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.
legwand was put into babcock's doghouse after completely misusing him once the wings started getting bodies back
i don't think that would be the case with green.
Look, you may be right. I'm certainly not saying it couldn't happen. But after free agency I'm a bit hesitant to just assume guys want to sign here.
And that doesn't even address whether or not WE want to resign him. Say you do give up a top young player for him, at that point you almost have to re-sign him, regardless of the season he's had or whether one of your young guys is tearing it up. What if you give up Tatar or Jurco and Green struggles while Sproul has a MASSIVE season in GR. Do you let him walk? If so, you've lost a future top six winger for nothing. If you keep him, you're blocking another young guy with another ineffective vet, and you tie up money that could be used elsewhere.
In any case, these are all reasons why it's not a good idea to give up good young roster players for guys on expiring contracts. Hence, you almost NEVER see anybody do it.
the difference is that the wings clearly didn't want to keep legwand.. green, given the state of our d, would likely be a different story.
Not necessarily, given all the talk about "stop gaps" leading up to FA it's not hard to argue that Detroit doesn't intend to keep whoever they acquire around for very long. That's the whole point of a stop gap.
What should Tatar or jurco be traded for? Stamkos? Trading Tatar for a guy like green makes sense and is a fair trade, like it or not.
A top 4 D isn't peanuts. Fans have a highly inflated value of the Wings' prospects and young players. Tatar is a good young scoring winger, more like Kozlov than Datsyuk. Mantha hasn't played a game of pro hockey but people are acting like he's Brendan Shanahan part 2.
A top four defenseman under contract? Sure. I'd trade almost any of our young guns in a package for Yandle. He's that good AND under contract. But losing a guy as good as Jurco or Tatar for a rental is dumb. How much developmental time and resources go into each prospect? A lot. And the absolute best you can hope for is that they turn into top six forwards or top four defenseman. In Tatar, Nyquist, and Jurco, your best case scenario has come true...and it's DEFINITELY not good value to throw that away for a guy who (if recent history is any indication) isn't going to help you compete for a Cup and probably isn't going to re-sign with your team at the end of the year.
I was amazed how gritty he was for an average sized high scoring European winger. He had a level of intensity that you couldn't help but notice all the time. Haven't seen much of him as of late but doesn't sound like it's working.
Not so far, but he did finish a little stronger at the end of last season. Then again, he was completely buried in the depth chart too so it's not like he's had a chance to play much.
Everything I saw of Frk after the draft was impressive. Stellar international play mostly. I personally think he has what it takes to regain form. But it's not looking great for him at the moment.
Like I said, it really seems to be a matter of fundamentals. A lot of guys on good teams get away with bad habits in juniors. And even when they come up to the AHL their skating makes up for their lack of positioning. His just doesn't, so he gets exposed. But I agree, he's not done. He's just got to learn the right way to play hockey now.
To be honest, I'm not sure if Frk's ever going to get his positioning together, but I do think he can fit into a niche if he puts in the proper off-season work. I agree that he benefited from his teammates, and his skating and lackluster two-way play hurt him. I still think he's going to have a better season than last - although, I do believe that he's going to have to impress Blashill right off the bat to get minutes.
If I'm Frk, I bust my hide in the gym and turn into a puck hound. He's still got that wicked shot, but I think he's the kind of guy who'd be smart to become a "piano puller" on a line - dig for pucks in the corner, get in front of the net, etc. He's never going to be the catalyst on a line, but I think he could be a good complimentary piece/PP guy.
I agree. I always thought that in the best case scenario he'd model his game off of Vanek. He's not the greatest skater in the world either, but he's got a good shot, is sturdy down around the crease, and is a physically strong guy who's not afraid of contact.
I don't know if it's too late for Frk to be a poor man's Vanek, but that's probably the guy I see in him the most.
I think it's kind of funny that we have one thread blasting Holland for his lack of moves and "we like our team" mentality, and here we have everyone making a commotion about how they couldn't bear to see us lose ANY of our up and coming young players in an actual move.
I don't think anybody is saying that all the young guys are untouchable. But rather that they shouldn't be traded for peanuts. Which should be obvious, except that it isn't to some folks.