Jump to content


Dabura's Photo

Dabura

Member Since 27 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Today, 08:31 AM

So here's my thoughts on stuff, non-rush job edition.

 

If I offered you $1,000,000 today OR $0.01 today, doubling each day for 30 days... Which would you take?... 95% of LGWers take the million up front, I'm just glad Holland would take the penny...

 

Holland wouldn't make any combination of a deal there. Sure, making that deal makes us better today, but we take a huge hit in the future...

 

My point is that Holland wouldn't necessarily choose the penny. That is to say, he's not categorically opposed to trading high-end assets. If moving Smith, Pulkkinen, and a first-round pick could get him the right player, he'd do it. In recent years, the main stumbling block has been our system's sheer lack of young, desirable assets, the kind of players that teams would want in return for their big-name players. But now we have a wealth of young talent, far more than we're ever going to be able to fit on the roster. I mean, look at our D situation: we've got Ouellet, Marchenko, Sproul, Jensen, (Almqvist), (Backman), Marshall, and Hicketts in the pipeline, and we have to assume that Kronwall, Ericsson, and DeKeyser are in it for the long haul and that Quincey will either be extended or replaced with a free agent pickup. And, further, let's assume Smith doesn't get traded. That leaves...one roster spot, and the #7 role. Point being, assets will have to be moved. And it's the same kind of deal with the forward corps. So, if a trade is inevitable, why not sell high on a couple pieces and get what we really need right now, which is an elite defenseman who can score 50+ points and elevate this team to "powerhouse" status.

 

Three months ago, I might've said we should wait until next year to make a big move. But this team has exceeded my expectations and is performing about as well as it possibly can without that elite defenseman. And with Eastern Conference supremacy being up for grabs (if the Isles win the East becaue they landed Boychuk and Leddy, I will s*** bricks), and, again, Datsyuk and Zetterberg (and Kronwall) having only so many postseason runs left in them, and with things being so crazy that Don Maloney has come out and said that every Coyote not named Shane Doan is available...I don't really get how someone could say, "Pulkkinen, Smith, and a 1st for Yandle? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Sure, we might win a Cup, but at what cost?!" Like, again - Quincey and a couple months of Legwand cost us two first-round picks and one of our better prospects. And if we want to talk about prospering in the present but suffering in the future, Suter and Parise would've been the ultimate Cup-or-bust signings. You think two or three good pieces for Yandle is insane? Parise and Suter would've made it very, very, very hard to hold on to all of Nyquist, Tatar, DeKeyser, Sheahan, et al. past their first or second contracts. We would've been handcuffed for years.

 

But, at the end of the day, the Cup is everything. You're either rebuilding/retooling, or you're scraping and clawing for the Cup. If there's a chance Holland can get a top-pairing defenseman at a price he can live with, he needs to consider it. And I've no doubt that he is, in fact, making calls and weighing his options.


In Topic: Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Today, 12:34 AM

Did you miss the part where I said "I'll give all the credit in the world to Holland and his team for great drafting and development"?

 

But yes, I would say that our current success on many levels boils down to luck, though by my definition, on many levels, you make your own luck. We help our chances of getting lucky by having good drafting and more importantly, good development. But if we're being reasonable, we have to admit that the kids are playing a lot better than what could reasonably have been expected of them. It wasn't expected that they'd be this good, not just by outsiders, but even internally in many cases. Hence, why Holland has tried so hard for some time now to change the look of this team in the off-season.

 

Again, my point is that if Holland had accomplished some of the things he's set out to do the last few years, this team would not look like they do right now. This team is not part of Holland's master plan. When Holland has been successful at accomplishing more to directly shape the look of this team lately, it has not gone well at all. I'm not trying to s*** on him, and again, all credit in the world to he and his team when it comes to drafting and development, but I'm not about to start praising him after five years of his continually dropping the ball in free agency.

 

If anyone's truly lucky, it's him. Had these kids not turned out as well as they seem to be, which was absolutely a very real possibility, this team would be in a lot of trouble. And to be fair, even our current luck with the kids is a tenuous situation; we've seen guys start out great and disappear before.

 

If the team flounders again in the playoffs and some of our kids don't get off to such a great start next year, will you still be so peachy on the whole situation? I don't think so. I'm not saying I want that or even think it's going to happen, and if you've followed any of my posts this year, you'd know I'm pretty high on this team right now and optimistic about the future. But I've been around long enough to know that when it comes to young players, a lot can change in a short time.

 

I should apologize. I had a really hectic day and life has been kicking my ass lately. Which is to say: 1) my responses were rush jobs (at least by my standards), and 2) if there's an undercurrent of pissiness, it's not directed at you (or anyone, for that matter).

 

I'll be posting a non-discourteous, more Dabura-like take.


In Topic: Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Yesterday, 08:28 PM

Word on the street is every Coyote not named Shane Doan can be had, if the price is right.

 

http://www.thescore....nhl/news/690924


In Topic: Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

Yesterday, 01:21 PM

The thing is, where most fans and even a lot of GM's look at what will benefit the team this season, Ken Holland is looking at this season, as well as 5+ years from now.

 

Ken Holland traded a first-round pick for Kyle Quincey.

 

Ken Holland threw crazy money at Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. Had we signed them, "5+ years from now" wouldn't have been a thing anymore. We would've spent the duration of those enormous contracts living year-to-year, selling off young, homegrown assets when they became too expensive to hold on to. (Not necessarily saying it wouldn't have been worth it. Just saying.)

 

Ken Holland traded one of our better prospects and a second-round pick for a rental so that we could limp into the playoffs and keep The Streak alive.

 

Ken Holland courted Stephane Robidas, who was injured at the time and, as he's failed to establish himself as a regular on the Maple Leafs' blue line, is pretty clearly washed up.

 

Ken Holland has pursued Rick Nash, Alex Edler, Jarome Iginla, and probably every other big name under the sun. Eventually, we're going to land one of those big names. Because, at some point, you have to. We added Rafalski in the summer of '07 and Stuart in February of '08. The Kings added Williams and Richards and Carter, and then Gaborik. The Blackhawks added Sharp and Oduya and Hossa.

 

That's half the reason why you stockpile assets in the first place - so that you can trade them. You don't wait to see how each and every one of your promising prospects pans out. If you have your seven D slots filled, and you've got as many as five really good D prospects in the pipeline, and you're a Keith Yandle away from being a Cup favorite, and Keith Yandle is - for the first time ever - known to be available, and you have three more years left with Datsyuk...do you really say, "Well, we have to think about 5+ years from now"? I mean, sure, of course the future's a consideration. But, um, I'm personally not willing to wait 3-to-5 years to see if one of our prospects (at least two of whom inevitably won't be Red Wings, if only because we're not going to have enough room) becomes as good and valuable as Yandle is right now. Our blue line doesn't move the puck well enough and doesn't produce enough offense. Smith isn't producing. Ouellet doesn't have Yandle's offensive upside. Marchenko is a shutdown defenseman. Sproul is a couple years away from being a regular, never mind an impact player. You're telling me we can't afford to part with any of these players, even if we're getting a top-pairing defenseman who can score 50 points for the scoring-challenged Coyotes?

 

We need a Rafalski, and we need him while Datsyuk and Zetterberg are still dominant players. We're going to have to give to get him. If we're going to wait to see if one of our prospects becomes a Rafalski, we're taking a bigger risk than the one we'd be taking if we acquired that player. Because, we don't know where we're going to be 5+ years from now (though, we do know Datsyuk will be gone and Zetterberg will be a shell of the player we have today and Nyquist and Tatar and DeKeyser will be making serious money). I'm not saying we should trade one of our untouchables. I'm assuming we can add a Yandle without having to part with one of our crown jewels. Which is one of the perks of having a ton of assets. You can afford to part with a couple pieces. Pulkkinen isn't a key roster player for us right now, nor is Jurco, nor is Smith, nor is Ouellet, nor is Marchenko, nor is Sproul, nor is the pimple-faced 18-year-old we'd draft with our mid-to-late first-round pick. Remove two or three of these pieces and we're still a contender, and our future is still extremely bright, especially with a top-end defenseman in the prime of his career being added to the fold.

 

We're contenders. Datsyuk and Zetterberg and Kronwall and Nyquist and Tatar and Sheahan and DeKeyser have all avoided major injury this season. The Eastern Conference crown has never been so up-for-grabs. We should make a push. Why say, "Well, it's great that we're contenders, but what about 5+ years from now?" Well...maybe we're contenders 5+ years from now. But...we're contenders...right now...? I'm not talking about selling the farm. I'm talking about moving a D prospect plus Pulkkinen/Jurco. If that's completely out of the question, then we're never going to make a meaningful trade and this team is never going to reach its full potential. We draft and develop well, but not well enough that we can say, "Y'know what, let's try to win with an entirely homegrown roster." Why would we make that a thing? Even if it's possible, it's certainly not realistic. Every Cup-winning team that has ever been has needed some outside help.


In Topic: Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

29 January 2015 - 11:23 PM

Except with hockey prospects the money may or may not double on any given day. Take that option and you might end up with $50k instead.

 

Well said. The nice thing about instant gratification - versus what I guess I'll call faithful patience - is that there's an element of certainty. $1,000,000 is $1,000,000, you can have it now, simple. The penny? There's absolutely no guarantee it's ever going to climb anywhere close to $1,000,000. In fact, the odds are very much against that happening.