• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
LadyRedWing

Wings Interested In Resigning Green

Rate this topic

Should we resign Green?  

53 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I think some of you guys are lowballing Green on his next contract.

Just to do some comparables, I picked out 5 guys currently under contract who are near Green's point totals and age.

Mike Green: 29 points, age 32, 6.0 AAV

Alex Goligoski: 30 points, age 32, $5.475 mil AAV

Marc-Edouard Vlasic: 29 points, age 30, $4.25 AAV

Justin Braun: 27 points. age 30, $3.8 mil AAV

Jeff Petry: 31 points, age 30, $5.5 mil AAV

Duncan Keith: 28 points, age 34, $5.538 AAV

Average AAV among the 5 players I listed is $4.91 mil. Considering all of them signed their contracts before last season, and with the overpayment last summer of dmen, I wouldn't be surprised to see Green get a fair 3 year deal at $5 mil AAV. He'll be 35 when the contract is up, and probably still one of our best defenseman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 5:44 AM, LadyRedWing said:

Thanks for the welcome :)  LOL I will certainly not try to be a retread. :lol:

By retread, I meant someone who was banned and rejoined under a new name. There are also some who post in here under multiple user names. Not that I mind however, we need all the posters we can get!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2018 at 3:59 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I think some of you guys are lowballing Green on his next contract.

Just to do some comparables, I picked out 5 guys currently under contract who are near Green's point totals and age.

Mike Green: 29 points, age 32, 6.0 AAV

Alex Goligoski: 30 points, age 32, $5.475 mil AAV

Marc-Edouard Vlasic: 29 points, age 30, $4.25 AAV

Justin Braun: 27 points. age 30, $3.8 mil AAV

Jeff Petry: 31 points, age 30, $5.5 mil AAV

Duncan Keith: 28 points, age 34, $5.538 AAV

Average AAV among the 5 players I listed is $4.91 mil. Considering all of them signed their contracts before last season, and with the overpayment last summer of dmen, I wouldn't be surprised to see Green get a fair 3 year deal at $5 mil AAV. He'll be 35 when the contract is up, and probably still one of our best defenseman.

I agree, and I'd be okay with another 3 year deal in the neighborhood of $5M per, but I'd prefer 2 years, or even better again, 1 year at a slightly higher cap hit. I know Green probably wouldn't go with a one year deal, but he should, seems how he f***ed us out of assets this year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2018 at 11:31 AM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

By retread, I meant someone who was banned and rejoined under a new name. There are also some who post in here under multiple user names. Not that I mind however, we need all the posters we can get!

I promise I am not one of those :)  Im trying to help post whatever comes up in my  news feed if it isnt already here.  I love the wings, and nah i wouldnt want trouble ;)

Share this post


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

Por que no?

Because despite how much some of us mock Holland and Blashill for constantly talking about "maintaining a winning culture", it is important. You don't not re-sign your best defenseman just because you want to be bad and improve your draft odds. As has been proven over the past few years, the worst of the worst can drop down in the draft, and the best of the worst can move way up in the draft. One thing that I actually really like about Holland is that he's not the type to completely tank. He'd rather remain somewhat competitive and hope that we either get lucky in the draft lottery like Philadelphia last year, or get lucky in the draft like countless teams do every year, drafting the best player (or top three) in the draft in the 7-15 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why not give yourself the best chance to get a high pick instead of hoping you get lucky?  The goal should be the Cup, not be good enough to barely miss or make the playoffs.  Signing Green does the latter, not the former.

Edited by DickieDunn

Share this post


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

But why not give yourself the best chance to get a high pick instead of hoping you get lucky?  The goal should be the Cup, not be good enough to barely miss or make the playoffs.  Signing Green does the latter, not the former.

You do that in January / February, not September / October. As an NHL general manager, your goal is to assemble the best team as you possibly can, or you're not going to be employed very long. At the beginning of every season, you should give your team the best chance to win. Once you get around the trade deadline and it's clear you're a bottom 3rd team, then you start trading off pieces.

So you don't re-sign Green, and hope your team is bad enough and lucky enough to win the draft lottery. I re-sign Green in hopes that we can remain somewhat competitive, and likely have about the same odds of winning the draft lottery. It also gives me the extra asset to dangle (and hopefully trade this time) around the deadline. You end up with a 5th overall pick, and I end up with an 8th overall pick, 30th, plus. Do you think you're much further ahead in your rebuild? I don't. Maybe even further behind...

Also, look at what tanking has brought Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo, etc...

Share this post


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

But why not give yourself the best chance to get a high pick instead of hoping you get lucky?  The goal should be the Cup, not be good enough to barely miss or make the playoffs.  Signing Green does the latter, not the former.

Its all luck. Even if you tank and end up being the worst team in the league, you are still banking on luck to win the lottery. It's not the NFL where the worst team gets the first pick. Of course the worse you are the higher the probability of winning the lottery, but lets not fool ourselves, its all luck.

I believe its a balancing act. You need to acquire elite talent, and yes that does typically happen at the top of the draft. With that being said, you don't want to dig yourself into a hole so deep, that even with elite talent you cant get out (ie. Edmonton and Buffalo).

I am open to trading players to acquire assets (ie. Tatar trade), but I dont want to let a player like Green just walk away for nothing.

I would bring Green back, but I wouldn't give him a NTC (or a very limited one) because without that he becomes very valuable to us.

 

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

You do that in January / February, not September / October. As an NHL general manager, your goal is to assemble the best team as you possibly can, or you're not going to be employed very long. At the beginning of every season, you should give your team the best chance to win. Once you get around the trade deadline and it's clear you're a bottom 3rd team, then you start trading off pieces.

So you don't re-sign Green, and hope your team is bad enough and lucky enough to win the draft lottery. I re-sign Green in hopes that we can remain somewhat competitive, and likely have about the same odds of winning the draft lottery. It also gives me the extra asset to dangle (and hopefully trade this time) around the deadline. You end up with a 5th overall pick, and I end up with an 8th overall pick, 30th, plus. Do you think you're much further ahead in your rebuild? I don't. Maybe even further behind...

Also, look at what tanking has brought Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo, etc...

100% agree, I wrote what I wrote before even reading this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 12:16 PM, DickieDunn said:

If you're going to be bad you might as well go all in

 

17 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Por que no?

Because that isn't a recipe for success. The teams that are good at being bad never get any better. How many times in the past ten years have EDM, BUF, FLA, AZ had lottery picks? And they are still not playoff teams.How long were TOR and CBJ bad before they finally pulled themselves out of it? You can look at PIT or CHI as examples of being bad and coming out of it to become contenders, but they are more the exception than the rule.

Not to mention, once you develop a reputation as a "tank", good luck bringing in any decent free agents to complement and help develop your draft picks. There's a difference between being respectable and being bad. It takes a lot longer to rebuild a house from the ground up than it does to simply gut and remodel it. That's what this team needs You can be both respectable and attain high draft picks. The rebuild will go quicker that way.

Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green isn't going to make the team a contender, or even a pretender.  Unless he signs a one year deal, unlikely, he's not going to be traded at the deadline next year, so the "trade chip" argument is out the window.  After that "eh, whatever" moment on Vegas' 2nd goal tonight, I want him even less than I did before.  I'd rather sign a border like NHLer and tell the rookies that there's one open spot, fight for it like you're the 3rd monkey in line for the Ark and it's starting to rain.  If nobody wins the spot, let the vet have it.

Beyond that, they don't need a full rebuild.  They need a couple years to shed the albatrosses Holland hung around their necks, an elite D, a good young goalie, a good coach, and possibly one more high end forward if you don't think Matha and Larkin are good enough.  They don't need a 30 year old 2nd pair defenseman when all of their other d-men are 2nd and 3rd pair guys.

 

PS, I highly doubt if they get to an actual respectable level that a free agent is going to say "well, I WAS going to sign with you, but you didn't re-sign Mike Green a couple years ago and you traded some older players in faovr of younger ones.  So even though your future looks promising, I'm going to go somewhere else."

Edited by DickieDunn

Share this post


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

Green isn't going to make the team a contender, or even a pretender.  Unless he signs a one year deal, unlikely, he's not going to be traded at the deadline next year, so the "trade chip" argument is out the window.  After that "eh, whatever" moment on Vegas' 2nd goal tonight, I want him even less than I did before.  I'd rather sign a border like NHLer and tell the rookies that there's one open spot, fight for it like you're the 3rd monkey in line for the Ark and it's starting to rain.  If nobody wins the spot, let the vet have it.

Beyond that, they don't need a full rebuild.  They need a couple years to shed the albatrosses Holland hung around their necks, an elite D, a good young goalie, a good coach, and possibly one more high end forward if you don't think Matha and Larkin are good enough.  They don't need a 30 year old 2nd pair defenseman when all of their other d-men are 2nd and 3rd pair guys.

 

PS, I highly doubt if they get to an actual respectable level that a free agent is going to say "well, I WAS going to sign with you, but you didn't re-sign Mike Green a couple years ago and you traded some older players in faovr of younger ones.  So even though your future looks promising, I'm going to go somewhere else."

Why is out the window? If he doesn't have a NTC, why can't we trade him? Or if we sign him to a 2 year deal and trade him in year 2, why does that not count? I never said we needed an immediate return.

Share this post


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

Green isn't going to make the team a contender, or even a pretender.  Unless he signs a one year deal, unlikely, he's not going to be traded at the deadline next year, so the "trade chip" argument is out the window.  After that "eh, whatever" moment on Vegas' 2nd goal tonight, I want him even less than I did before.  I'd rather sign a border like NHLer and tell the rookies that there's one open spot, fight for it like you're the 3rd monkey in line for the Ark and it's starting to rain.  If nobody wins the spot, let the vet have it.

Beyond that, they don't need a full rebuild.  They need a couple years to shed the albatrosses Holland hung around their necks, an elite D, a good young goalie, a good coach, and possibly one more high end forward if you don't think Matha and Larkin are good enough.  They don't need a 30 year old 2nd pair defenseman when all of their other d-men are 2nd and 3rd pair guys.

PS, I highly doubt if they get to an actual respectable level that a free agent is going to say "well, I WAS going to sign with you, but you didn't re-sign Mike Green a couple years ago and you traded some older players in faovr of younger ones.  So even though your future looks promising, I'm going to go somewhere else."

No, Green isn't going to make this team a contender, and no one should expect him to. What he is, is a stop gap, transition for the kids. Hicketts is likely a 3rd pair defenseman at best. Cholowski, Hronek, Saarijarvi, etc, are all likely a year or two away. We need a veteran top 3 defenseman to fill out the roster for the next year or two. Why not Green? Who else is there? Carlson will re-sign in Washington. I'd take Green over Enstrom. Every other pending UFA sucks. Our defense is a disaster right now. Do we really want to make it significantly worse? You may, but I sure don't...

Also, like kliq said, the trade chip doesn't need to be this year, it could be the following season. Although ideally, we'd sign him to a 1-2 year deal, and we can trade him one of the next two seasons.

The bold / underlined, I completely agree with. I do think Larkin and Mantha are good enough, but we still need another future top line guy. Will that be Rasmussen? I hope so, but doubt it. We need to load up on high end defensemen / forwards (preferably some righties) over the next couple drafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Green signs here for 2 years, he's going to want at least 3,  and if Holland is still calling the shots I think he's getting a full NTC on top of it.  I firmly believe that you sign guys like Booth and Witkowski as stop gaps during a rebuild, not Green.  There's no benefit finishing 6th from the bottom as opposed to the bottom 3

Edited by DickieDunn

Share this post


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

I don't think Green signs here for 2 years, he's going to want at least 3,  and if Holland is still calling the shots I think he's getting a full NTC on top of it.  I firmly believe that you sign guys like Booth and Witkowski as stop gaps during a rebuild, not Green.  There's no benefit finishing 6th from the bottom as opposed to the bottom 3

Holland should have the upper hand in negotiations though. Green has made it very clear that he wants to stay in Detroit. If he really does, he should take a discount and take whatever years he's offered. If he says he wants 3+ years and a NTC, let him walk. He can do much better in free agency. The question Is, does he want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere else the suggestion of signing him for 1 year at 7mil. I kind of like this. (considering we can afford it after signing our RFA's and if don't sign JT).

I like it because it means no commitment past upcoming this season, we can trade him at the deadline next year, by committing 7 mil towards him, that money can't be used to sign someone else long term, and for him it is essentially a two year deal for the term of 1 for him. Win-Win.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 4:55 PM, krsmith17 said:

So you don't re-sign Green, and hope your team is bad enough and lucky enough to win the draft lottery. I re-sign Green in hopes that we can remain somewhat competitive, and likely have about the same odds of winning the draft lottery. It also gives me the extra asset to dangle (and hopefully trade this time) around the deadline. You end up with a 5th overall pick, and I end up with an 8th overall pick, 30th, plus. Do you think you're much further ahead in your rebuild? I don't. Maybe even further behind...

Also, look at what tanking has brought Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo, etc...

IF

I got the same kind of return Chicago got in 07 with 1/3 Kane/Toews I would be willing to tank for that.

OR if I was able to tank back to back like Pittsburgh and get Malkin 04 and Crosby 05 I could suffer through 2 very bad years.

But again the chances of getting that kind of talent like they did is beating the odds pretty pretty pretty good. 

So sign Green get as many picks as you can and build build build

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, Learn2LuvIt said:

There's a difference between being a bad hockey team and downright embarrassing.  With our current D corps, if we don't resign him next year, the Wings could be flat out embarrassing.  Like dumpster fire bad.

I made peace with it long ago. It can't get that much worse. Currently tied for fifth worst in the league? Or is it fourth worst? May as well bottom right out next season. It guarantees no worse than a 4th overall pick. If were gonna suck, may as well REALLY suck and make it worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chaps80 said:

I made peace with it long ago. It can't get that much worse. Currently tied for fifth worst in the league? Or is it fourth worst? May as well bottom right out next season. It guarantees no worse than a 4th overall pick. If were gonna suck, may as well REALLY suck and make it worth it.

What if we finish 5th last this season, win the lottery and draft Dahlin, and next season we finish dead last by 20 points and draft 4th overall like Colorado did last year? Was it worth it? The lottery proves every year that tanking doesn't guarantee anything. I am standings watching right now, and hoping we improve our odds, but at the end of the day, I know it really doesn't matter a whole lot. The balls are going to fall how they're going to fall regardless where we sit in the standings.

I say we sign Green, try to remain somewhat competitive, have another bottom 1/3 finish and hope the balls fall our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say, not re-signing Green would be a huge mistake. Kronwall, Jensen and Witkowski all have one year left, and Ericsson and Daley have two years left. None will be re-signed after their current contracts are up (maybe Jensen is brought back on the cheap) and all may be gone sooner than that, whether be trade or injury.

There are no defensemen that MUST be called up next season. Hicketts is a bottom pairing defenseman that struggled this season. If we really want to make room for him, trade / waive Ouellet / Witkowski. I think Hronek needs another half to full season in GR. Give him a look at the end of the season when injuries inevitably happen. If he shows he's ready, he has Kronwall's full time spot the following season, including his power-play minutes. Saarijarvi, Cholowski and Sambrook are all at least a year and a half to two years away, which is when Ericsson and Daley will be gone. If we really need to make room for a kid before then, trade a middle pairing guy, not our best defenseman...

I'd like to sign Green to another short term contract, but even a three year contract won't hurt this team in regards to holding prospects back.

There seems to be a lot of people anti re-signing Green. Can someone please explain the negative effect signing Green could have on this team going forward? I can't think of any...

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
Sign in to follow this