFA deal for him would be $3-3.5M, which has a compensation of a 2nd-round pick. The next level up from that is a 1st and a 3rd. That should set the upper and lower boundaries, with the 1st being a low pick since he would at most be at the very bottom of that compensation range. Given the Blue Jackets' situation, and the possibility they could lose him for nothing, I'd say a fair price would be a 2nd plus something (depending on how desperate they get) ranging from basically nothing (like swapping our 5th for theirs) up to a 3rd-rounder or a second-tier prospect.

I already explained why I "dismissed him". Because at this point in his career, he's a bottom 6 player. We don't need any more bottom 6 players.

Your count is different than mine. I have 15 that could crack the 14 forward roster.

Nyquist - Zetterberg - Mantha

Tatar - Larkin - Athanasiou

Nosek - Nielsen - Svechnikov

Abdelkader - Helm - Glendening

Sheahan - Frk / Bertuzzi / Callahan

Maybe because like I've said, I'd rather call up a kid from GR than give up assets on a guy that is a relative unknown. Again, if he can be had for cheap, by all means...

I absolutely would label Athanasiou as a bottom 6 forward at this stage of his career, as well as Nosek and Bertuzzi as AHL players, because that's exactly what they are. Does that mean that's all they will ever be? Or all I ever expect them to be? Hell no. Just that's what they are at this point in their careers.

Anyway, it's hilarious that there is so much arguing and discussion over a player like Josh f***ing Anderson, a player that likely won't even be moved, let alone to Detroit... I've said my part, no thanks, unless he comes cheap...

Edited June 1, 2017 by krsmith17

[Buppy 1,720]

23 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I already explained why I "dismissed him". Because at this point in his career, he's a bottom 6 player. We don't need any more bottom 6 players.

Your count is different than mine. I have 15 that could crack the 14 forward roster....

Maybe because like I've said, I'd rather call up a kid from GR than give up assets on a guy that is a relative unknown. Again, if he can be had for cheap, by all means...

I absolutely would label Athanasiou as a bottom 6 forward at this stage of his career, as well as Nosek and Bertuzzi as AHL players, because that's exactly what they are. Does that mean that's all they will ever be? Or all I ever expect them to be? Hell no. Just that's what they are at this point in their careers.

Anyway, it's hilarious that there is so much arguing and discussion over a player like Josh f***ing Anderson, a player that likely won't even be moved, let alone to Detroit... I've said my part, no thanks, unless he comes cheap...

My count is different because you're counting a different thing. I said we have two open spots... which is true, barring trades/expansion losses, and assuming the out-of-options Nosek gets a spot. I said nothing about who could be in contention for those spots. 

But your list of potential candidates raises an interesting question. You contend that we don't have room for another bottom 6 forward, and your reasoning is that we need to fill 3 bottom 6 roster spots with AHL forwards (including slotting two of them above much more proven players). How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Unless, contrary to your claim, you don't consider them AHL players. You're thinking of those kids in terms of potential, as you typically do with young players, but for some reason not with Anderson. I think you just took a cursory look at some stats and decided Anderson was no good. Probably didn't even realize how young he was.

I guess you adding the "unless he comes cheap" caveat is as close as we'll come to you admitting you might have been a bit hasty.

[krsmith17 7,191]

41 minutes ago, Buppy said:

My count is different because you're counting a different thing. I said we have two open spots... which is true, barring trades/expansion losses, and assuming the out-of-options Nosek gets a spot. I said nothing about who could be in contention for those spots. 

But your list of potential candidates raises an interesting question. You contend that we don't have room for another bottom 6 forward, and your reasoning is that we need to fill 3 bottom 6 roster spots with AHL forwards (including slotting two of them above much more proven players). How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Unless, contrary to your claim, you don't consider them AHL players. You're thinking of those kids in terms of potential, as you typically do with young players, but for some reason not with Anderson. I think you just took a cursory look at some stats and decided Anderson was no good. Probably didn't even realize how young he was.

I guess you adding the "unless he comes cheap" caveat is as close as we'll come to you admitting you might have been a bit hasty.

Okay, so we have two open spots. You'd prefer to give up assets and go outside the organization to fill the spots. I'd prefer to fill the spots with players already within the organization. 

I have Nosek and Svechnikov placed above the more proven Helm and Abdelkader because as I've stated in the past, I belive that would be a killer 4th line. They would likely get more minutes than my 3rd line anyway, so why does it matter?

Yes I am thinking in terms of potential. And I think we have players within the system that can "potentially" fill the vacant spot(s). Maybe Anderson would be a better option, but I highly doubt he would be THAT much better that it would be worth giving up the assets to get him here.

If we're putting pieces together to acquire a player, it shouldn't be for a winger, it should be for a high end defenseman.

Really? Did I really need to add the "if he comes cheap" bit. Do you actually think if Columbus offered him for a 3rd, I wouldn't do it? Give me a f***ing break. All I'm saying is, in a "Targets for the Wings" thread, I don't have much interest in bottom 6 wingers. You do? Great!

We done here?

[Buppy 1,720]

36 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Okay, so we have two open spots. You'd prefer to give up assets and go outside the organization to fill the spots. I'd prefer to fill the spots with players already within the organization. 

I have Nosek and Svechnikov placed above the more proven Helm and Abdelkader because as I've stated in the past, I belive that would be a killer 4th line. They would likely get more minutes than my 3rd line anyway, so why does it matter?

Yes I am thinking in terms of potential. And I think we have players within the system that can "potentially" fill the vacant spot(s). Maybe Anderson would be a better option, but I highly doubt he would be THAT much better that it would be worth giving up the assets to get him here.

If we're putting pieces together to acquire a player, it shouldn't be for a winger, it should be for a high end defenseman.

Really? Did I really need to add the "if he comes cheap" bit. Do you actually think if Columbus offered him for a 3rd, I wouldn't do it? Give me a f***ing break. All I'm saying is, in a "Targets for the Wings" thread, I don't have much interest in bottom 6 wingers. You do? Great!

We done here?

Yeah, half your lineup is based on potential, but I'm supposed to believe you're not talking about potential when you repeatedly hammer on Anderson being a bottom 6 winger. 

Yeah, now you want to say it's all about conserving assets, when it was pretty obvious in your first post that you thought he was on the same level as Nosek and Callahan. 

Just grow a set and admit either that, for no particular reason, you don't think Anderson has any potential, or that you were being too hasty and your original unequivocal "No thanks" should have been "Sure, for the right price". Or even just,  "Yeah, but he'd probably cost too much".

And save the bulls*** "You do?" strawman. It's like if I were to say, "Guess you don't like productive and promising young players. Awesome!". It's ******* stupid. Did you think you were going to trick me into agreeing with you, or were you just trying to be insulting because I don't?

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 hours ago, Buppy said:

Yeah, half your lineup is based on potential, but I'm supposed to believe you're not talking about potential when you repeatedly hammer on Anderson being a bottom 6 winger. 

Yeah, now you want to say it's all about conserving assets, when it was pretty obvious in your first post that you thought he was on the same level as Nosek and Callahan. 

Just grow a set and admit either that, for no particular reason, you don't think Anderson has any potential, or that you were being too hasty and your original unequivocal "No thanks" should have been "Sure, for the right price". Or even just,  "Yeah, but he'd probably cost too much".

And save the bulls*** "You do?" strawman. It's like if I were to say, "Guess you don't like productive and promising young players. Awesome!". It's ******* stupid. Did you think you were going to trick me into agreeing with you, or were you just trying to be insulting because I don't?

Buppy, you're the most argumentative person on here. Sorry, I didn't elaborate on my original post, "no thanks". You can try to paint a picture all you want that I meant something I didn't. Whatever. But when I said "no thanks", it was because (for the umpteenth time) I'd prefer to fill the roster from within, because I believe we have guys as good or better within the organization, and I see no need in relinquishing assets on our biggest area of strength.

"Grow a set" hahaha. Grow the f*** up dude. You, along with a few others here always think you're the smartest people in the room, try to argue about the most trivial s***, and puff out your chest when you're done. Go ahead. You're right. I was clearly wrong. I obviously should have explained exactly why I didn't want Anderson in my original post... 

[Andy Pred 48 337]

Targets for the Wings is what it states, any player could be a target not just the top echelon players, and lets face it we are not in a position at present to entice elite type players. I mentioned Anderson earlier as he is an interesting proposition. The Jax are going to have to make some calls and his name came up as a potential candidate. In my opinion and that's all it is, I see him as an upgrade in our bottom 6 as it is and his size and abrasive play would be a welcome addition. 

Would our top brass consider it or will they go along their usual path and get in a gritty type vet ? Thus nullifying any suggestions of one of our AHL youngsters coming up not named Nosek. Although I have seen that Svechnikov is listed on next year's Wings roster by Elite prospects ?! Do they know something we don't ?