Jump to content


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

kipwinger's Photo

kipwinger

Member Since 31 May 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 07:49 PM
***--

#2531012 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 10 July 2014 - 11:31 AM

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. 




#2531009 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 10 July 2014 - 11:16 AM

 

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. 




#2531004 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 10 July 2014 - 11:01 AM

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.




#2530985 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 10 July 2014 - 09:28 AM

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.




#2530945 Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 10:52 PM

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. 




#2530943 Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 10:41 PM

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. 




#2530941 Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 10:33 PM

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. 




#2530939 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 10:20 PM

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. 




#2530866 Kane & Toews Sign Identical 8-year, $10.5M AAV Extensions

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 03:19 PM

Kane's gonna get soooooooooooooo wasted tonight!  PARTY!!!! WOOOO!




#2530864 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 03:17 PM

I definitely don't think that Garrison is as good as Green, and Garrison is under contract, but the two scenarios would be similar in that they're both cap dumps of offensive defensemen in the 30-40 pts. range.  So starting with something similar is not a bad idea.  If Garrison was worth a second then Detroit should probably start with a 2nd plus a little more and go from there.  All this talk about starting with Tatar or Jurco is nuts. 




#2530858 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 02:57 PM

What did Garrison go for?  I'd start with a package that was just a little better than that and work my way up. 




#2530782 Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 11:30 AM

Lol I'm sure you must hate how well Pulkkinen is doing... :lol:

 

I'm still hoping Frk can turn things around this season. I think he will have another slow start but finally find his game half way through this season. I predict he finishes this season with around 50 points with the Griffs...

 

Not really, I'd prefer the team be good than me be right. 




#2530779 Red Wings Target Mike Green

Posted by kipwinger on 09 July 2014 - 11:21 AM

 

I want another Cup with Z and D. Jurco's, what, 21? It'll probably be a couple years before he breaks out, and that's if he breaks out at all. We'd all like to see him become the next Hossa or Lucic, but that's probably not happening any time soon if at all. Not that I'd necessarily move him for Green. But, Nyquist is arguably a 30-goal scorer right now, and Tatar is arguably right there with him. Jurco's less of a "sure thing." It's certainty we're after. Green is a known. He's proven. We need someone like him, this season.

 

We absolutely, positively, needed a top six center a year ago too.  We got one, for a cost that wasn't worth it, and the move did nothing to help the team.  We need to be wary about how far we're willing to go to fill a need.

 

I think Mike Green could help.  But I'd be wary about giving too much for him.  Because there's a thin line between need and want.  The Wings have managed quite well without a right shooting PP quarterback in the past, and if the cost is too high they need to be willing to do so again.  Missing out on FA has begun to turn the quest for a right defenseman into something messianic, and that worries me more than spending another down year letting the kids develop.  Hell we've got people clambering for Jurco and/or Tatar to get traded for an expiring contract because we need it so bad.  As if we don't need forwards with size, tenacity, and goal scoring potential, given that our current ones are getting old and injury prone. 




#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.