Confirmed with Link: Petr Mrazek re-signed, 2 years 4m/year

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
It's about shiny new toys. The "cool fad" on HF boards right now is playing recent drafted kids over vets. It's the new "trend" around here. Give it 4 years, people will be down on Mrazek in favor of the new shiny toy.

Odds of us drafting a better goalie than Mrazek within the next 4 years is very, very low.

Shouldn't even be a priority for us, either. No need to waste high picks on it.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
I used to bat .375 with 40 HRs and 110 RBI. I now only bat .310 with 28 homers and 95 RBIs. I should be waived.
If that's the performance evaluation you give the current roster, then we're miles apart, and I'm not sure what to say. But you managed to imply that all forecasting is a coin flip, with no logic behind it, yet you're also implying that the current roster is still very capable of competing...which shouldn't be determinable if it's all a coin flip.
 

Chance on Chance

Registered User
Jul 15, 2009
2,851
0
Canada
Let me run a scenario by you.

Let's say that after signing his 5 year deal Howard continues to play at his pre-2013 level... meaning he's in the top 10, and typically well inside it, 75% of the time.

Now, let's talk about this young stud goaltender, Petr Mrazek. By 2014 he's up and is really showing something as a backup. By 2015 he's demonstrated he's a near lock for a starting job.

Detroit has an already top 10 goalie under contract for 2-3 more years and a stud young player bucking for a job. Is that a bad situation to have? Are you serious? Detroit can now either move the established Howard for a nice package and slide Mrazek up or they can move Mrazek for an even better package given his RFA status.

This is, as they say, good news.

The problem is, of course, that Howard got his deal and then flopped. The term was not only fine, it was directly in line with what all late RFA/UFA #1's get, all the time.

But the way Holland likes his depth he wouldnt trade one of them.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Any scenario where Holland makes a trade for a 'nice package' is pure fantasy. Homegrown NHL players only leave the Wings if they want to, Holland will never trade Howard or Mrazek - he lets the players make his decisions for him.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
It's about shiny new toys. The "cool fad" on HF boards right now is playing recent drafted kids over vets. It's the new "trend" around here. Give it 4 years, people will be down on Mrazek in favor of the new shiny toy.
This is (supposed to be, at least) a performance-based business. You play well, or you're gone, in favor of a better player. Your age, one way or the other, shouldn't matter more than your production. So if Mrazek hits the next gear, then run with him. If he's still struggling in a few years, find somebody else.

This "cool fad" you speak of is called accountability, and this franchise seems to have regressed in that area of late.
 

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
Any scenario where Holland makes a trade for a 'nice package' is pure fantasy. Homegrown NHL players only leave the Wings if they want to, Holland will never trade Howard or Mrazek - he lets the players make his decisions for him.

By all accounts he has tried to trade Howard. I don't know how hard, but reports are he's at least "kicked tires" on it.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
Odds of us drafting a better goalie than Mrazek within the next 4 years is very, very low.

Shouldn't even be a priority for us, either. No need to waste high picks on it.

Let me run a scenario by you.

Over the next 24 months Mrazek plays exactly as he has to this point. Rather well, not elite, but in the 10-12 range of goaltenders. During that time the team experiences limited or no playoff success, likely not wining a playoff round in either of the two years.

Mrazek, his bridge contract expiring, will have a single RFA year remaining (IIRC) and will essentially demand a long term deal functionally indistinguishable from a UFA contract.

During this time frame, Jake Patterson has a pair of solid to strong AHL campaigns during which he cleanly passes McCollum for the starting job by that second season, if not before.

I don't think that scenario is by any means assured, but I do think it is a very likely one. If something in the nearby vicinity of that happens, I can guarantee you that a non-insignificant percentage of people here will rather see Patterson get the callup and Mrazek either traded or given a one year qualifying offer. No long term deal.

Guarantee it. 'Better' goalie is only one component of how this always plays out. Along with 'newer' and 'cheaper' it really is only 1 leg of the tripod upon which people base their positions on this sort of thing.

Any scenario where Holland makes a trade for a 'nice package' is pure fantasy. Homegrown NHL players only leave the Wings if they want to, Holland will never trade Howard or Mrazek - he lets the players make his decisions for him.

Jakub Kindl says hi.

Apparently most of the general managers in the NHL just have luckier coins than Ken Holland.

Or they are flipping quarters (early picks) while Holland flips pennies (late picks).

But you managed to imply that all forecasting is a coin flip, with no logic behind it,

Incorrect. I am saying what we do here, as novices who dabble, is a coin flip with no logic or expertise behind it...

yet you're also implying that the current roster is still very capable of competing...which shouldn't be determinable if it's all a coin flip.

... and that the people to whom this is a career, who have access to vastly more information both personal and secondarily communicated, have a far greater wealth of both experience, expertise and substance from which to draw their own conclusions.

Hey, I get it. People love to style themselves as super-informed proto-GMs. Fantasy sports exists, in part, because of this inherent belief. It's just, you know, not at all true. Even when we are 'right' and they are 'wrong', while we are certainly free to think it's because we really know our stuff and those silly GMs are just dopes, it's not really that at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Let me run a scenario by you.

Over the next 24 months Mrazek plays exactly as he has to this point. Rather well, not elite, but in the 10-12 range of goaltenders. During that time the team experiences limited or no playoff success, likely not wining a playoff round in either of the two years.

Mrazek, his bridge contract expiring, will have a single RFA year remaining (IIRC) and will essentially demand a long term deal functionally indistinguishable from a UFA contract.

During this time frame, Jake Patterson has a pair of solid to strong AHL campaigns during which he cleanly passes McCollum for the starting job by that second season, if not before.

I don't think that scenario is by any means assured, but I do think it is a very likely one. If something in the nearby vicinity of that happens, I can guarantee you that a non-insignificant percentage of people here will rather see Patterson get the callup and Mrazek either traded or given a one year qualifying offer. No long term deal.

Guarantee it. 'Better' goalie is only one component of how this always plays out. Along with 'newer' and 'cheaper' it really is only 1 leg of the tripod upon which people base their positions on this sort of thing.

That is literally so unlikely, that I wouldn't worry for a second about it. Jake Paterson is so irrelevant as a prospect that you are confusing him with the other one. I would be surprised if he ever played a game in the NHL.

People on here seem to like Mrazek a great deal. They talk about him as part of our core. I am not really a fan of building around goalies, in general.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Let me run a scenario by you.

Over the next 24 months Mrazek plays exactly as he has to this point. Rather well, not elite, but in the 10-12 range of goaltenders. During that time the team experiences limited or no playoff success, likely not wining a playoff round in either of the two years.

Mrazek, his bridge contract expiring, will have a single RFA year remaining (IIRC) and will essentially demand a long term deal functionally indistinguishable from a UFA contract.

During this time frame, Jake Patterson has a pair of solid to strong AHL campaigns during which he cleanly passes McCollum for the starting job by that second season, if not before.

I don't think that scenario is by any means assured, but I do think it is a very likely one. If something in the nearby vicinity of that happens, I can guarantee you that a non-insignificant percentage of people here will rather see Patterson get the callup and Mrazek either traded or given a one year qualifying offer. No long term deal.

Guarantee it. 'Better' goalie is only one component of how this always plays out. Along with 'newer' and 'cheaper' it really is only 1 leg of the tripod upon which people base their positions on this sort of thing.
I fail to see the problem. In the above scenario, if Mrazek demands a huge deal, after continuing to be inconsistent, you ideally trade him, but at worst you let him walk, and sign Patterson.

You said yourself earlier in the thread that you don't tie up a huge amount of money in goaltending. So what's wrong with continuing to shuffle the average pieces around until you hit a home run?
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Incorrect. I am saying what we do here, as novices who dabble, is a coin flip with no logic or expertise behind it...



... and that the people to whom this is a career, who have access to vastly more information both personal and secondarily communicated, have a far greater wealth of both experience, expertise and substance from which to draw their own conclusions.

Hey, I get it. People love to style themselves as super-informed proto-GMs. Fantasy sports exists, in part, because of this inherent belief. It's just, you know, not at all true. Even when we are 'right' and they are 'wrong', while we are certainly free to think it's because we really know our stuff and those silly GMs are just dopes, it's not really that at all.
So an NHL general manager is untouchable?

The very fact that Holland has access to all that information that we do not, and that he has all that experience that we do not, AND CONTINUES TO MAKE BAD MOVES THAT RESULT IN THE CONTINUED DECLINE OF THE FRANCHISE, should make him anything BUT untouchable.

Or is the recent criticism, both on the part of the fans and the media around the league, simply because "they don't get it"? C'mon. Simply comparing Ken Holland to all the other NHL general managers, who are presumably in the same boat for access to information, shows that the guy is no longer as successful as he used to be.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,017
11,677
Guarantee it. 'Better' goalie is only one component of how this always plays out. Along with 'newer' and 'cheaper' it really is only 1 leg of the tripod upon which people base their positions on this sort of thing.

Why shouldn't age play a factor? Why shouldn't cost play a factor? We live in a salary cap world and players have a shelf life in the NHL, no matter how good they have been or could be. Those all have to be taken into account, and you are pushing them aside as if they are petty things to acknowledge when discussing who to go forward with at certain positions.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
He's no longer as successful as he used to be because he doesn't have one of the very best D men in history anymore. He doesn't have a young stud/s in the prime of his/their career.

The only piece that could have been actually acquired (with the knowledge that we have) at the stated price is Dion Phaneuf. All of the other pieces have undisclosed parts of the deal that were dealbreakers in terms of value. Those talks were reasonable and the Wings walked away because they didn't want to give up Mantha + 1st (Svech) + Smith for him. Everything else was the other team wanted more than the Wings final offer or the offer has been so nebulous (Bouwmeester, Myers, Shattenkirk) that you can't harp on it, really.

You can say "Oh, he's had 6 years, he should have found a way to do something" but when you think about it, the only drastic upgrades available have been...

Suter
Edler in 2012
Myers
Bouwmeester
Phaneuf
.
.
.
All other pieces would be ones that people would complain about immediately because their effect would be far less than their price and they'd simply be another "Ericsson" that we are dying to cut or buyout.

I'm not excusing Holland. The team needs to do a better job of analyzing talent and building with what is available... but the magic bullet that everyone wants is not there.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Why shouldn't age play a factor? Why shouldn't cost play a factor? We live in a salary cap world and players have a shelf life in the NHL, no matter how good they have been or could be. Those all have to be taken into account, and you are pushing them aside as if they are petty things to acknowledge when discussing who to go forward with at certain positions.

In this hypothetical, it would be a petty thing. 25 year old Mrazek getting 6-7M is always going to be preferable to whatever age Jake Paterson getting 3-4M. It's not insignificant when your option is 23-24 year old Mrazek and 32-33 year old Howard.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
*Will be the last I say about it.

That's partially what I'm saying, yes. However, there are extenuating circumstances as to why he isn't. And I figured I covered a little bit of the draft idea by saying I'm not giving him a pass, just that the magic bullet solution has not existed or it has been unreasonable/impossible to acquire through those ways.

They clearly had an opportunity at Barrie and Parayko and Gostisbehere. That speaks to them needing to up their scouting/drafting game. I guess I was saying that more the here and now solutions have not been very plentiful for Holland to even strike out on.

I'm fine to continue it, I think it's good discussion, just think it should be moved to an appropriate thread.

It's certainly not an easy thing, but opportunities are there for us as well. We have draft picks ever year. Honestly either Stralman or Niskanen in free agency would have been huge adds. Both guys could play 1RD on this team and provide a lot. I know we tried for Niskanen, that is encouraging IMO.
 
Last edited:

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
That's what long-term deals are, though. Value up front, bites in the rear at the end.

Sure, instead of signing Zetterberg to a 47 year deal we could have locked him up to a series of 4 year contracts, but that would have meant paying 1-2 mil a year more in each of those front-end deals. We could have gone 3-4 years on Abdelkader... but instead of a 4.25 hit over the whole term we'd have a 5+ cap hit in the first 4 years.

There are costs and benefits to either strategy, which is why I like to see a team mix in <=4 year deals with longer term deals like Detroit did... offering Green a 3 year, Nyquist 4, Glendening 4 and balancing that with Abdelkader out to 7, Nielsen and DK at 6, and Helm at 5.

that goes without saying, but are the negatives worth the positives? Deals like Zetterberg are an extreme we literally won't see again, but if a player isn't worth the extra million or two, is he worth keeping at all?

I agree about the balancing act, but it doesn't seem as if we're being too choosy about who gets those long term deals. Giving them to older guys who either didn't have high upsides to begin with and/or play games that seem to fall of a cliff rather quickly with age is taking a campfire and throwing cups of gasoline at it.
 

Run the Jewels

Make Detroit Great Again
Jun 22, 2006
13,819
1,751
In the Garage
Howard has advanced three times past the first round in his career. Mrazek hasn't won a playoff series yet.

Howard would have been a UFA had he not signed that deal. Three of the past four seasons leading up to that he posted a .920 save percentage or higher. If Howard hadn't hit the injury bug and been healthy the past few seasons we wouldn't care about Mrazek, because when Howard is healthy he's been better and more consistent than Pet right now.

It's pure lunacy. There's no way you give him 6 years @ $5.3 and a NMC that evolves to a modifiend NMC. You do that for a franchise player, not a guy who has never lived up to his projection and has never stolen a playoff series. There's a reason Holland is getting ripped to **** around the league and this contact is one of the many reasons why people think he's no longer a good general manager.
 

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
It's pure lunacy. There's no way you give him 6 years @ $5.3 and a NMC that evolves to a modifiend NMC. You do that for a franchise player, not a guy who has never lived up to his projection and has never stolen a playoff series. There's a reason Holland is getting ripped to **** around the league and this contact is one of the many reasons why people think he's no longer a good general manager.

$5 million is the going rate for a starting goaltender like Howard. It's only a bad contract now because he got injured numerous times and Mrazek took advantage of the opportunity. It's only a bad situation because Howard hasn't be able to get healthy, otherwise the obvious move would be to trade Mrazek.

The uncertainty around Howard is what's causing this issue in net. They're reluctant to trade Mrazek because they can't rely on Jimmy anymore. It happens, and thankfully the goaltending has been able to step up when there's an injury or someone hits a cold streak.
 

SpookyTsuki

Registered User
Dec 3, 2014
15,916
671
$5 million is the going rate for a starting goaltender like Howard. It's only a bad contract now because he got injured numerous times and Mrazek took advantage of the opportunity. It's only a bad situation because Howard hasn't be able to get healthy, otherwise the obvious move would be to trade Mrazek.

The uncertainty around Howard is what's causing this issue in net. They're reluctant to trade Mrazek because they can't rely on Jimmy anymore. It happens, and thankfully the goaltending has been able to step up when there's an injury or someone hits a cold streak.

Lol unless mrazek somehow goes for a top 3 pick you lose the trade automatically if you keep Howard
 

Dotter

THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Jul 2, 2014
8,439
2,880
Imprisonment, TN
goo.gl
Lol unless mrazek somehow goes for a top 3 pick you lose the trade automatically if you keep Howard

If Mrazek had a nice return, I'd trade him in a millisecond and roll with Howard. Fixes our cap problem and capable goalies are easier to get than top picks/dmen.

But I doubt Mrazek has/had good trade value.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Jimmy Howard never was, and never will be, an elite starting goaltender in the NHL. Both he and Mrazek have had ups and downs, but the ceiling on Howard has always been lower. He has never shown even flashes of the ability to steal a series, while Mrazek has.

Trading the long-term option now, while also handcuffing yourself to the inferior talent, makes no sense. Either Mrazek becomes the starter, or eventually both he and Howard are replaced, but, going forward, Jimmy Howard is no longer the answer in net, and is at best a change of pace until his contract runs out.
 

PetrPumpknEatr

Registered User
Mar 8, 2015
106
0
If Mrazek had a nice return, I'd trade him in a millisecond and roll with Howard. Fixes our cap problem and capable goalies are easier to get than top picks/dmen.

But I doubt Mrazek has/had good trade value.

Dotter I really don't understand your love for Jimmy Howard. He's not a bad goalie, but isn't really great. He has had ample opportunity to do something here. How long should a mediocre/average goalie remain our goaltender? How many chances should one person have? We have a younger/cheaper goalie who can do everything Howard can do and has way higher upside. That's pretty much all one has to say about it.

The only reason you want to "trade" Mrazek is because this is the only way Howard can still be starter on the team. Not really sure how this helps the team in any way though.

This emotional attachment some have for Howard is just beyond bizarre now.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Dotter I really don't understand your love for Jimmy Howard. He's not a bad goalie, but isn't really great. He has had ample opportunity to do something here. How long should a mediocre/average goalie remain our goaltender? How many chances should one person have? We have a younger/cheaper goalie who can do everything Howard can do and has way higher upside. That's pretty much all one has to say about it.

The only reason you want to "trade" Mrazek is because this is the only way Howard can still be starter on the team. Not really sure how this helps the team in any way though.

This emotional attachment some have for Howard is just beyond bizarre now.

What he's saying is Howard + Mrazek's return could be better than Mrazek - the cost of sending out Howard and that it is something to possibly consider.

If Mrazek lands a top ten pick (say this year and you got Juolevi or Sergachev on D), would that be a net gain? You could get a Gustavsson type backup since most goalies are pretty fungible assets and maybe your blue line isn't a complete dumpster fire, so you don't need an elite-type goalie like what Mrazek can be.

Basically, do you want the higher upside goalie or would you consider a deal where you swap him and get a higher upside D instead?

They are probably better off keeping Mrazek, but it is an option to consider.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->