Confirmed with Link: Wings Trade Datsyuk and 16 to Arizona for Vitale, #20 and #53

[Bench]

It's an A+ trade.

There's absolutely no way to know that yet.

 

[obey86]

Risks that are centered around building a new core with Larkin and Mrazek. Not risks that put a handcuffing mega deal on top of no foundation.

If Stamkos at age 26 is somehow too old to be part of the core with Larkin and Mrazek, then you have unrealistic expectations. Signing Stamkos would have made him part of the "new core with Larkin and Mrazek" silly.

 

[vladdy16]

There's absolutely no way to know that yet.

oh sorry.

at this point, it's an A+ trade.

Believe it or not, GM's, agents and players frequently collaborate in the NHL, and this is as clear example of a win/win/win as you can get.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Well, all the Holland naysayers said they wanted Holland to be more aggressive and take more risks right? lol

Oh wait, you guys only want him to take risks that work out 100% of the time. I forgot.

But on the other hand, I think it's right to be upset with Holland. He had a grand plan to save the franchise, but it was, in reality, a risky and unlikely move. Now that it's failed, we should be able to point out that there's no real plan B here. "Save the franchise" has become "don't crash and burn... yet." Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

But the fact that there's no realistic Plan B is where Holland gets the criticism. If your team picture is such that only a superstar that comes at no asset cost can save you, it's time to rethink what you're doing. It's sort of like saying your budgeting plans involve waiting for a $100 bill to fall out of somebody's pocket and snatching it up. If you don't have other assets, it's time to find a way to get money. $100 for free is a nice dream, but most of us get by with careful planning for the future and going where the money is.

(In this metaphor, Ken Holland is the unemployed guy scouring the streets for $100 bills to make ends meet.)

 

[vladdy16]

If Stamkos at age 26 is somehow too old to be part of the core with Larkin and Mrazek, then you have unrealistic expectations. Signing Stamkos would have made him part of the "new core with Larkin and Mrazek" silly.

the risk with Stamkos was whether or not he's a center or a winger. That's a significantly smaller risk with TB's roster, than it is with ours at ~10mil.

 

[Claypool]

Even if Stamkos was already signed before the draft I still do this trade every time.

 

[vladdy16]

But on the other hand, I think it's right to be upset with Holland. He had a grand plan to save the franchise, but it was, in reality, a risky and unlikely move. Now that it's failed, we should be able to point out that there's no real plan B here. "Save the franchise" has become "don't crash and burn... yet." Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

But the fact that there's no realistic Plan B is where Holland gets the criticism. If your team picture is such that only a superstar that comes at no asset cost can save you, it's time to rethink what you're doing. It's sort of like saying your budgeting plans involve waiting for a $100 bill to fall out of somebody's pocket and snatching it up.

I agree with Claypool. Plan B, is having cap $ to spend on an incredibly deep FA pool. It's still important/valuable to have that space even with Stamkos gone.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The start of the season is still months away and we're already talking about how Holland failed miserably?

Never change, hfboards.

 

[Bench]

oh sorry.

at this point, it's an A+ trade.

Believe it or not, GM's, agents and players frequently collaborate in the NHL, and this is as clear example of a win/win/win as you can get.

And if the Wings sign Frans Nielsen with that cap space while the two defenders taken at #16 and #17 end up better than our guy, then what? Still A+?

The entire basis for this trade was Stamkos. He's out. It's not looking nearly as good now unless by some amazing happenstance the Wings got the best defender of the 3.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

I agree with Claypool. Plan B, is having cap $ to spend on an incredibly deep FA pool. It's still important/valuable to have that space even with Stamkos gone.

Is it, though? I guess I have to ask: valuable for what? If you mean making the playoffs this next season, I'll concede that's true. But if you mean improving roster value in the long term, I'm not so sure. Those guys are going to want north of 5.5 mil. Okposo likely wants north of 6 mil. That's a lot for a complimentary piece, and you're likely surrendering a ton of years in the deal. All for what? A few more years on the streak? Will it even matter to anybody in the end whether it was 25 or 26 or 27 years? It'll be hockey trivia, only good for those bar games. The only thing that matters is another cup.

Like I said in my other post, needing UFAs to win is a bit like needing to find money on the ground to pay your bills. The smart way is to make your own money. (For the purposes of this analogy, you make money by drafting and developing well.)

 

[obey86]

But on the other hand, I think it's right to be upset with Holland. He had a grand plan to save the franchise, but it was, in reality, a risky and unlikely move. Now that it's failed, we should be able to point out that there's no real plan B here. "Save the franchise" has become "don't crash and burn... yet." Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

But the fact that there's no realistic Plan B is where Holland gets the criticism. If your team picture is such that only a superstar that comes at no asset cost can save you, it's time to rethink what you're doing. It's sort of like saying your budgeting plans involve waiting for a $100 bill to fall out of somebody's pocket and snatching it up.

Funny enough, this same logic applies to tanking for high draft picks:

No realistic plan B other than tanking and hoping you are lucky enough to A) get a top pick in the lottery and B) be in the proper year where there is an Eichel or Crosby type player available and C) that player is not taken by another team before you pick.

It's sort of like putting yourself into debt on purpose by buying thousands of dollars in lottery tickets (purposely losing for multiple years on end) and then waiting to win the $5 million jackpot (be lucky enough to draft a superstar or two).

 

[Shaman464]

Even if Stamkos was already signed before the draft I still do this trade every time.

Why? The cap space now is a moot point, no matter who they sign with it, it's unlikely to get them beyond their perpetual fodder state. The trade proved none of the pundits knew what the actual value of taking Datsyuk was, so we won't know what it would have cost Holland to sit on his hands until after July 1st. And as for the extra second, he could have still traded down, likely still had his guy on the board and gotten a better return in terms of extra picks, based on past value and what actually happened.

Basically, Holland made this trade because he was sure of himself in having a shot a stammer, and now he has cap space that he will likely misuse and make this trade from a win to a loss.

 

[Claypool]

And if the Wings sign Frans Nielsen with that cap space while the two defenders taken at #16 and #17 end up better than our guy, then what? Still A+?

You can't argue for your GM to take risks then complain when they don't work out. Imagine if he had moved Datsyuk's contract along with AA instead of moving back four picks? You'd be even more upset. Holland rolled the dice to go after Stamkos. Didn't work out. You move on.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Funny enough, this same logic applies to tanking for high draft picks:

No realistic plan B other than tanking and hoping you are lucky enough to A) get a top pick in the lottery and B) be in the proper year where there is an Eichel or Crosby type player available and C) that player is not taken by another team before you pick.

It's sort of like putting yourself into debt on purpose by buying thousands of dollars in lottery tickets (purposely losing for multiple years on end) and then waiting to win the $5 million jackpot (be lucky enough to draft a superstar or two).

I don't think that's a very accurate analogy. After all, non-superstars tend to have asset value as well, and sometimes quite a lot. I swear, you guys act like teams need superstars or they're just worthless. But if you look around the league, tons of teams have built great cores without those tip top guys. Anze Kopitar went 11th. Any team would be a ton better with him around. You just need to draft well.

The problem is the Wings are short on both superstars and productive non-superstars. That's not a hole you can fill this way, no matter what Ken Holland says to the media. They're bailing water on a sinking ship.

 

[Ezekial]

Even if Stamkos was already signed before the draft I still do this trade every time.

From a GM standpoint I agree, but hindsight and that want to tank clouds judgement for people. Very few gms in the league that don't make that deal - and those gms would have to be in much worse shape than the wings.

 

[Ezekial]

I agree with Claypool. Plan B, is having cap $ to spend on an incredibly deep FA pool. It's still important/valuable to have that space even with Stamkos gone.

But a lot of these FAs are older, especially centers, and locking them up for a remotely long time could end terribly.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

From a GM standpoint I agree, but hindsight and that want to tank clouds judgement for people. Very few gms in the league that don't make that deal - and those gms would have to be in much worse shape than the wings.

My suspicion here is that this was misdirection in a certain sense. Holland used the desire for Stamkos to make this a popular move. Everybody was on board for Stamkos, but they might not have been on board otherwise. But in reality, he wasn't tall that optimistic about landing him. He just wanted the cap space so he could continue doing business as usual. If he landed Stamkos, great. If he didn't, he would still have a ton of money to play with, but making that trade becomes Stamkos' fault and not his. It's a win/win if you're Ken Holland.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The entire basis for this trade was Stamkos. He's out. It's not looking nearly as good now unless by some amazing happenstance the Wings got the best defender of the 3.

There's a real possibility that the trade down would have happened even if Datsyuk wasn't part of the equation. Arizona was obviously higher on Chychrun than us. It would have taken a little more from their part than the 3rd rounder we got, but Holland is known for trading down.

I can not understand why people think Chychrun is this super amazing slam-dunk prospect and we 'gave him up' because we wanted to chase Stamkos?

* Prospect that the Wings are not high on
* Team able to take Datsyuk's contract IS high on him

1+1

If our scouts were as high on Chychrun as they were on Larkin, no way that trade happens.

 

[obey86]

I don't think that's a very accurate analogy. After all, non-superstars tend to have asset value as well, and sometimes quite a lot. I swear, you guys act like teams need superstars or they're just worthless. But if you look around the league, tons of teams have built great cores without those tip top guys. Anze Kopitar went 11th. Any team would be a ton better with him around. You just need to draft well.

The problem is the Wings are short on both superstars and productive non-superstars. That's not a hole you can fill this way, no matter what Ken Holland says to the media. They're bailing water on a sinking ship.

Your Anze Kopitar statement is exactly why I'm ok with going the way the Wings are going now and hoping to hit another few Larkins or Mrazeks with our mid round picks, rather than tanking.

Signing Stamkos would not have prevented the Wings from also getting a Kopitar caliber player with the picks they have now. That's why getting stamkos (for free, outside of money) was so enticing.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Your Anze Kopitar statement is exactly why I'm ok with going the way the Wings are going now and hoping to hit another few Larkins or Mrazeks with our mid round picks, rather than tanking.

Signing Stamkos would not have prevented the Wings from also getting a Kopitar caliber player with the picks they have now. That's why getting stamkos (for free, outside of money) was so enticing.

You don't think you're more likely to get a Kopitar with picks 6-14 than with picks 15 and beyond? That line of thinking is bizarre to me. I mean, we saw it happen in this very draft. We saw guys who are very likely to do well get sucked up well before pick 16.

I mean, it might be that you get a good guy once or twice, but if you're picking in the single digits for a few years, you will have multiple shots at even better players than that. Essentially, you'd have to overperform to land a great player at 15, but you'd have to underperform at 6-10 not to.

and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the goal is not just to land one good player, but as many as you can. I think the choice is absolutely clear: you want the highest draft pick possible. I don't see how still being a playoff team would do nearly as well.

 

[vladdy16]

Like I say, I think the FA pool is deep enough to find value contracts there. I know some of you have lost faith in Holland, which is fine/fair, but you can't expect him to fire himself, things are moving forward. It's not really a valid argument to say it's a bad move to clear cap space because you don't trust the GM to use the space well.

And maybe my position seems overly optimistic, but in my mind, it stems from the opposite. Things are perilous as hell in the NHL. If you're not proactive, you're risking years, decades of struggle. That $7mil, if it went unused, put our young players at a heightened risk of turning sour, and I'm relieved that we have the opportunity to keep moving forward after stabilizing in the wake of the Babcock era.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I still like this deal regardless of Stamkos.

We will see what they do. They cannot offer-sheet though with the Sadowy trade or we could do something really bad to Winnipeg right now...

 

[Pavels Dog]

Y
and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the goal is not just to land one good player, but as many as you can.

This is why I don't understand how so many can be unhappy that we got Cholowski+Hronek instead of only Chychrun. We got two d-men with very high upside instead of one guy that has questionable upside.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

This is why I don't understand how so many can be unhappy that we got Cholowski+Hronek instead of only Chychrun. We got two d-men with very high upside instead of one guy that has questionable upside.

Two medium good kicks at the can are not necessarily as desirable as one very good kick at the can. They're trying to say that they don't think Chychrun actually has questionable upside.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Two medium good kicks at the can are not necessarily as desirable as one very good kick at the can. They're trying to say that they don't think Chychrun actually has questionable upside.

Chychrun fell for a reason. A guy that is physically almost NHL ready doesn't fall to #16 if there isn't something that teams are concerned about. Not when D-men are so valuable. The draft is enough of a crapshoot to make me feel like I'd rather take 2 lottery tickets instead of 1 lottery ticket that the guy on the corner is saying is "a winner!".

Chychrun isn't Ekblad or Hedman or Hanifin. He isn't a sure thing.