2018 Off-Season Trades / Signings / News

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I don't know that I am right either. I wasn't trying to misconstrew you or anyone else. You and KRS were both discussing it. I wasn't trying to respond to anyone's post specifically or i would have quoted it. Just saying that If I was a Gm, I wouldn't let another team talk to one of my players, and why. Just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't do it if I was trying to re-sign the player. And even if I wasn't trying to re-sign them, I still wouldn't, especially if I thought they were wanting to test free agency. I certainly wouldn't mind unloading that contract to a team that doesn't know that tho. Which s why I would make them pay up first. I personally just can't see any scenario where it would benefit me to let another team talk to a player without getting something out of it.

Hope this helps:

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/nhl-clarifies-rules-for-free-agent-interviews-contract-parameters-ok/

So youre Holland and everyone in the league knows youre desperately trying to offload Mrazek. Philly finally shows interest, but theyd like to speak to Petr in order to feel comfortable finalizing the deal... and youd say no? Why?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

So youre Holland and everyone in the league knows youre desperately trying to offload Mrazek. Philly finally shows interest, but theyd like to speak to Petr in order to feel comfortable finalizing the deal... and youd say no? Why?

Because I am confident that after speaking with Mrazek that they won't want to make a deal with him. Then I get nothing. Flip me something and you can negotiate the brown bananas out of him. And, I am not sure they can under the CBA anyway, even with permission. Plus Mrazek was an RFA. I thought we were talking about pending UFA's?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Because I am confident that after speaking with Mrazek that they won't want to make a deal with him. Then I get nothing. Flip me something and you can negotiate the brown bananas out of him. And, I am not sure they can under the CBA anyway, even with permission. Plus Mrazek was an RFA. I thought we were talking about pending UFA's?

Why tho?

We were originally talking about Karlsson, a player still under contract. We can change Mrazek to Karlsson if you like, it makes no difference to my premise. 

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Glendening will not be healthy scratched. What makes you believe there's a chance that he would be? Glendening may be the 13th or even 14th best forward on the roster. He still wouldn't be healthy scratched.

I don't really believe I over-value our prospects. Sure, I may have over-valued some in the past, but for the most part, we get into these ridiculous debates because I think young players should be given a little more of an opportunity (longer leash), not because I think they're better than they are, but because we should be taking advantage of young, skilled players on ELC's. You disagree with that, and that's fine.

Which prospects have I recently "over-valued"? Svechnikov, the middle six winger? Turgeon, the 4th line center? Hicketts, the bottom pairing defenseman? If you're referring to Jurco. I still say he could have been a middle six winger, under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, he couldn't put it all together.

I don't think we live in a world where Glendening will be healthy scratched by Blashill or the Red Wings. You do, and that's fine. I like your proposed lines, and wish they could become a reality.

Where should I start? Kopecky, Leino, Williams, buying out both Tootoo and Weiss, Hudler, Brunner, Eaves, Emmerton, Andersson, Jurco, Pulkkinen, maybe Frk, Sheahan. Might have missed some. Clearly there's no problem moving on from players when we think we have a better option and/or just don't think the player has a future here. Most of those guys were also demoted from regular to scratch candidate at some point before we dumped them. Then there's the kids I mentioned previously that have already jumped him. Your turn.

There's more than one way to over-value a prospect. We have these debates not because you think kids should get "a little more opportunity", but rather the irrational vehemence you put into those debates. You think it's so crazy and stupid that the team (or anyone) could have a different opinion about when a prospect is ready or what they've earned that you imagine crackpot anti-kid conspiracy theories, mishandling prospects, vet bias, defensive bias, apparently now a nonsensical Glendening bias, say things like "f*** Holland" and you want him replaced...all based on nothing but your own opinions, and ignoring all the evidence against. 

If you thought the kids were going to be stars it would in a way be more rational. If you thought Svech would score 30g, at least the adamance would be understandable. But if you think he's a middle-6 winger, and you expect 15g-35p, what's all the outrage about? That's basically the same production we got from Helm and Abby. So not only are you banking on something that isn't certain, but even if you're right it's no more than a marginal upgrade. It doesn't make any sense.

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 hours ago, Buppy said:

Where should I start? Kopecky, Leino, Williams, buying out both Tootoo and Weiss, Hudler, Brunner, Eaves, Emmerton, Andersson, Jurco, Pulkkinen, maybe Frk, Sheahan. Might have missed some. Clearly there's no problem moving on from players when we think we have a better option and/or just don't think the player has a future here. Most of those guys were also demoted from regular to scratch candidate at some point before we dumped them. Then there's the kids I mentioned previously that have already jumped him. Your turn.

There's more than one way to over-value a prospect. We have these debates not because you think kids should get "a little more opportunity", but rather the irrational vehemence you put into those debates. You think it's so crazy and stupid that the team (or anyone) could have a different opinion about when a prospect is ready or what they've earned that you imagine crackpot anti-kid conspiracy theories, mishandling prospects, vet bias, defensive bias, apparently now a nonsensical Glendening bias, say things like "f*** Holland" and you want him replaced...all based on nothing but your own opinions, and ignoring all the evidence against. 

If you thought the kids were going to be stars it would in a way be more rational. If you thought Svech would score 30g, at least the adamance would be understandable. But if you think he's a middle-6 winger, and you expect 15g-35p, what's all the outrage about? That's basically the same production we got from Helm and Abby. So not only are you banking on something that isn't certain, but even if you're right it's no more than a marginal upgrade. It doesn't make any sense.

What does that list of players have to do with anything? The only ones remotely similar to Glendening are Williams, Eaves, Andersson and Sheahan. I don't recall Williams ever being a regular healthy scratch. Eaves was from time to time, but was injured more often than not. Andersson was just a terrible hockey player. And Sheahan was never a healthy scratch. The point of contention was never Glendening being traded, it was Glendening being a regular healthy scratch. Not going to happen. Could he be traded? Sure. That's a completely different story though. I'd trade Glendening along with multiple other bottom six forwards / bottom pair defensemen on this team.

I don't think it's crazy that anyone has a different opinion than me. That's you bud. You can't stand anyone thinking any different than you. THAT'S why we get into these ridiculous debates. I respect most differing opinions, including yours. You think management can do no wrong, and every decision is for the betterment of the team. That's fine, but I disagree. NHL general managers aren't perfect, and Holland is no exception. The term "Holland apologist" used to bother the s*** out of me, but you're beginning to fit that bill. There absolutely has been a "vet bias" and a "defensive bias" in this organization. For right or wrong, these things have existed for quite some time. I believe some kids have been mishandled in the past (not getting into that again). You disagree. Cool...

Why does a kid need to be a big point producer to be considered to crack the lineup? You said yourself, Svechnikov could produce at a similar clip as Helm and Abdelkader, and better than other bottom 6 wingers. So why not let a kid do it for a fraction of the price? I'm a big believe that teams should take advantage of kids on cheap entry level contracts. Find out what we have in these players before they're due for a new contract. Take advantage of points per dollar value. I could somewhat understand if we were still a top team, and wanted the sure thing. That's when you can afford to hold kids back. We're not a top team. We're rebuilding. Let the kids play...

I'm in the majority among Wings fans when it comes to wanting kids to be given an opportunity. You're in the minority. It's you (and a select few) against the world... Hell, even Kenny has admitted that it's time to shift more towards the youth. He's saying all the right things. Now it's just a matter of him following through with it.

[BinMucker94 302]

27 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

What does that list of players have to do with anything? The only ones remotely similar to Glendening are Williams, Eaves, Andersson and Sheahan. I don't recall Williams ever being a regular healthy scratch. Eaves was from time to time, but was injured more often than not. Andersson was just a terrible hockey player. And Sheahan was never a healthy scratch. The point of contention was never Glendening being traded, it was Glendening being a regular healthy scratch. Not going to happen. Could he be traded? Sure. That's a completely different story though. I'd trade Glendening along with multiple other bottom six forwards / bottom pair defensemen on this team.

I don't think it's crazy that anyone has a different opinion than me. That's you bud. You can't stand anyone thinking any different than you. THAT'S why we get into these ridiculous debates. I respect most differing opinions, including yours. You think management can do no wrong, and every decision is for the betterment of the team. That's fine, but I disagree. NHL general managers aren't perfect, and Holland is no exception. The term "Holland apologist" used to bother the s*** out of me, but you're beginning to fit that bill. There absolutely has been a "vet bias" and a "defensive bias" in this organization. For right or wrong, these things have existed for quite some time. I believe some kids have been mishandled in the past (not getting into that again). You disagree. Cool...

Why does a kid need to be a big point producer to be considered to crack the lineup? You said yourself, Svechnikov could produce at a similar clip as Helm and Abdelkader, and better than other bottom 6 wingers. So why not let a kid do it for a fraction of the price? I'm a big believe that teams should take advantage of kids on cheap entry level contracts. Find out what we have in these players before they're due for a new contract. Take advantage of points per dollar value. I could somewhat understand if we were still a top team, and wanted the sure thing. That's when you can afford to hold kids back. We're not a top team. We're rebuilding. Let the kids play...

I'm in the majority among Wings fans when it comes to wanting kids to be given an opportunity. You're in the minority. It's you (and a select few) against the world... Hell, even Kenny has admitted that it's time to shift more towards the youth. He's saying all the right things. Now it's just a matter of him following through with it.

I definitely agree with the ELCs. If Svechnikov or any other prospect has a chance to come in and produce similar numbers to aging players on more expensive contacts then we should be looking to move out some of these vets. Having a bottom 6 made up of ELCs and cheaper contracts will allow management to go after bigger fish in free agency and in trades. This along with the high draft picks we will have over the next few seasons will help speed up the rebuild. Plus the kids will have been playing at the NHL level and learning, hopefully pushing for spots in the top 6 and creating more competition for roster spots.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

14 hours ago, NerveDamage said:

Lou's having a conference call with Trotz and Tavares

So then why is he still wearing a Sappy Laffs pin on his lapel? 

It took me awhile, but when you first posted this pic, I kept thinking that it reminded of someone, but i couldn't put my Jeff Finger on it until now.

 Lou and Yoda. Separated at birth.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[NerveDamage 4,176]

2 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

So then why is he still wearing a Sappy Laffs pin on his lapel? 

maybe he's an undercover agent still working for the leafs.

Mysterious, the ways of the force, are

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

5 minutes ago, NerveDamage said:

maybe he's an undercover agent still working for the leafs.

Mysterious, the ways of the force, are

So like, did anyone catch the Jeff Finger, Toronto Maple Leafs pun there?

[NerveDamage 4,176]

5 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

So like, did anyone catch the Jeff Finger, Toronto Maple Leafs pun there?

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

45 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

This will never get old. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Sharks buying out Martin

 

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

What does that list of players have to do with anything? The only ones remotely similar to Glendening are Williams, Eaves, Andersson and Sheahan. I don't recall Williams ever being a regular healthy scratch. Eaves was from time to time, but was injured more often than not. Andersson was just a terrible hockey player. And Sheahan was never a healthy scratch. The point of contention was never Glendening being traded, it was Glendening being a regular healthy scratch. Not going to happen. Could he be traded? Sure. That's a completely different story though. I'd trade Glendening along with multiple other bottom six forwards / bottom pair defensemen on this team.

I don't think it's crazy that anyone has a different opinion than me. That's you bud. You can't stand anyone thinking any different than you. THAT'S why we get into these ridiculous debates. I respect most differing opinions, including yours. ....

They don't need to be similar. They're players we've moved on from. It happens. It can happen again. Will happen again. Will it happen with Glendening? I don't know, but it could. Depends what our other option are. But at least I have some kind of logic backing up my opinions. I notice you're still unable to concoct any reasoning behind yours, besides this vet bias nonsense that doesn't fit the facts. 

You say you respect my opinion, yet you don't even try to understand it. You just see it's not "put the kids on the team no matter what, even if you have to make the team worse" and get all defensive.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

They don't need to be similar. They're players we've moved on from. It happens. It can happen again. Will happen again. Will it happen with Glendening? I don't know, but it could. Depends what our other option are. But at least I have some kind of logic backing up my opinions. I notice you're still unable to concoct any reasoning behind yours, besides this vet bias nonsense that doesn't fit the facts. 

You say you respect my opinion, yet you don't even try to understand it. You just see it's not "put the kids on the team no matter what, even if you have to make the team worse" and get all defensive.

And we may move on from (trade) Glendening, but he will NOT be healthy scratched.

Oh yeah, pretty sound logic there bud. Glendening could be healthy scratched because other players in this organization have in the past... 

No, there's no "veteran bias". No Red Wings GM or coach has ever uttered the words "tie goes to the vet"... I'm not sure if you fully understand the term "bias", but that right there is a bias. Maybe you agree with that sort of bias, but that doesn't make it any less of a thing. I somewhat agreed with it when we were contending every year. Now that we're supposedly rebuilding, in my opinion, that should no longer be a thing.

I understand your opinion completely. I just disagree with it. That seems to really, really bother you, more than it probably should... I want to see this team get younger, and I don't want to sign any past their prime vets. You disagree with that, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. For whatever reason, you think other aren't.

You said you were going to block me months ago. Why don't you go ahead and do that? This constant back and forth is annoying as s***. I'm sure everyone else here would agree...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Trade incoming

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

4 hours ago, F.Michael said:

Yeah - got it...Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Finger signing by the Leafs a 'screw up'?

That would be an understatement.

https://thehockeywriters.com/the-worst-free-agent-signings-in-nhl-history/

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16043

[xault 272]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Trade incoming

 

Speaking of goalies, do we have any interest in Grubauer? Should we be interest in him may be the better question.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 minutes ago, xault said:

Speaking of goalies, do we have any interest in Grubauer? Should we be interest in him may be the better question.

Apparently we do, but Washington is asking for a 1st, so I don't think it will happen

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

And we may move on from (trade) Glendening, but he will NOT be healthy scratched.

Oh yeah, pretty sound logic there bud. Glendening could be healthy scratched because other players in this organization have in the past... 

No, there's no "veteran bias". No Red Wings GM or coach has ever uttered the words "tie goes to the vet"... I'm not sure if you fully understand the term "bias", but that right there is a bias. Maybe you agree with that sort of bias, but that doesn't make it any less of a thing. I somewhat agreed with it when we were contending every year. Now that we're supposedly rebuilding, in my opinion, that should no longer be a thing.

I understand your opinion completely. I just disagree with it. That seems to really, really bother you, more than it probably should... I want to see this team get younger, and I don't want to sign any past their prime vets. You disagree with that, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. For whatever reason, you think other aren't.

You said you were going to block me months ago. Why don't you go ahead and do that? This constant back and forth is annoying as s***. I'm sure everyone else here would agree...

Still waiting for your logic.

"Tie goes to the vet" is not bias, even if there any cases where any ties have actually existed. It's a case of "two is better than one". You seem to not realize that GR is still part of the Wings organization. Dumping assets for kid when you only think that kid might be equal to what you're dumping is stupid.

Second bold disproves the first. I'd explain it further, but since you don't already get it, it wouldn't help. Do some re-reading, study it for a few weeks, hire some expert tutors to explain it, maybe get some of that Flowers for Algernon surgery...then you might start to grasp the edges.

[krsmith17 7,191]

13 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Still waiting for your logic.

"Tie goes to the vet" is not bias, even if there any cases where any ties have actually existed. It's a case of "two is better than one". You seem to not realize that GR is still part of the Wings organization. Dumping assets for kid when you only think that kid might be equal to what you're dumping is stupid.

Second bold disproves the first. I'd explain it further, but since you don't already get it, it wouldn't help. Do some re-reading, study it for a few weeks, hire some expert tutors to explain it, maybe get some of that Flowers for Algernon surgery...then you might start to grasp the edges.

Okay, so you don't understand the definition of bias. It's okay...

"Do some re-reading, study it for a few weeks, hire some expert tutors to explain it, maybe get some of that Flowers for Algernon surgery...then you might start to grasp the edges."

Two is better than one? Sorry, I wasn't aware we'd have to give the vets away... If these vets are as useful as you suggest, wouldn't they garner some sort of return? Maybe since they would be going to a contending team, we could acquire "depth for Grand Rapids"...

Anyway, I'm out. Have a good night.

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Okay, so you don't understand the definition of bias. It's okay...

"Do some re-reading, study it for a few weeks, hire some expert tutors to explain it, maybe get some of that Flowers for Algernon surgery...then you might start to grasp the edges."

Two is better than one? Sorry, I wasn't aware we'd have to give the vets away... If these vets are as useful as you suggest, wouldn't they garner some sort of return? Maybe since they would be going to a contending team, we could acquire "depth for Grand Rapids"...

Anyway, I'm out. Have a good night.

Oh yeah, I forgot. According to you a draft pick that might turn into something five years from now should be considered a tie with an established player. But how do we trade Vanek if we don't sign him?

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

Oh yeah, I forgot. According to you a draft pick that might turn into something five years from now should be considered a tie with an established player. But how do we trade Vanek if we don't sign him?

Oh yeah, I forgot. According to you the only thing we can get for a "proven vet" is a draft pick. No players or prospects. Only picks...

[NotTooAbby 71]

Friend just met the owner of the Stars.... He says the Wings won the draft and NYI reached. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, NotTooAbby said:

Friend just met the owner of the Stars.... He says the Wings won the draft and NYI reached. 

He was being nice, but thats awesome man. Draft is all about hangin with hockey ppl. Im pretty sure this is the only sport where u can do this kinda thing. God i love hockey. ZADINAAAAA

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Oh yeah, I forgot. According to you the only thing we can get for a "proven vet" is a draft pick. No players or prospects. Only picks...

lol, thought you were aiming to alleviate the logjam...

Nevermind, I see where we're headed, and I don't feel like suffering the tedium of morphing the topic from scratching Glendening to trading a package for Hanifin to make room. I'm just going to skip about 20 non sequiturs ahead and say, "No, the Wings should not replace all their company vehicles with old ice cream trucks. That's taking the youth movement too far."