Recently, I was planning a bachelor's party for my brother to celebrate his upcoming nuptials. As I was going down the list of people I needed to invite, I came across an interesting name. Let's call him Stan Dearly. There are no obvious advantages to inviting Stan. He's dumb, provides nothing of substance to any gathering, is not funny, interesting, or good natured. He's also cheap, and wouldn't buy a round of beers if you held his feet over a fire. In short, I hate Stan Dearly. A lot.
But through some sort of cruel twist of fate, Stan Dearly is married to my sister. I cannot, for the life of me, explain why someone as seemingly clear minded as my sister would marry Stan Dearly. He is a fool. She is not. And so I chalk it up to god's will, and choose not to ask questions I can't answer, similar to when my pet turtle Bingo died when I was 7.
I will have to invite Stan Dearly to that bachelor's party. Despite every single inclination to the contrary, I have to do it. If only to make my clearly misguided sister happy. I'll hate every second of it. He'll be dull, disinterested, and sleazy. He'll spend too much time on his smart phone, and complain about the cigar smoke. He'll try and test my patience in ways that should never have happened if there were any sort of fairness in this universe.
And that's exactly how I feel about the Dan Cleary signing too.
Tatar wants out anyway though, he's pretty much made that clear. He's threatened more than once to bolt back to the KHL if not brought up, which I completely don't fault him for being subject to such an incompetent and disconnected GM, but nonetheless I think he's already decided he rather play somewhere else.
One thing we have a plethora of is forwards, might as well take a risk and get a guy with a killer right shot from the point.
Regardless, wouldn't save our dumpster fire of an offseason though.
No he hasn't. When commenting on his contract earlier this summer he said...
"On Friday we'll begin negotiating a contract. It's tough to talk about it. Detroit's my priority. I'd say that it's 90% that I'll stay there, only if a fantastic offer came from another team, that Detroit didn't want to match. Everything depends on negotiations. I can't go below the price that a similar player in the league will have earned. But I like the team, and I'll settle there. It's all business, though, and the team could always replace me."
Doesn't sound like a guy that's dying to bolt to another team or the KHL.
Isn't there some sort of non-verbal commitment between the GM and the fans, owners, and other players on the roster that every year an attempt will be made to improve the on-ice product? I mean, life if full of little non-verbal commitments between parties. What makes this commitment so much more important? Doesn't Ken feel honor bound to Zetterberg, Franzen, or Kronwall for taking discounts to give him all this cap space he keeps squandering? Isn't there some commitment to give Babcock some semblance of a competitive roster? Hell, I'd like to think he (as part of his contract signing process) gave his word to the Illitchs that, at the very least, he'd make a half hearted attempt to win championships.
So here's an awful thought. At the end of the regular season I was seriously hoping that ALL of Alfie, Cleary, Quincey, Bert, Sammy, Tootoo would be gone. But IF I had to have one back it would have been Alfie (I didn't want it, but if forced to pick, he'd have been the guy).
But now, after clusterf*** 2014, I'm PRAYING he decides to retire so that at least one of our young, big, hard to play against forwards makes the team. If Alfie comes back I'm going to puke. It means Jurco and Mantha don't play. It means we don't acquire a defenseman. It means we're the EXACT same team as last year (except a year older). It means, in short, that we suck.
So please, enjoy your retirement Alfie, you've earned it.
Don't really understand the comparison between Jarnkrok and the 2014 Draft Class - Calle Jarnkrok is going to be 23 years old when this season starts, but players drafted by the Red Wings today are almost a full 5 years younger than he is... Meaning they are 2-3 years away from playing. Calle Jarnkrok is ready now and wants to play now - but unfortunately he wasn't going to make the Detroit Red Wings this season, and is an RFA in July.
And If he wasn't going to make this team in a bottom 6 role (which is a reasonable approach considering his defensive inefficiencies) - He would have probably been waiting until one of Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss, Franzen, or Nyquists (which is coming) contracts to be off the books at a minimum. Of our top 6, the first contract to expire is Datsyuk's in 3 years. Jarnkrok would not have waited that long.
Often overlooked is the fact that our GM who recognized this, places on emphasis on opportunity and may have wanted to give the kid a chance to play elsewhere. It helped continue the streak... which may be one of the few motivating factors left in attracting players.
He was an AHL rookie, and there is absolutely no evidence that "he wanted to play now". That's just something people keep saying. He's far from the first Red Wings player to be expected to play a couple years in the AHL despite being older and having played professionally before.
Also, you're just making things up. He doesn't have "defensive inefficiencies". He was lauded for his "Zetterberg-like" commitment to two-way play.
I'm so tired of people using post-hoc justifications to try and make that trade look like it wasn't a total disaster. He wasn't going back to Europe. He wasn't demanding immediate playing time. He would surely have got a chance to be better than Andersson, Sheahan, Glendening, and/or Helm. And he DEFINITELY isn't bad defensively.
While I agree with what you're saying and I totally agree if we're trading Tatar or Jurco we better be getting a young top 4 with some term left, your argument should be a two way street. If we trade Tatar for Green and Green sucks then we lost an asset for nothing. But if we trade Tatar for Green, Greens awesome and Tatar falls off the map, then we gained an asset for nothing. While I think that situation is less likely, it's still possible and you still have to consider it. All of our young guns are still relatively unknowns.
True, but only if Green wants to stay. And as I said before, given how FA turned out that's not a gamble I'm willing to take. Say Tatar sucks, Green plays awesome, and Green leaves. What did we gain?
Too many question marks for me to spend big assets on it. I don't mind Green, and I don't want to suggest that I don't think he'd help. He probably would. But I'm not giving up a guy that just had the year Tatar had for a guy who can't stay healthy, is very "unBabcock" in his style, and can leave in less than a year regardless of anything else. Especially when you consider his addition (if it's only short team) isn't likely to be the thing that puts us over the top.
true. I just think it's more likely that the wings want to keep green, as opposed to not wanting to keep him, if we were to aquire him.. that's all I'm saying.
I don't think there was ever a thought of keeping legwand after this past season.. unless he really impressed.
I agree. Problem is, if they don't really impress, or you don't keep them, then you're losing a big asset for nothing. Conversely, if you lose a big asset, you've got more incentive to keep them regardless of how they play.
For example: Does anybody really think Holland would have been so quick to re-sign Quincey (twice) if he hadn't spent a first on him? If it had been a third rounder Quincey would likely have left. But if you spend a big asset you want to get some mileage out of the return, regardless of how good it's been.