Off-Season Plan: Think like a Holland
- Thread starter Reddwit
- Start date
I'm 100% in for Jagr, if you're right about the potential term (I have no interest in him, or anyone, for more than 2 years, and I'd much prefer 1 year deals). It limits the potential damage, and I think he'd definitely be a net positive for some of the younger guys. Then again, I thought Nielsen could be a positive for Larkin.
For me, I assume Vanek will be back, regardless, on a multi-year deal. I'd be unsurprised to see Ott back. And, if we lose Howard or LTIR Kronwall or E, I wouldn't be surprised to see Wideman (or similar) signed.
Datsyukian Deke
The Captain is Home!!
I'll gladly give them both, either or and their awful contracts off our books would be nothing but a plus.
I saw somewhere that Vegas might take Sheahan even, so between any of the 3, they are welcome to it.
I don't want Vanek. He represents a continuation of the idea that the team can just keep driving down the road it's on, and he has, demonstrably, no trade value whatsoever. But if the idea is to "think like Holland", then it's hard to say he's an unlikely signing, no? Jagr represents similar reasoning, though at least I think his term would be shorter.
Last edited:
Jagr wouldn't prevent us from tanking and he'd be a great mentor for some of the young guys. Wouldn't mind him.
HIFE
Registered User
It's a funny time acknowledging it makes no difference if Holland contracts some veterans on short term deals or not. The "mentorship" reasoning is getting a little stale though. Z, Kronwall, Abdelkader, Helm, Nielsen, Green, etc. how much supposed leadership do the younger players need anyways? Just bring back Cleary for practices and to hang in the lockeroom. 
Ricelund
̶W̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶
It's a funny time acknowledging it makes no difference if Holland contracts some veterans on short term deals or not. The "mentorship" reasoning is getting a little stale though. Z, Kronwall, Abdelkader, Helm, Nielsen, Green, etc. how much supposed leadership do the younger players need anyways? Just bring back Cleary for practices and to hang in the lockeroom.
I think there's a large difference between what Jagr could teach Mantha, and what Helm/Abbie can.
I don't disagree that veteran 'leadership' is a largely meaningless phrase on a team full of mediocre veterans (and it's an idiotic excuse for keeping those players around until they retire), but that doesn't mean that there's no value in bringing in a guy if he has something to teach (and is willing to teach it) to a guy we hope will be a franchise cornerstone.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
Without raise a, assuming a 73cap and we sing sheahan what's our cap space look like?
I think after resigning everyone AND losing sheahan we will have at best 3-4 million to spare
Nobody can or will be traded
None of the worthwhile free agents will sign here (no chance Holland repeats last summer)
I think after resigning everyone AND losing sheahan we will have at best 3-4 million to spare
Nobody can or will be traded
None of the worthwhile free agents will sign here (no chance Holland repeats last summer)
I agree with a lot of that, but I don't get trading back - if the Wings, a team that desperately needs talent, don't see anyone available worth taking at their pick, why would anyone else give up something of value to face the same problem? I guess all it takes is one team that really, really likes a guy, but it seems like there's pretty wide consensus on player values, this year.
Sounds about right, all for that plan.
If there's not a center or D to our liking available at ~7 I'm all for trading back a few spots if a team is really interested in a particular winger. I just don't want to trade back past 15.
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,040
- 8,790
I hear what you're saying, but Arizona liked Chychrun so much more than Detroit did, that they made that trade last summer, so it does happen. And in a draft where picks 5 through 25 are largely a preference, it wouldn't surprise me to see some weird trades on draft day.
But ideally, a guy they love is still on the board at their initial draft spot, they nab him, he becomes an impact player, and we all cheer.
IMHO, you can't really talk about trading back without knowing who exactly is left on the board. Talking about it in the abstract is not all that productive.
Yea, but I'm open to it in the right situation just like in the article. I'm not saying we should or definitely shouldn't at this time.
aar000n
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2006
- 9,937
- 784
Peter Tosh
Registered User
- Dec 19, 2007
- 726
- 291
I like most of what's in the article. Although, I'd bring Vanek and Ott back and let Svech stay in GR. Jaromir Jagr is always welcome and could fill the third RW spot if Vanek doesn't want to come back.
In Holland thinking, I expect Helm and Abdelkader to be back. I expect Nick Jensen to be Las Vegas pick.
aar000n
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2006
- 9,937
- 784
My exact list as well. These guys are the veteran clearance aisle the Wings will be shopping this summer.
I didn't assign value to any players, you indicted the whole draft class.
All I said was I wouldn't be mad if the situation were right and we traded back a few picks. What's the problem here?
Syckle78
Registered User
Ryan miller will stay out west. Actress wife or something like that. Not that we're going to move either of our goalies anyway. Jagr seems likely as he doesn't seem to care about playing for a contender. Will be interesting to see if he takes a final lap in Pittsburgh though as they have mended some fences this past year. Montreal may over pay him if they flame out in the playoffs,they need offensive help and don't have much movable assets to acquire anyone big. Would be a mistake for any contender though jags has been toast in the spring the last handful of years. The long season is too much for even the ageless one.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Kentucky Oaks (Gr. 1) - USA NetworkWagers: 6Staked: $1,140.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-