• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Dabura

Rumors Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't understand this mentality. Green is and has been our best defenseman, and he would continue to be just that for another couple seasons (if we re-sign him). If we want / need to shed cap space, it can be done without denying our best defenseman another contract. If he truly does want to stay in Detroit, and he doesn't want to test free agency, he should be willing to take a pay cut to do so. I'm thinking he will be traded at the deadline, come back to Detroit for somewhere in the $4.5-5.5M range for another 2-3 seasons. And in my opinion, that's well worth it for a defenseman that can still put up 30-40 points a season.

Sign him after we fail at signing Tavares though. Not before. 

And I thought people had problems with signing vets. 

You had an issue with signing Daley... Green’s even more expensive...

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Sign him after we fail at signing Tavares though. Not before. 

And I thought people had problems with signing vets. 

You had an issue with signing Daley... Green’s even more expensive...

I'd be fine with that. Sign our RFA's, make a pitch to Tavares, then sign Green.

I have a problem signing below average vets (Daley), not very good vets (Green).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

 

I have a problem signing below average vets (Daley), not very good vets (Green).

I mean they both get paid different salaries. Daley’s is lower. Wasn’t the whole issue with Daley that he’s taking a spot away from young player? Re-sign Green recreates that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I mean they both get paid different salaries. Daley’s is lower. Wasn’t the whole issue with Daley that he’s taking a spot away from young player? Re-sign Green recreates that problem.

Not really though. Anyone we have in the system that may be ready would fill a smaller role as a depth defenseman, not as a top pair defenseman. We had / have defensemen in the system that could fill Daley's role. I don't believe we have anyone that could fill Green's role right away. We have a ton of depth, we just lack the top end guys. I still see Green as a top end guy for another couple seasons. Daley, not so much. The biggest problem I see with our defense (and team in general), is we have too many guys playing above their skill level. Letting Green walk, and replacing him internally would even further that problem. I do think a player like Hicketts could have / can fill Daley's role now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we be trying to land someone like Tavares who would be better on a team that’s ready to win now, or should we focus on building through the draft and trading for young prospects.  It seems like we are 5-8 years from being contenders if all goes well, so getting someone who will be out of their prime by then is pointless.  Stop Gap mediocre players like Neilsen I don’t mind as much.

 

Keep in mind I can’t watch any games so my estimation of our success is probably baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

If we fail at JT, how much would you throw at JVR?

Nothing. If we can't land a franchise cornerstone, we shouldn't be signing anyone outside of plugs on short term deals to fill out the roster that can be flipped at the deadline. 

Edited by marcaractac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Yep, we'll all be disappointed.  Green for conditional 3rd, and then nobody else traded. That, if at all, is what is a typical Holland firesale, just like we were all disappointed last TDL.  If this happens, Holland needs to go quickly!

We were not "all disappointed."  Most of us thought he did a decent job.

I don't want Green back unless it's at a discount contract.  $5 mil is too much.  The goal should be getting younger, not bringing back middle of the road vets, and just because he has been the best D-man on this team doesn't mean he's not a middle of the road vet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

If we fail at JT, how much would you throw at JVR?

Less than he’ll likely want/get somewhere else.. do like him but we have enough depth wingers. I’d take on his contract the rest of the year to make a deal with Toronto work though.. Green (salary retained) and Glendog for Liljegren and the rest of JVRs year? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

We were not "all disappointed."  Most of us thought he did a decent job.

I don't want Green back unless it's at a discount contract.  $5 mil is too much.  The goal should be getting younger, not bringing back middle of the road vets, and just because he has been the best D-man on this team doesn't mean he's not a middle of the road vet.

Ranking 30th in points, 32nd in points per game, 21st in power-play points, 51st in time on ice among all defensemen equals "middle of the road vet"?... Green is a solid top three defenseman on any team, top 2 on most, number one on ours, and we should just let him walk? He's well worth $4.5-5M for another 2-3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't understand this mentality. Green is and has been our best defenseman, and he would continue to be just that for another couple seasons (if we re-sign him). If we want / need to shed cap space, it can be done without denying our best defenseman another contract. If he truly does want to stay in Detroit, and he doesn't want to test free agency, he should be willing to take a pay cut to do so. I'm thinking he will be traded at the deadline, come back to Detroit for somewhere in the $4.5-5.5M range for another 2-3 seasons. And in my opinion, that's well worth it for a defenseman that can still put up 30-40 points a season.

Well, @Neomaxizoomdweebie did suggest that Green might not get traded before the deadline. Not necessarily that it makes sense though. Although I would like to know if Neo would be okay with Green not being traded, or what makes him/her believe there's even a remote possibility that he doesn't...

Until Green is traded, there is always the possibility that he isn't. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be, or that he won't be. I would trade him if he agrees to be. But since he makes the final decision on it, it's possible that the team he goes to isn't the team that offers the best return, if he agrees to be traded at all. Common sense says that Green should waive it to go to a contender and have a chance at a cup. Common sense says Holland should trade him and get a good return. Common sense does not always become reality tho. Follow this team long enough, and you're in for a few surprises now and then.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. I do believe that in the end, Green gets traded. I would not be surprised however if he is not. Different people are motivated by different things. From the articles I have read about Green, its just an impression that I get. I don't know anymore about what motivates him than anyone else here, and I certainly don't have any insider information. But I do believe that he will be back next year, and i think its the right thing to do.

I also don't think he'll get the return that some are hoping for. It's entirely possible that neither a 1st round pick nor a high end prospect come back. I would not be surprised if the return is a 2nd rounder this year and a 2nd next year. Obviously, I would like to see more, but I am not getting my hopes up. Hopefully, Holland surprises me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Not really though. Anyone we have in the system that may be ready would fill a smaller role as a depth defenseman, not as a top pair defenseman. We had / have defensemen in the system that could fill Daley's role. I don't believe we have anyone that could fill Green's role right away. We have a ton of depth, we just lack the top end guys. I still see Green as a top end guy for another couple seasons. Daley, not so much. The biggest problem I see with our defense (and team in general), is we have too many guys playing above their skill level. Letting Green walk, and replacing him internally would even further that problem. I do think a player like Hicketts could have / can fill Daley's role now.

That's not true. Daley gets 1/2 D minutes, and a ton of SH ice time too. 2nd to Green. 

Mike Green was a 3rd pairing defenseman for Washington before he came here. Just because we use him in the 1D role doesn't mean he is one. Put DK, Daley in that role and let Green walk away and one of Hickets or Cholo come in to take roles a little below that and it wouldn't really make a difference. Maybe our PP hurts a bit but oh well. 

Point is I saw complaints for Daley last season. Yet Daley is CHEAPER than Mike Green and plays about the same ice time as he does. 2nd most on the team actually. Daley is a bigger bang for his buck. In fact Daley is a former PP specialist when he played for Pittsburgh. If Green walks, Daley takes the point on the PP. And subsequently his point totals would increase as well. 

Green and Daley are about the same player, one is better defensively (Daley), one is better offensively (Green). Daley is the cheaper one. 

Except Daley is more versatile since he's technically both a PK and PP specialist.  

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kickazz said:

That's not true. Daley gets 1/2 D minutes, and a ton of SH ice time too. 2nd to Green. 

Mike Green was a 3rd pairing defenseman for Washington before he came here. Just because we use him in the 1D role doesn't mean he is one. Put DK, Daley in that role and let Green walk away and one of Hickets or Cholo come in to take roles a little below that and it wouldn't really make a difference. Maybe our PP hurts a bit but oh well. 

Point is I saw complaints for Daley last season. Yet Daley is CHEAPER than Mike Green and plays about the same ice time as he does. 2nd most on the team actually. Daley is a bigger bang for his buck. In fact Daley is a former PP specialist when he played for Pittsburgh. If Green walks, Daley takes the point on the PP. And subsequently his point totals would increase as well. 

Green and Daley are about the same player, one is better defensively (Daley), one is better offensively (Green). Daley is the cheaper one. 

Except Daley is more versatile since he's technically both a PK and PP specialist.  

That's a bit of a stretch. Good solid player, but definitely a tier below Green.

Green plays almost 2 minutes more a game (22:16 vs 20:33). That's not "almost the same minutes"

Green has 29 pts and 13 PPP while Daley has 9 pts. and 0 PPP

Green (2:26) and Kronwall (2:16) are really the only D men getting PP time. Kronwall would probably take Green's spot if Green's not back. Daley is 3rd for Dmen with PP ATOI :30 so maybe he takes the 2nd PP group.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2018.html

And as for him being a PP specialist with PIT, last year he was behind Schultz, Letang, and Ian Cole in pts. And he was behind Letang, Schultz, and Mark Streit for PP ATOI so that doesn't sound like it. 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2017.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

That's a bit of a stretch. Good solid player, but definitely a tier below Green.

Green plays almost 2 minutes more a game (22:16 vs 20:33). That's not "almost the same minutes"

Clearly said he's right behind Green in time played and gets 1/2 D minutes. If Green is 1D then by that math he's 2D. Regardless, 22 min. Not like he's some 29-30 min guy. 22 vs 20, those 2 minutes will likely end up getting distrubuted to DK and someone else. Not like they need to distribute some 10 minutes or something. 

20 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Green (2:26) and Kronwall (2:16) are really the only D men getting PP time. Kronwall would probably take Green's spot if Green's not back. Daley is 3rd for Dmen with PP ATOI :30 so maybe he takes the 2nd PP group.

So.. I'm right? Green leaves and Daley would get more PP time? 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

And as for him being a PP specialist with PIT, last year he was behind Schultz, Letang, and Ian Cole in pts. And he was behind Letang, Schultz, and Mark Streit for PP ATOI so that doesn't sound like it. 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2017.html

 

Not a good argument to compare a team full of PP specialists (Letang, Shults, Streit). We have none of those guys. So when Green leaves, Daley's PP time goes up. Green averages 2:26 on PP. Daley Averaged 1:38 last year (on stacked Pittsburgh team), 1:51 the year before, 2:02 the year before that. Which means he's more than capable of quarterbacking the PP. 

...Which means his resume has PP specialist on it....

...which is my point... 

-------------

Beyond all this my point was that last year people bitched about the Daley signing "because he'll take a spot from one of the young D-men" and now that we might actually take a veteran off the books people don't care about the same young D anymore? Sounds kind of hypocritical. Especially because Mike Green is way more expensive than Daley was. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickazz said:

Not a good argument to compare a team full of PP specialists (Letang, Shults, Streit). We have none of those guys. So when Green leaves, Daley's PP time goes up. Green averages 2:26 on PP. Daley Averaged 1:38 last year (on stacked Pittsburgh team), 1:51 the year before, 2:02 the year before that. Which means he's more than capable of quarterbacking the PP. 

...Which means his resume has PP specialist on it....

...which is my point... 

Beyond all this my point was that last year people bitched about the Daley signing "because he'll take a spot from one of the young D-men" and now that we might actually take a veteran off the books people don't care about the same young D anymore? Sounds kind of hypocritical. Especially because Mike Green is way more expensive than Daley was. 

To the bolded: you're the one who said he was a PP specialist on that team, not me. I just said I doubt he played that role on that team because those other guys. Without that history, you're claiming he's going to be our #1 PP guy in place of Green even though he hasn't played that role for a least 3 year, if ever.

As for you're larger point at the bottom, Green is a much different defenceman and the situation of the team was different. One big factor is that we already had Green for veteran higher end potential stopgap guy. Also, Everybody around the team and on this forum had been discussing for years the need for an high level offensive puck moving D - for the crappy PP and because it would help the overall system. We'd also been talking about the need for righthanded Dmen (member Babcock said it so much it was mocked). And low and behold Green came as both those things. He was a piece we really lacked. And with him, K, and E, there were still 4 spots for guys on the younger side. 

When Daley signed it made 4 vets on D: E, K, Green, (5 if you count Wit) and it did take away time from XO, Jensen, (and Sproul could have taken the 7 pot or Hronek by the end of the year...) Many of the younger guys seemed to be rough this year so maybe that's not the worst thing, but it was a legitimate concern and I think it did happen.

My complaint was more that it was unnecessary since he's going to be gone by the time we compete, he's not amazing (though he is good), and because we already had Green. I still wish we hadn't signed him - especially if it's true that Green wants to come back. If Daley wasn't here I'd be all in for that, but I'm on the fence now. We will feel Green's absence, though, if he goes.

There is a way of hipocrisy for those that want to re-sign Green, though: if people were concerned about Daley pushing out young guys, Sproul was already pushed out and there's a lot of talk of XO being traded (and probably not many want to keep him around) so we don't really need a place for young guys like last year. I'm not really sure which young D men are on deck to make it next year. Hronek, Hicketts are in their 1st and 2nd AHL years respectively, so they seem unlikely. All of Jensen, XO, Sproul were at the end of their entry deals, so it was different.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'd be fine with that. Sign our RFA's, make a pitch to Tavares, then sign Green.

I have a problem signing below average vets (Daley), not very good vets (Green).

I expect any cap space Kenny opens up to be promptly blown on needless vets like he always does. Holland is a dangerous when he has cash to blow. Could never help himself. Hopefully he’s smarter this offseason.

As for Green, why re-sign him as a UFA if he’s traded for picks, which needs to happen? You think he’ll take less than he’s making now? Doubt that, he’ll have other teams throwing money at him. 

Far as I’m concerned, Holland shouldn’t be bringing back any former Wings anymore unless they’re truly stuck and it’s the only viable option. Once they’re gone, leave it alone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Until Green is traded, there is always the possibility that he isn't. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be, or that he won't be. I would trade him if he agrees to be. But since he makes the final decision on it, it's possible that the team he goes to isn't the team that offers the best return, if he agrees to be traded at all. Common sense says that Green should waive it to go to a contender and have a chance at a cup. Common sense says Holland should trade him and get a good return. Common sense does not always become reality tho. Follow this team long enough, and you're in for a few surprises now and then.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. I do believe that in the end, Green gets traded. I would not be surprised however if he is not. Different people are motivated by different things. From the articles I have read about Green, its just an impression that I get. I don't know anymore about what motivates him than anyone else here, and I certainly don't have any insider information. But I do believe that he will be back next year, and i think its the right thing to do.

I also don't think he'll get the return that some are hoping for. It's entirely possible that neither a 1st round pick nor a high end prospect come back. I would not be surprised if the return is a 2nd rounder this year and a 2nd next year. Obviously, I would like to see more, but I am not getting my hopes up. Hopefully, Holland surprises me.

It's also possible that if he refuses a trade, that the relationship could sour and he may not be offered another contract this summer. Green will (likely already has)provide Holland with a trade list. The only way Green doesn't get traded is if he is injured worse than the team is letting on and fails his physical. Otherwise, even if his value plummets all the way to a measly 3rd round pick (won't happen), Holland will take the best offer on the table. It would be dumb for Green not to accept a trade, and even dumber for Holland not to trade him. He will be traded before Monday, 3pm EST.

I do agree with you on the return though. I still think he should get at least a 1st or a top prospect, but it's very possible, with all the other defensemen potentially available, that his stock could drop. I'm still doubtful that Ottawa trades Karlsson, or New York trades McDonagh at the deadline, but if both of those guys are available along with Johnson and Hjalmarsson, teams might go after one of the bigger fish (former two), or settle with one of the cheaper options (latter two)... We're all obviously hoping for the 1st or top prospect, but two 2nd's wouldn't surprise me at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kickazz said:

That's not true. Daley gets 1/2 D minutes, and a ton of SH ice time too. 2nd to Green. 

Mike Green was a 3rd pairing defenseman for Washington before he came here. Just because we use him in the 1D role doesn't mean he is one. Put DK, Daley in that role and let Green walk away and one of Hickets or Cholo come in to take roles a little below that and it wouldn't really make a difference. Maybe our PP hurts a bit but oh well. 

Point is I saw complaints for Daley last season. Yet Daley is CHEAPER than Mike Green and plays about the same ice time as he does. 2nd most on the team actually. Daley is a bigger bang for his buck. In fact Daley is a former PP specialist when he played for Pittsburgh. If Green walks, Daley takes the point on the PP. And subsequently his point totals would increase as well. 

Green and Daley are about the same player, one is better defensively (Daley), one is better offensively (Green). Daley is the cheaper one. 

Except Daley is more versatile since he's technically both a PK and PP specialist.  

Green never should have been a 3rd pair defenseman in Washington. Nor should he be a number one here. He is still a top 2 in this league though. Number 3 at worst. His numbers support this.

This team's biggest issue, like I said previously, is that we have too many players playing up the lineup. We have 2nd pairing defensemen playing top pair, bottom pairing defensemen playing 2nd pair, etc. Letting Green walk just adds to that problem.

Green has 29 points in 56 games. Daley has 9 points in 55 games. That's a huge gap in production. Green has gotten the bulk of power-play time because he's by far the best quarterback on the team. No one (including Daley) is close. Daley has 0 power-play points in 30 minutes, and Green has 13 power-play points in 136 minutes. Daley hasn't looked good on the power-play in the few games Green has missed either. Without Green our power-play struggles, and team struggles.

Anyway, my point is, no single player on this team or in the system can replace the production Green brings to this team. However, I believe a number of players could replace Daley's production, minutes and defensive ability. If we didn't sign Daley, and we let any of Ouellet / Sproul / Hicketts take his spot, I don't think our defense looks all that different. If we don't re-sign Green, and we let one of Ouellet / Hicketts take his spot, I think our defense is MUCH worse. Daley plays 20 minutes a night. Give 16 of those minutes to a younger player, and spread the other 4 minutes among the other five defensemen. Daley has put up 9 points, easily replaceable. Daley is good defensively and plays on the penalty kill, so are / can Ouellet and Hicketts. Hicketts is very good defensively and a great penalty killer. He's not afraid to go to the dirty areas, loves hitting and blocking shots. The only thing that none of these guys would have been able to replace is Daley's leadership and other off-ice qualities. Everything he does on the ice, I believe could be replaced from within.

I think you're overstating how close these players are to one another. I don't see it at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kickazz said:

Not a good argument to compare a team full of PP specialists (Letang, Shults, Streit). We have none of those guys. So when Green leaves, Daley's PP time goes up. Green averages 2:26 on PP. Daley Averaged 1:38 last year (on stacked Pittsburgh team), 1:51 the year before, 2:02 the year before that. Which means he's more than capable of quarterbacking the PP. 

...Which means his resume has PP specialist on it....

...which is my point... 

-------------

Beyond all this my point was that last year people bitched about the Daley signing "because he'll take a spot from one of the young D-men" and now that we might actually take a veteran off the books people don't care about the same young D anymore? Sounds kind of hypocritical. Especially because Mike Green is way more expensive than Daley was. 

Exactly why it would be dumb to let Green walk. Our defense is a mess right now. Imagine this defense without Green... All of a sudden, our best offensive defenseman is Nick Jensen? That's kind of scary...

Again, this team doesn't need more mediocre defensemen (Daley), whether they're young or old. We need difference makers on the blue line (Green), no matter their age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

To the bolded: you're the one who said he was a PP specialist on that team, not me. I just said I doubt he played that role on that team because those other guys. Without that history, you're claiming he's going to be our #1 PP guy in place of Green even though he hasn't played that role for a least 3 year, if ever.

As for you're larger point at the bottom, Green is a much different defenceman and the situation of the team was different. One big factor is that we already had Green for veteran higher end potential stopgap guy. Also, Everybody around the team and on this forum had been discussing for years the need for an high level offensive puck moving D - for the crappy PP and because it would help the overall system. We'd also been talking about the need for righthanded Dmen (member Babcock said it so much it was mocked). And low and behold Green came as both those things. He was a piece we really lacked. And with him, K, and E, there were still 4 spots for guys on the younger side. 

When Daley signed it made 4 vets on D: E, K, Green, (5 if you count Wit) and it did take away time from XO, Jensen, (and Sproul could have taken the 7 pot or Hronek by the end of the year...) Many of the younger guys seemed to be rough this year so maybe that's not the worst thing, but it was a legitimate concern and I think it did happen.

My complaint was more that it was unnecessary since he's going to be gone by the time we compete, he's not amazing (though he is good), and because we already had Green. I still wish we hadn't signed him - especially if it's true that Green wants to come back. If Daley wasn't here I'd be all in for that, but I'm on the fence now. We will feel Green's absence, though, if he goes.

There is a way of hipocrisy for those that want to re-sign Green, though: if people were concerned about Daley pushing out young guys, Sproul was already pushed out and there's a lot of talk of XO being traded (and probably not many want to keep him around) so we don't really need a place for young guys like last year. I'm not really sure which young D men are on deck to make it next year. Hronek, Hicketts are in their 1st and 2nd AHL years respectively, so they seem unlikely. All of Jensen, XO, Sproul were at the end of their entry deals, so it was different.

I think Hicketts is ready, and would be surprised if he doesn't make the team at some point next season. He would be a good replacement for Daley if we were able to move him, although I know that won't happen. I'm not even necessarily saying we should get rid of Daley, just that it wouldn't make a huge difference either way. Losing Green would make a huge difference. Hronek is likely another full season away, although I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a look at some point between now and then. He may even get a call-up as soon as next week, after Green is traded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Paul Woods on last nights broadcast, on average, if a player is drafted in the 3rd round he only has a 25% chance of making the NHL.  Of course the lower the round, the less likely he is to make it.

With that being said, unless you are trying to dump salary (Nyquist/Tatar) or the player no longer fits into your plans/not wanted or is replaceable from within (XO/Mrazek) there is no absolutely no reason to accept any draft pick lower than a 2nd unless a prospect is coming back

If the player is sought after for the experience and/or intangibles that he brings yet you really don't NEED to trade that player (Green/Glenny/Howard) you hold all the cards.

Anything less than a 1st or an NHL ready prospect for Green from a Cup Favorite is an insult and Kenny should just keep him and re-sign him. If All TPA wants to offer is a 2nd, which in reality will more than likely be a #58-#62, basically a high 3rd, then I would hang up the phone.  If they throw an NHL ready prospect in with that 2nd, now I'm interested. If indeed Green wants to come back, we do not NEED to trade him for a pick that has an average of 25% or worse chance of making the NHL in 4-5 years.

disney.com is a very integral part of our team.  He is a defensive minded RH'd center that logs a good amount of icetime, kills penalties and is matched up with teams top players a lot of times. His cap hit isn't too bad considering what you are paying Helm and Abby to be on his line most nights. For Toronto to offer a 5th round pick for a player with Luke's intangibles is insulting.  Kudos to Holland for asking for a 2nd round pick. That 5th round draft pick will take at least 4-5 years to even be NHL ready, if he makes it at all.  All the while Toronto would get a rare RH'd center with the defensive prowess of Glenny and we get a player that more than likely will never see an NHL ice surface outside of prospect camp.  I am not saying Glenny is the hands down Selke winner for his ability, but when it comes to depth down the middle, a player with Luke's assets is a integral piece to that playoff team that needs to fill that position. So if we're listening to offers on him, it damn well better be a 2nd or an NHL ready prospect to come in and replace what he brings. Anything less no thanks!

If we trade Tatar and or Nyquist, maybe 2nds and 3rds are fine because we are basically trading them to free up cap space and get a little something in return for them.  If we are trading XO, he is basically a 7th D-man making over $1M, how many 7th D-men do we have now that make way less? XO for a late round pick is a no brainer because even if that pick never makes the NHL, we really aren't losing out by trading XO.  That is why Holland accepted what Philly offered for Petr.  He wasn't going to be in our plans, he wasn't going to be qualified, so he would've left for nothing. Even if the pick remains a 4th and we don't get the 2019 pick, it doesn't matter if that guy makes it really because we weren't going to have Petr here anyhow, so just having a player with a chance to make it  is better that nothing.

Why not have the same mindset on Green, you may ask? Well because Green is highly sought after by, according to Paul Woods, no less than 4 teams. Sure if he does come back, then getting "something" for him in the form of lower picks than a 1st is a bonus.  But there is the chance, if he wins a Cup somewhere, he may want to stay there and try to win more, so if we're trading a player that could be the chip that gets the dip for a team, PLUS he signs there for less and helps them remain favorites, we need to be compensated appropriately. Like stated many times, a 2nd from TPA or NSH, for example, is basically a 3rd, and Green is worth more than that. So IMO Green should garner either a 1st outright, an NHL ready player outright, or if we accept a 2nd it better include at LEAST a mid-to-near ready NHL prospect. If it's less than a 2nd, it damn well better include that NHL ready Prospect.

I realize that the TDL is full of surprises and let downs when it comes to what a fan is hoping to see, but honestly, for players who are still important members of this team now and the future, I hope that Holland just hangs up the phone if he receives any type of lowball offer like the one Toronto tried on him.

So:

Mike Green: 1st RND -or- NHL Ready Prospect -or- 2nd RND Mid-Near Ready NHL Prospect -or- Lower RND pick PLUS NHL Ready Prospect.

disney.com: 2nd RND pick -or- NHL Ready Prospect

Nyquist/Tatar/Howard: some kind of fair market value return in order to clear cap.

XO: Mid to later RND pick

 

* and yes I do realize they are probably not trading Howard now, but I list him because his name has been out there as a possibility, and if the offer is good, take it IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now