Jump to content


kipwinger's Photo

kipwinger

Member Since 31 May 2011
Online Last Active Today, 07:25 PM
-----

#2530765 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 10:26 AM

It's almost like they're negotiating.  Like, one side asks for something incredibly high.  And then the other side counters with something incredibly low.  And then they eventually work their way toward something palpable for each side.  Hmmm....




#2530745 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 09:28 AM

Everybody realizes that just because a team asks for something in a trade doesn't mean they'll get it right?  And also, even if they don't get it, that doesn't mean the trade won't happen?

 

Dallas just gave up a worse player than our young guys (Chaisson) for a better player than Green (Spezza) on an expiring contract.  Why does anyone think that we'd give one of our young guns for a worse player than Spezza (Green) on a worse contract?  Ken Holland has shown an unwillingness to be proactive in player acquisition.  He has not shown symptoms of early onset Alzheimer's Disease.

 

They can ask all they want, they'll likely not get one of those guys in return.  And that will likely not stop them from trading Green anyway.  If they want to trade him to another team, one who IS willing to give top young talent for injury prone 2nd pair defensemen on expiring contracts, then more power to them.  But I suspect finding GMs that stupid will prove more difficult than they think. 




#2530685 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 06:26 PM

I obviously don't know for sure who is going to be better between the two small, skilled wingers but I without a doubt believe Pulkkinen will be the better player and the bigger need in a few years. Like, I've made clear many times, I really like Tatar and I would love to keep him, but if we are making a trade, to me, he is the most expendable forward. Yes, he just had a great rookie year, which should increase his value even more in a trade.

 

Pulkkinen has a better shot than any prospect we've had in a long time, probably ever, and we probably haven't had a weapon of a shot on our team since Brett Hull. I hate comparing prospects to retired greats, but you cannot deny the similarities in the two. They're both identical in size, 5'10, 195-200lbs. they both shoot right and have a cannon, hell, Pulk even goes down on one knee, when one-timing from the hash marks, the same way Hull did.

 

So isn't it obvious now that Pulkkinen will put up nearly 1400 points in the NHL the same way Hull did... :P

Seriously though, I really like this kids potential. :)

 

I like his potential too.  I like Tatar's goals even better.  Until Pulkkinen scores some NHL goals I'm not assuming anything on potential. 




#2530678 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 05:54 PM

To answer both of you...

 

1.  The Legwand trade should have shown everyone the danger of trading good talent for expiring contracts.  And free agency just showed us that lots of NHL players would rather not sign here.  So it would be stupid to trade a more valuable asset (Tatar) for a more questionable player (Green).  There's a real good chance you lose a real good roster player for nothing. 

 

2.  Until Teemu Pulkkinen scores a single NHL point, there's absolutely no reason to assume that he's got more value to the team, or a higher ceiling, than the guy who just scored 19 goals and 39 pts. in his rookie year.  There's also no reason to assume that Pulkkinen can replace his production.  Assuming so would be dangerous, regardless of what your gut feelings are, or your eyeball tests, or anything else.

 

If you're going to trade Tatar, get good value for him, or keep him.  He was one of the few bright spots that our team had a year ago and he's only going to improve off his rookie year.  Trade him as part of a package for a top four defenseman under contract, or a top six forward under contract, or don't trade him. 




#2530652 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 04:13 PM

Hell, sweeten the pot and give them Glendening or Andersson for the trouble and you might bring the price down a little more. 

 

Fact is, they'd be helping us out by trading us Green.  But we'll be helping them too.  He's expensive, his cost/benefit ratio is probably not better than their other top four defensemen, and they need forwards that they don't have money for.  If they can get a decent prospect or two and a pick OR a low end (cheap) roster player and a decent prospect, they'll be making out.  If they expect to get an up and coming roster player (Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco) or a top end prospect (Mantha, Sproul, Ouellet) they'ref****** nuts. 


 

Those would be fair. I could also see Pulkkinen + Jensen + 2nd/3rd.

 

I just wouldn't be that surprised to see Tatar traded either.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded either.  But if he was traded for Mike Green on an expiring contract then Ken Holland should be drawn, quartered, burned, buried, exhumed, drawn, quartered, and burned again for being af****** toolbox. 




#2530647 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 04:01 PM

 

I didn't even mention Mantha. That would be ridiculous.  I said Tatar or Pulkkinen plus Kndl(which is a dump and if anything has negative value) and a conditional pick on resigning.

 

I don't think that's out of line since I don't see us trading our 1st and we've got to give up something of value.

 

A decent prospect or two and a 2nd or 3rd round pick will likely get this done if two prospects and a first got Iginla as a rental.  Pulkkinen (or Backman) and either A) a 2nd round pick, or B) a 3rd plus Callahan or Ferraro, would get this deal done. 




#2530642 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 03:55 PM

i dont give a f*** what kind of points he can put up when he cant play defense. 

 

To be fair, literally half of our defense can NEITHER play defense NOR score points.  He's at least an improvement in that regard. 




#2530630 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 02:31 PM

Why O Why does everyone think that the starting point for every single trade on earth is a high end prospect or roster player with upside?  None of Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, or Mantha would go the other way in a trade for Green.  Good god, just look at every other deadline deal for guys who aren't superstars.  You ever see those kinds of roster players or prospects going the other way for a teams fourth defenseman?

 

Anaheim got ONE top prospect, a mid tier prospect, and a 1st for Bobby Ryan...and he was under (a very affordable) contract.  Mike Green will DEFINITELY not cost us more than that. 

 

Where do these relative values come from?




#2530590 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 11:54 AM

That's the big question you would ask regarding Green.  Would you rather have a guy whose not very good defensively for $6mil or take a chance on Sproul to start the season and then try to trade for Green should it be determined that Sproul need more seasoning?  Sproul would save $5mil approx for the trade deadline, whereas Green will bring us up to the cap once Deke and Tatar are re-signed.

 

I'll be ok if we get Green cause he'll help our PP, and if he's on with Ericsson then he'll have a stay at home guy to play with, but I'd still rather see Sproul.

 

This is just me being a fanboy.  But I'm always ok with the idea of "going with Sproul".  This kid is going to be the next Doughty.  He was an absolute steal.  Size, speed, shot, athleticism, smarts.  I legitimately think he'll be a better player than Mantha even, but that's just me. 

 

Anyway, back on topic.  Green would help, but I'd definitely not trade too much to get him.  AND it would be wise to dump salary where you could to offset the acquisition (Kindl and Andersson). 




#2530576 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 10:10 AM

Another thing about Green is, I'm not sure how bad he really is defensively.  I mean, I'm positive he's not going to be some stud shutdown defender.  But I always take reports about Washington players being "lazy" or "bad defensively" or "not a team player" with a grain of salt.  They've bred a culture of lazy, defensively irresponsible, play for years.  When guys go there, they play poor defense and are lackluster, and when they leave they play good hockey. 

 

I think part of the reason why they picked Trotz was to change all that.  Green has the skating and size to be a decent defender, not great...but decent.  Like Rafalski.  Could Green be that for someone other than Washington?  I don't know.  But I'm pretty positive he's never, in his entire career, been asked to be up to this point. 




#2530546 Article on FAs and Red Wings

Posted by kipwinger on 08 July 2014 - 08:37 AM

There are probably a lot of reasons why we didn't have any luck landing FAs this year, but I thought this was interesting.  A quote from Patrick Eaves about joining the Stars...

 

"He's got a real good thing going down there. I know they're a hard team to play against and yeah, they're making moves. They're going places and I want to be a part of it," Eaves said on Monday.

 

Seems like if you haven't been successful in the recent past, and you're doing things to address that, players pay attention.  I'm certainly not suggesting that you "do something just to do it" or that Patrick Eaves is the kind of FA you want.  But rather that guys want to win, and they recognize when a team is trending upward or downward. 




#2530394 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 07 July 2014 - 11:48 AM

I generally agree with you guys as far as trade values, but honestly, did anyone think Kenny would give up Jarnkrok and a 2nd for David Legwand on an expiring contract, or a 1st for Kyle Quincey? 

 

You really can't blame people for having strange views on trades, it's not like trading has been done competently in Detroit in a while.  People don't really have much to base their opinions on. 




#2530374 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 07 July 2014 - 10:42 AM

My OPINION is that currently Smith is better at his position than Tatar, that Smith has a higher ceiling than Tatar, and that Smith brings more of what we need on this team than Tatar...

 

Based on what?  What has he accomplished that is anything like a rookie forward coming in and scoring 39 points? I don't expect Smith to have THE SAME accomplishments, that's dumb.  But if he was as good, I'd expect him to have EQUIVALENT accomplishments, which he doesn't. 

 

Also, what does he bring that we need?  He's an offensive defenseman who doesn't play defense and doesn't score many points.  He had fewer hits than any defenseman other than Kindl, and he doesn't play special teams. 

 

You keep saying that he brings so much, or that he's better than Tatar.  Tell me what he did and what he brings to the team. 

 

I'm dying to know. 




#2530364 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 07 July 2014 - 09:57 AM

More points does not mean better. Datsyuk was quite a bit ahead of him in other areas.

 

Agreed.  But that doesn't take away from the fact that Tatar just did something REALLY impressive.  To move him now for a project defenseman would be silly. 

 

As I said, I'd move him as part of a package for an established player.  But not for a guy who's got as many holes in his game as Myers does. 


I agree Kip, it is definitely unfair to put Smith and Tatar in the same boat, they play completely different positions... You can't compare entering the NHL as a defenseman to a winger, it is MUCH harder to adapt to the best league in the world as a defender then it is as a winger, everybody knows that... don't they?

 

I think Smith is going to be a much better player in this league, and definitely a lot more valuable to his team in just a year or two from now. I like Tatar and I wouldn't give him away but I do think he is the most expendable on our team and would be a great starting point to any package deal. I just found it funny that you were upset that everyone was placing Tatar in all these trade scenarios, when you place Smith (the guy with the higher ceiling :P) in all the same type trade scenarios...

 

Smith doesn't have a higher ceiling.  I'm not sure where you got that.  Tatar is a Calder Cup MVP and Olympian, who just had a fantastic rookie year.  Smith has done nothing of note since not winning the Hobie Baker award in college. 

 

Why is his ceiling higher again?




#2530360 Hockey News: Red Wings D hunting

Posted by kipwinger on 07 July 2014 - 09:38 AM

In reality this is hardly a tough decision ask yourself this:

 

Would you trade Tatar, a first and a cap dump for a young Chara, Pronger ? Personally I would but everbody is different.

 

Chara and Pronger could both play defense.  Myers is HORRIBLE defensively.  He's also not even close to as physical as those guys.  God knows how much you like physicality and defensive responsibility.  You're mesmerized by his size and think that means we'll be tougher.  We won't.  He's not a tough guy.  He's tall and skinny.  And worse, he's got terrible lateral skating.  Dudes blow by him. 

 

I'd gladly trade Tatar for young Pronger.  Younger Pronger was big, strong, tough, defensively responsible, imposing, and chipped some offense.  Myers chips in offense...and that is all.  They are nothing alike. 

 

I'd also trade Tatar for Yandle...or Edler...or Bogosian or anybody who's an established player.  But I'm not willing to move him for a project...no matter how tall he is.