Armchair GM III: No more stinky deadline rentals

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Trading DD for anyone but Shattenkirk or a younger great dmen is a mistake.

I would rather trade Kronwall. He doesnt deserve the right to retire here unlike Dats and Z. But idk what his trade value is now

He's probably going to.

 

[ap3x]

Da **** is this nonsense?!?

Didn't you know? You're only allowed to retire here when still being a valid #1-Dman at the age of 35. Previous performances don't count.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Da **** is this nonsense?!?

why should he? Nobody needs a reason to get traded. So what is Kronners reason for being a wing for life? Being in the top 4 most of his carrer?




Yeah Cyborg I know he wont. Same with Abby and probably miller (though that one doesn't hurt like at all)

 

[aFish]

why should he? Nobody needs a reason to get traded. So what is Kronners reason for being a wing for life? Being in the top 4 most of his carrer?

Yeah Cyborg I know he wont. Same with Abby and probably miller (though that one doesn't hurt like at all)

Well he's currently 4th all time for DRW defenseman scoring.
He's been a reliable #1 defenseman for us since Nick retired.
He's won championships.
Has provided some of the biggest hits you'll likely ever see.
He's given the DRW 12 years (and counting) of his blood sweat and tears.
He's one of the leaders in the DRW dressing room, and has been for some time.

Oh but, because he's regressing in his age 35 season, he doesn't DESERVE the right to retire as a DRW, and we should ship him out. GTFOH, that's ridiculous.

 

[Frk It]

I would rather trade Kronwall. He doesnt deserve the right to retire here unlike Dats and Z. But idk what his trade value is now

What?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

oh boy, trading kronner?

no

we should not, but we should look to trade ericsson, one of nyquist or tatar, helm, kindl, and howard and do so all over the next 18 months max

our core can be very good if we make some proper moves and we could set ourselves up to win a cup within the next few years if we do this right

 

[FireBird71]

why should he? Nobody needs a reason to get traded. So what is Kronners reason for being a wing for life? Being in the top 4 most of his carrer?




Yeah Cyborg I know he wont. Same with Abby and probably miller (though that one doesn't hurt like at all)

The no trade clause is a good reason

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Trading DD for anyone but Shattenkirk or a younger great dmen is a mistake.

I would rather trade Kronwall. He doesnt deserve the right to retire here unlike Dats and Z. But idk what his trade value is now

Well yeah good luck trying to trade Kronwall, Because it will never happen. Holland is to loyal to him.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Blashill is not the subject of this thread. This thread is dedicated to the roster, whether or not it needs to be improved and what moves could theoretically be made to improve the roster. If you want to discuss the coaching staff, find another outlet or start a thread about it.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

See, the reason why the offense is dry as a bone is because we don't have a guy other than Green to outlet the puck through the neutral zone. Our transition game is terrible and our zone exits and entries are heavily depended upon by our forwards, which is bad for a good team. Shattenkirk would help everyone exponentially. It is our biggest hole.

Dekeyser-Shattenkirk
Kronwall-Green
Smith-Marchenko/Quincey

That would be incredible

This is a simplistic and very incomplete description of our offensive ills. While another good puck moving defensemen certainly won't hurt us offensively, I think you are overstating the impact of acquiring such a defensemen on our offensive production. Our lack of transition offense is a function of collapsing forwards into the slot to block shots (which is a function of the shorter neutral zone). Our forwards have a longer way to go to get out ahead of the play and our defensemen simply don't have the time to let them do so before passing the puck. This is why you see fewer outlet passes across the blue line and into the neutral zone (it is also the reason that it looks like our forwards are always skating the puck out of our zone). This is not something unique to Detroit either. Collapsing forwards also seems to cause us to regain possession of the puck slightly higher in our own zone, which largely takes the defensemen out of the transition equation. I agree that it would be nice to have another defensemen who could consistently gain the offensive zone. Then again, if a defensemen is gaining the offensive zone, the defensive team most likely has numbers behind the puck.

Our bigger issue offensively is our inability to consistently get the puck to the low slot. We are the definition of a perimeter team in the offensive zone. We go very long stretches without attacking the middle of the ice.

 

[Frk It]

This is a simplistic and very incomplete description of our offensive ills. While another good puck moving defensemen certainly won't hurt us offensively, I think you are overstating the impact of acquiring such a defensemen on our offensive production. Our lack of transition offense is a function of collapsing forwards into the slot to block shots (which is a function of the shorter neutral zone). Our forwards have a longer way to go to get out ahead of the play and our defensemen simply don't have the time to let them do so before passing the puck. This is why you see fewer outlet passes across the blue line and into the neutral zone (it is also the reason that it looks like our forwards are always skating the puck out of our zone). This is not something unique to Detroit either. Collapsing forwards also seems to cause us to regain possession of the puck slightly higher in our own zone, which largely takes the defensemen out of the transition equation. I agree that it would be nice to have another defensemen who could consistently gain the offensive zone. Then again, if a defensemen is gaining the offensive zone, the defensive team most likely has numbers behind the puck.

Our bigger issue offensively is our inability to consistently get the puck to the low slot. We are the definition of a perimeter team in the offensive zone. We go very long stretches without attacking the middle of the ice.

Appreciate your take on the offensive woes.

What do you think the remedy is? Acquire a player with the physical gifts to more consistently attack the middle of the ice? Emphasize it more with the current guys we have?

Is it just something we settle for (perimeter play), or we do have the means to do things differently?

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

This is a simplistic and very incomplete description of our offensive ills. While another good puck moving defensemen certainly won't hurt us offensively, I think you are overstating the impact of acquiring such a defensemen on our offensive production. Our lack of transition offense is a function of collapsing forwards into the slot to block shots (which is a function of the shorter neutral zone). Our forwards have a longer way to go to get out ahead of the play and our defensemen simply don't have the time to let them do so before passing the puck. This is why you see fewer outlet passes across the blue line and into the neutral zone (it is also the reason that it looks like our forwards are always skating the puck out of our zone). This is not something unique to Detroit either. Collapsing forwards also seems to cause us to regain possession of the puck slightly higher in our own zone, which largely takes the defensemen out of the transition equation. I agree that it would be nice to have another defensemen who could consistently gain the offensive zone. Then again, if a defensemen is gaining the offensive zone, the defensive team most likely has numbers behind the puck.

Our bigger issue offensively is our inability to consistently get the puck to the low slot. We are the definition of a perimeter team in the offensive zone. We go very long stretches without attacking the middle of the ice.

There's a reason for that, and it's been evident since Lidstrom and Rafalski retired. Our defensemen do not have the capabilities to stretch the ice out to make long, necessary outlet passes. When that happens, it causes coaches to have to re-adapt their game plan. A good comparison is Laviolette in Philadelphia. When Pronger was forced to retire, when Kimmo got older and regressed, and when Carle was exposed because he wasn't playing with hall of fame calibre defensemen anymore, Philadelphia imploded. Because Lavi's coaching is so dependent on the long outlet pass, which is why we've seen so much success in Nashville. Because the team is loaded with guys who can move pucks between all three zones. If we can get a Kevin Shattenkirk or a Dustin Byfuglien, it'd allow Blashill to utilize the game plan he was trying to adapt in October, when it was clearly failing because Quincey, Ericsson, Kronwall, et all were just turning the puck over left and right in the neutral zone.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Appreciate your take on the offensive woes.

What do you think the remedy is? Acquire a player with the physical gifts to more consistently attack the middle of the ice? Emphasize it more with the current guys we have?

Is it just something we settle for (perimeter play), or we do have the means to do things differently?

I am not sure I have too many answers. I do think we need one more big, skilled forward that can make plays with the puck. Few are willing to admit it, but the loss of Franzen really, really hurts us. Maybe Mantha will be that guy down the road. I also think some of our existing players just need to work much harder than they are. We seem to stagnate a lot once we get the puck in the offensive zone. I haven't seen this team consistently cycle the puck in a very, very long time. All three of our forwards need to be moving more. It is really, really easy to defend a player that doesn't move, especially a smaller player that doesn't move. Our current power play illustrates this nicely. We should also probably admit that our best forwards can't do as much as they once could.

Anyways, solutions are always harder to find than problems. I agree that we need a true, number one defensemen. That isn't, however, the only move we need to make.

 

[FissionFire]

Well unless the Wings are trading roster players back at the deadline for rentals, I can't see us having the cap room to add anyone. The team we have now is most likely the team we will see in the playoffs.

 

[odin1981]

This year not withstanding I do hope we stop flushing down top 3 round picks the toilet for old guys who cannot make it through the playoffs for some false hope of rounding up "depth" to get us past the first round.

We need top 3 round picks to draft d-men that have likely top 4 upside. Also to find at least a top 6 center in addition to Larkin. If we continue wasting assets when Dats retires and Z regresses to a top 9 winger/center we are really gonna be hurting.

This year we should just see what we have come playoff time. Hopefully we can unload 1 non vital player to get back a 2nd or third rounder we lost from the cole and zidlicky deals last year. If the younger generation cannot propel our regressing core to at least the 2nd round or better we need the picks more than false hope.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Well he's currently 4th all time for DRW defenseman scoring.
He's been a reliable #1 defenseman for us since Nick retired.
He's won championships.
Has provided some of the biggest hits you'll likely ever see.
He's given the DRW 12 years (and counting) of his blood sweat and tears.
He's one of the leaders in the DRW dressing room, and has been for some time.

Oh but, because he's regressing in his age 35 season, he doesn't DESERVE the right to retire as a DRW, and we should ship him out. GTFOH, that's ridiculous.

I wouldn't care if he scored 100 points in 50 games. Regressing has nothing to do with it.

Those last 3 things are pretty ridiculous to keep a guy until he retires. Miller should retire here i guess. same with cleary. He has a locker room voice! John scott should retire with the coyotes, he can hit

You can make a case for the scoring. and maybe being a reliable dmen for the wings since lidstrom retired. Just because Kronwall won a cup doesnt mean he should stay here forever, maybe if he was a top dman. But i'm pretty sure he was like #4 or #5
that's like giving manny legace a carrer in detroit forever

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Well unless the Wings are trading roster players back at the deadline for rentals, I can't see us having the cap room to add anyone. The team we have now is most likely the team we will see in the playoffs.

Come on down Gus Nyquist!

 

[The Zermanator]

Posted this on trade forum, sums up my thoughts on why I would pay big (Nyquist/Tatar + DeKeyser) for Shattenkirk by the deadline.

Get him signed, then he's not a rental. Pay him market value, whatever that is. 7-7.5M? I'd say he's worth that on this team. Getting him now gives the Wings the ability to negotiate a year before anyone else. A lot could happen next season, players can get injured or have bad years. I think the security of getting a deal signed appeals to a lot of players. And Wings could offer 1 more year than anyone else as well. Worst case scenario, get something for his rights at next season's deadline. But I don't think it comes to that. He'll get an opportunity to have one of the most important roles on the team and lead the defense. On a (mostly) young team with more great players coming up, and with a legend on the team. And a goalie who plays like a champ. Lots of attractive reasons to play in Detroit.

My position is that rather than think of what it should cost and whine that it never happens, think of what gets it done and just do that. Nyquist and DeKeyser is a steep price to pay, for sure. But Shattenkirk is a valuable return. Our defense is objectively better with him even without DeKeyser. The only concern is what will be lost from Nyquist up front. Keep in mind the points difference between Shattenkirk and DeKeyser would eat up a big chunk of that. Otherwise, try to patch it up from within. We've got a lot of scorers coming up (Mantha/Athanasiou/Svechnikov/etc.) but no real hope on defense. A move is necessary.

Thoughts?

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Posted this on trade forum, sums up my thoughts on why I would pay big (Nyquist/Tatar + DeKeyser) for Shattenkirk by the deadline.



Thoughts?

Like I said on the trade forum. If you can get Shattenkirk you do it. Even if you have to trade Danny D.

Shattenkirk is that #1 dman Detroit needs. Last year he had 7 points or something in 7 playoff games. Maybe more points actually. Hes a monster.

Getting another Danny D is easier then getting a shattenkirk

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Posted this on trade forum, sums up my thoughts on why I would pay big (Nyquist/Tatar + DeKeyser) for Shattenkirk by the deadline.



Thoughts?

yes you make that trade though you certainly hope it costs a little less

nyquist plus svechnikov plus a 1st

if we do not ever go after an elite #1 dman then we will never ever ever win again

you have to have that lidstrom, keith, doughty, chara in order to win at the very east

 

[aFish]

I wouldn't care if he scored 100 points in 50 games. Regressing has nothing to do with it.

Those last 3 things are pretty ridiculous to keep a guy until he retires. Miller should retire here i guess. same with cleary. He has a locker room voice! John scott should retire with the coyotes, he can hit

You can make a case for the scoring. and maybe being a reliable dmen for the wings since lidstrom retired. Just because Kronwall won a cup doesnt mean he should stay here forever, maybe if he was a top dman. But i'm pretty sure he was like #4 or #5
that's like giving manny legace a carrer in detroit forever

My issue is not that we shouldn't trade Kronner. Hell if we can get good value for him and it makes our team better long term, I'm all for trading Kronwall.

My issue is you claiming he DOESN'T DESERVE to retire as a DRW.

Unlike Miller and Cleary, Nick was drafted and developed by the Wings, and has played his entire career for one organization, ours. He's also done so at a very high level.

The John Scott comment is just plain dumb, so I wont even touch it.

Honestly, if you can't make the distinction between what players like Miller, Cleary, Legace meant to the DRW organization as compared to Kronwall, then there's really no point in further discussing this with you.

 

[SimplySolace]

Like I said on the trade forum. If you can get Shattenkirk you do it. Even if you have to trade Danny D.

Shattenkirk is that #1 dman Detroit needs. Last year he had 7 points or something in 7 playoff games. Maybe more points actually. Hes a monster.

Getting another Danny D is easier then getting a shattenkirk

There is absolutely no "even if you need to trade Danny D". That's the definition of 2 steps forward, one step back. Shattenkirk would excel with DDK and we should look to have that as a top pairing.

Either way you look at it, there's no chance KH trades DDK.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

My issue is not that we shouldn't trade Kronner. Hell if we can get good value for him and it makes our team better long term, I'm all for trading Kronwall.

My issue is you claiming he DOESN'T DESERVE to retire as a DRW.

Unlike Miller and Cleary, Nick was drafted and developed by the Wings, and has played his entire career for one organization, ours. He's also done so at a very high level.

The John Scott comment is just plain dumb, so I wont even touch it.

Honestly, if you can't make the distinction between what players like Miller, Cleary, Legace meant to the DRW organization as compared to Kronwall, then there's really no point in further discussing this with you.

Thats mostly the point im trying to make. I know you can get something good out of Kronner. Just dont see why Holland wants to hold on to him forever. He probably never even had a thought about it.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

There is absolutely no "even if you need to trade Danny D". That's the definition of 2 steps forward, one step back. Shattenkirk would excel with DDK and we should look to have that as a top pairing.

Either way you look at it, there's no chance KH trades DDK.

Yes, If i were the gm I would look into trading other players, Like Svechnikov was one of them, I mentioned Sheahan but Danny D is probably the only way we would be able to get Shattenkirk.

Shattenkirk > Danny D is the way I see it. He would instantly make this team better. Probably clear up the production we lost.

 

[Electric Eric]

Posted this on trade forum, sums up my thoughts on why I would pay big (Nyquist/Tatar + DeKeyser) for Shattenkirk by the deadline.



Thoughts?

IF it was the ONLY way we could get Shattenkirk I would trade DDK. I would give up nearly anything else before that though. I think the FO sees DDK as a future part of the core though. Plus the whole MI narrative they're going with.

Nyquist, 1st (if he resigns, if not 3rd) round pick, 1 of Ouellet/Svech/Jensen