Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

[LeftWinger 5,065]

Again, no TO AA or Mantha unless you're getting a legit #1.

[Internet.Unknown 422]

To be honest, I was more impressed with AA than Larkin in the 2nd half of the season. His movements are extremely fluid and he seems to think of what he's going to do way ahead of time. Almost all his goals this year were "right place at the right time" or using his speed to his advantage and letting D-man bite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyvKkC03wYc

Those eyebrows.

[mackel 737]

I wouldn't trade AA under any realistic circumstance. I don't even think he's scratched the surface of how good he's going to be. You don't find that combination of size, speed, and skill often. And that's not even his strongest trait. He's a very smart kid. You can tell by the way he talks about the game. About getting better. He doesn't speak in idiotic sports tropes. He's actually thinking.

That's what, IMO, separates him from a guy like Smith (or maybe even Mantha). Listen to Brendan talk sometime. He's a bonehead. All the physical gifts in the world but he will never be as good as his talent will allow because he's a dumbass.

AA is going to be very, very, good in this league. I'm calling that right now. At the very least he will be Kesler good. But I genuinely don't think its a stretch for him to be as good as Seguin is now, or Spezza was in his prime.

This Rosie outlook aside he could but Setagouchi, Cheechoo, or Barker good. Which is to say he may be playing in Europe 2-3 years from now.

[Internet.Unknown 422]

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2016/8/15/12470206/brotherly-love-should-the-wings-trade-for-ryan-miller

😀 Pure talk, but I will say that about 2 years ago I said the Wings will get Miller to play with his brother and end his career at home backing up Mrazek. It'd be too funny if it happens!

I like to go back to the Bobby Ryan trade. If Holland had the balls to deal Jarnkrok back then and a Nyquist with high end potential we'd of had and still have a top line scorer on this team. He may be declining a bit, but he is still better than most of our wingers now.

I think Larkin slower down because he was forced to play in our enept system. At the beginning of the year he was a wild hare and just played hard to make the team. But as he slowly learned the system, his stats suffered.

The Wings didn't like Ryan's complete level in the playoffs. They decided he wasn't worth a trade because he wouldn't bring it when games matter most.

I'll have to disagree, but of course theres no way of knowing because its all speculation

Larkin, prior to the end of the past season, had never played 82 games in a season before. NCAA teams play roughly 40 games a year, at a decreased level of intensity. Add the travel schedule and pressure of the NHL, and its pretty easy to get winded at the halfway point of the season. I fully expect Larkin to be more consistent this season.

Many young players hit a wall in their first season in all four major sports. It is known.

[joesuffP 1,746]

Ya this board would hate Ryan if he played for the Wings. Franzen 2.0

[LeftWinger 5,065]

Sure are a lot of Franzen 2.0's out there...

...Wings don't like Howard's playoff performances either.

[kipwinger 8,675]

This Rosie outlook aside he could but Setagouchi, Cheechoo, or Barker good. Which is to say he may be playing in Europe 2-3 years from now.

So is your position that we should make a habit of trading good prospects because sometimes they don't pan out? If that's the case we should trade Larkin too, because he "could" turn into the next Cheechoo as well right?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

So is your position that we should make a habit of trading good prospects because sometimes they don't pan out? If that's the case we should trade Larkin too, because he "could" turn into the next Cheechoo as well right?

More of them never come close to their ceiling than hit it. You'd win 80-90% of the time

[kliq 3,763]

More of them never come close to their ceiling than hit it. You'd win 80-90% of the time

Every star player in the NHL today was a prospect at one time. If you trade every prospect you have you will end up with an old team with nothing in the minors and and no top top end talent. Teams aren't lining up to trade elite players for prospects unless they are close to being UFA's or unless the prospects are sure things.

Also I'd love to see your magic statistics that show how you win 80-90% of the time. You make it sound like you never see players get traded to a new team and flop.

With that being said, I am not saying I am against trading prospects, but I would only trade an AA or Mantha if the return was worth it. For example, a player like Trouba sounds like he's worth it. A player like Shattenkirk IMO is not worth it (due to being a UFA and the end of the season).

[kickazz 5,459]

Trouba would be worth it and Barrie too if he was available. Fowler and Shattenkirk probably aren't.

Not sure if I would give up AA though. Probably Mantha and Nyquist.

But Barrie >>>> Trouba. Barrie could be a 1D here. Trouba I actually don't know what he would be.

Regardless, it's a different comparison though, we're basically talking about swapping two high end prospects (Mantha for Trouba, although we would have to give another piece) which is still a better deal imo than Shattenkirk or any of the other older middle/bottom pair guys.

Edited August 16, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,675]

More of them never come close to their ceiling than hit it. You'd win 80-90% of the time

Nope. Because even if they only achieve 75% of their potential, if that turns out be be greater than the "established" player you got then you'd be behind. Neither Tatar nor Nyquist developed into reliable 70 point guys. But they're both reliable 40-50 point guys, which still make them better than a huge chunk of the league. If you'd traded either of them, and XO, for Bouwmeester (as you'd suggested) you would lose that trade. Not because Tatar or Nyquist reached their ceilings, but because they're more valuable to the team than Bouwmeester even at their current level of play.

[kipwinger 8,675]

Trouba isn't even the best d-man of the three. That's Shattenkirk, and there's a reason why he's being traded despite producing better than Pietrangelo since being traded to St. Louis.

Everybody is so bonkers for a defenseman they've dramatically overestimated these guys' values. St. Louis, Anaheim, and Winnipeg ALL have better defenses than us. None of them have won anything. And these are the three guys they're looking to get rid of (supposedly). There's a reason for that. None of them make us much better, if at all.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

A second pair D is more valuable than a small one dimensional 45 point winger

[kipwinger 8,675]

A second pair D is more valuable than a small one dimensional 45 point winger

Bouwmeester, since being traded, has scored 37, 13, and 19 points while being pretty good defensively. Pretty much everyone would consider him a second pairing defenseman. During that same span, Tatar has 39, 56, and 45 points. Nyquist has 48, 54, 43 points.

I'd trade all the 20 point defensemen in the world for those "small, one dimensional, 45 point wingers". And you can go ahead and laugh your way to a lottery pick.

At the end of the day, this game is about scoring goals, and they do. That's why they're more valuable than a second pair defenseman.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Beyond that, nobody said every prospect SHOULD be traded, or that a top prospect should be traded for a small upgrade. But that's where a GM needs to have an understanding of his own talent pool, so you know you can trade Fleischmann or Matthias but not Datsyuk or even a guy like Homer.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

Every star player in the NHL today was a prospect at one time. If you trade every prospect you have you will end up with an old team with nothing in the minors and and no top top end talent. Teams aren't lining up to trade elite players for prospects unless they are close to being UFA's or unless the prospects are sure things.

Also I'd love to see your magic statistics that show how you win 80-90% of the time. You make it sound like you never see players get traded to a new team and flop.

With that being said, I am not saying I am against trading prospects, but I would only trade an AA or Mantha if the return was worth it. For example, a player like Trouba sounds like he's worth it. A player like Shattenkirk IMO is not worth it (due to being a UFA and the end of the season).

What's your take on McCollum leaving for a shot with the Kings, I mean, He was a #1 draft pick and, Although we might have got our money's worth with him in the Griffins, we lost him for nothing, no trade, no draft pick, nothing at all. I'm sure he could have been packaged along someone else for a D prospect, ...or a bag of pucks at least.

Edited August 17, 2016 by NerveDamage

[kipwinger 8,675]

Beyond that, nobody said every prospect SHOULD be traded, or that a top prospect should be traded for a small upgrade. But that's where a GM needs to have an understanding of his own talent pool, so you know you can trade Fleischmann or Matthias but not Datsyuk or even a guy like Homer.

Which is exactly what we did. Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer. So what are you complaining about? You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management.

Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal. We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green). We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade. Which is EXACTLY my point. The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent.

[kliq 3,763]

What's your take on McCollum leaving for a shot with the Kings, I mean, He was a #1 draft pick and, Although we might have got our money's worth with him in the Griffins, we lost him for nothing, no trade, no draft pick, nothing at all. I'm sure he could have been packaged along someone else for a D prospect, ...or a bag of pucks at least.

Considering he was given a personal tryout (PTO) I dont think he had any trade value. If a team isnt willing to give him an actual contract I cant see them giving up assets from him. I don't know too much about McCollum, but based on where he was drafted he is either a bust, or he wasn't developed properly.

For the record, I'm not against trading prospects. In retrospect I wish we traded him. What I dont want it to trade prospects with high upside for middle of the road players or impending UFA's.

Edited August 17, 2016 by kliq

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Which is exactly what we did. Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer. So what are you complaining about? You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management.

Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal. We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green). We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade. Which is EXACTLY my point. The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent.

Lang scored 62 and 52 points in his two full seasons here, that's pretty good.

The issue I have with Holland is that he doesn't make those trades anymore. He could have traded any number of guys who never turned out to be as good as hoped to bring in players to improve the team, but won't.

[Andy Pred 48 337]

The problem with Holland is that he holds on to too many prospects without really knowing what he does have. If we had given the likes of Jarnkrok, Janmark et al a proper shot and run in the side we wouldn't be having this debate. Nestrasil had a look and the powers to be took a chance to wave him and lost him.

My opinion is that we should be giving Sproul Frk and Callahan and the likes i.e. guys who are on the fringe of making it, a proper look. If we feel that they aren't to the level required then expose them to waivers. What classes a proper look thou? 10 to 15 games? But then if they struggle it could impact the Wings in the standings. It's a difficult situ but that's why we have the front off guys, to hopefully make good calls and move the team forward.

[mackel 737]

Which is exactly what we did. Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer. So what are you complaining about? You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management.

Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal. We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green). We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade. Which is EXACTLY my point. The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent.

You're assuming....

1. That the wings would have drafted Mike Green.

2. That he would have developed in the same way in our system, which is unikely since he would likely not have made the NHL as early as he did in Washington.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Lang scored 62 and 52 points in his two full seasons here, that's pretty good.

The issue I have with Holland is that he doesn't make those trades anymore. He could have traded any number of guys who never turned out to be as good as hoped to bring in players to improve the team, but won't.

We're in a much different situation so he should run the team differently. We're rebuilding from the draft - essential to that strategy is drafting well and keeping your good draft picks. Not sure why anyone is surprised that we haven't made many trades. When someone brought up that we had us significantly less trades then everyone else for the past 5 years - I think that's because we're really the only team in the situation of doing a rebuild without tanking at some point. So we're more dependent on hoping prospects work out and so - as any gambler should - we keep many chances for the opportunity for success.

And as someone who has claimed that others are overvaluing prospects, I think you do the same when you claim that trading them can significantly improve the team. Other teams also know that proven talent is more valuable than potential. For instance, you mentioned trading Sproul as an OHLer and Nyquist as a AHLer - any trade that doesn't involve a 1st round pick, a high drafted prospect, or a roster player really isn't going to bring you in much from what I've seen. We have plenty of mid-level Dmen and forwards and I think that would be generous for what that trade suggestion would get you. And now, that's about the level Nyquist's at and Sproul could still surprise.

Edited August 17, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[NerveDamage 4,176]

per thehockeypress.ca

Source said Blue Jackets have been in contact with the Detroit Red Wings regarding Gustav Nyquist. CBJ are VERY interested in Nyquist. Jackets would have to give up AT LEAST a Top 4 Def. to acquire him.

Wondering who they'd be willing to give up.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

per thehockeypress.ca

Source said Blue Jackets have been in contact with the Detroit Red Wings regarding Gustav Nyquist. CBJ are VERY interested in Nyquist. Jackets would have to give up AT LEAST a Top 4 Def. to acquire him.

Wondering who they'd be willing to give up.

I would question the validity of that source. Since they don't even have one...

[LeftWinger 5,065]

Yeah,unless they are trying to offer us Jack Johnson. But not sure he is worth Nyquist.