If You Could Choose

[Oddbob]

If you had the choice between the following options, and had to pick one, which one would you choose,

Option 1:

Wings Trade:

Mike Green
Tomas Tatar and/or Gustav Nyquist
Luke Glendening
Xavier Ouellet

Option 2:

Wings Trade:

Danny Dekeyser
Justin Abdelkader
Jonathan Ericsson
Frans Nielsen

For me, obviously the first option would be a much better return in talent and picks, which is great. However, the second one is kind of appealing to me, because we unload 4 of our worst contracts, and the potential chance to try with better replacements than those 4.

This is really just for fun, and it is ok if you would choose neither or 1 or 2, but if you have to pick, which one do you choose?

Click to read more...

 

[Shaman464]

Option 1 for sure. I say keep the bad contracts because it ties Holland's hands from trying to spend his way out of a rebuild. The last thing this team needs is to spend 2-3 years as a bubble team again, and I could see Holland spending the farm on Karlsson and a forward and that being enough to return this team to bubble status.

 

[Redder Winger]

Dump Green and the bad contracts.

I don't trade Tatar/Nyquist/Glendening unless there's a killer offer.

 

[Fil Larkmanthanasiou]

They were all worth so much more 3 years ago before Blashill became coach. Their contracts don't help either.

 

[kliq]

Option 4 kind of kills the poll, it's just the obvious choice.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I think option 4 is a silly "have it both ways" option that defeats the discussion, honestly.

Option 1 for me. If we have to give up bad contracts we possibly have to add extras to make it happen, and we are not in the position to give up draft picks to clear up cap space. Let the contracts die off on their own and start repairing slowly.

 

[Winger98]

Yeah, I'm just ignoring the fourth option. If we're not having to package assets with players to facilitate a move, and we re-sign Green, I'd probably lean towards trading the second group. I like the financial wiggle room it would give us, and I think it would also tank us faster and harder. This is assuming we re-sign Green from the first group, though. I don't want to just let him walk as a UFA.

 

[Henkka]

Option 1 for sure. I say keep the bad contracts because it ties Holland's hands from trying to spend his way out of a rebuild. The last thing this team needs is to spend 2-3 years as a bubble team again, and I could see Holland spending the farm on Karlsson and a forward and that being enough to return this team to bubble status.

How can Holland spend money on the free agency, if his GM contract will end before the 2018 free agency?

 

[Hen Kolland]

I tend to lean towards building a team through cost controlled assets, so I would go with Option 1. It stocks you up with young players that will be cheap and controllable AND it keeps you strapped for cap space in the meantime so you aren't able to invest in players that cause more of the same problems. Option 2, with Ken Holland in control, is a dangerous path where you end up with contract situations like Frans Nielsen, ironically the problem that you are running from in the first place.

Dump Green and the bad contracts.

I don't trade Tatar/Nyquist/Glendening unless there's a killer offer.

Yes, Nyquist/Tatar are solid players on reasonable contracts, but the organization is completely bare when it comes to elite level talent. If there isn't a high end player to facilitate Nyquist or Tatar, they will never achieve their max on-ice value, but that doesn't mean the value isn't there for someone...it just doesn't exist for the Wings. So find a team that can maximize their value and pick up a future asset that you can use to obtain that elite level player(s) and then pull in those Nyquist/Tatar-caliber players around them.

 

[njx9]

2 + Green, or 1 only. You have to trade the best piece you have who isn't young enough to possibly contribute to the next winning team in Detroit.

Beyond that, I guess I don't really care, though I suppose I'm partial to keeping as much bad short-term salary on the books as possible, so that Holland doesn't just replace Nielsen/Abby with another Nielsen/Abby.

 

[MikeyDee]

I'll take option 1 only minus Glendening. I like the fact that he doesn't make much, but yet plays well enough to be a 4th line center. Plus, he steps it up during the playoffs--providing grit and a defensive match-up to the other teams star player.

 

[hyduK]

Option 1. We're no where near competing anyways, we need high picks way more. We can trade the guys in the 2nd group in the years to come, some of their contracts will expire, etc.

 

[Go Wings]

Easily option 1. The odds of moving any of the people in option 2 with the kind of money and term they have left is low.

 

[Winger98]

I think option 4 is a silly "have it both ways" option that defeats the discussion, honestly.

Option 1 for me. If we have to give up bad contracts we possibly have to add extras to make it happen, and we are not in the position to give up draft picks to clear up cap space. Let the contracts die off on their own and start repairing slowly.

It looks like half the discussion is an unshakable fear of giving Holland any cap room whatsoever.

 

[lilidk]

Dump Green and the bad contracts.

I don't trade Tatar/Nyquist/Glendening unless there's a killer offer.

i 'd add Nielson to this list too

 

[Shaman464]

How can Holland spend money on the free agency, if his GM contract will end before the 2018 free agency?

I’d ball park it that it’s 50-75% chance Holland is coming back. It’s 100% on him if he wants to or not. So until I hear him say he’s retiring I’m not assuming he’s gone.

 

[Redder Winger]

No offense, to anyone who chose #1 over #4.
But you can't be serious.

 

[Hen Kolland]

No offense, to anyone who chose #1 over #4.
But you can't be serious.

I think it has more to do with people playing along with the hypothetical spelled out by the OP, rather than applying a different set of rules. Picking within the guidelines of "if you had to pick 1 or 2" is where the debate of "what option is best" exists. It's obvious to most of us that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle, but that wasn't really the point and it kills all discussion.

 

[Redder Winger]

I think it has more to do with people playing along with the hypothetical spelled out by the OP, rather than applying a different set of rules. Picking within the guidelines of "if you had to pick 1 or 2" is where the debate of "what option is best" exists. It's obvious to most of us that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle, but that wasn't really the point and it kills all discussion.

I thought the same kind of thing. And then I saw the option to choose something that makes the most sense.
Since we're talking fairies and unicorns, might as well go all out.

 

[PelagicJoe]

I took option two, even though it will never happen. Ericsson is close to retirement, so he isn't going anywhere.
I wouldn't miss DDK at all.