Can we finally admit that the Datsyuk trade was a complete train wreck?

[Pavels Dog]

I've never complained about Seider or Hronek as Hakan Andersson has a very strong track record. Gabe Vilardi is starting to come on for the Kings. He's currently 0.5 PPG over a very small sample size. Our NA scouting was terrible. Yzerman obviously wasn't impressed, it's the simplest explanation for why he revamped that entire unit as soon as he was hired.

Seriously with some lottery luck we could have:

Byfield
Larkin
Vilardi
Veleno

Hughes - Seider
Chychrun - Hronek

That's how you rebuild quickly. This is going to take longer since we did so poorly with our best draft picks over the past few years. I'm glad we addressed our biggeset organizational weakness.

Now you bring other picks into the mix, muddling the argument.

Overall though what you’re saying can always be said, no team gets a 100% optimal return on like 6-7 drafts in a row.

With some lottery luck we could have:

Byfield+Zadina
Larkin
Rasmussen
Veleno

Seider-Hronek
McIsaac-Lindstrom/Cholowski/Johansson/etc

I just don’t see the massive difference in quality.

 

[TCNorthstars]

Can we all finally admit that this thread didn't go how Retire91 thought it would?

 

[ArmChairGM89]

Can we all finally admit that this thread didn't go how Retire91 thought it would?

Lol true true. But I’m sure he’s happy with the 7 pages of dialogue. Not much to talk about . . . until April 9th!

 

[Retire91]

I'm fine with how it went. I heard from a lot of people that see value in the Datsyuk trade. I still personally don't. I don't see it as we should've drafted player X here or player Y there though. I agree with others that kinda hind sight happens with every team. I see it as we gave up our pick where we could have taken BPA just to clear cap space to sign a horrible contract. As far as Hronek we had plenty of excess project players or rentals to trade off to get the Hronek pick. He didn't need to trade away our first round pick. I still see this as a trade that hurt us then and now.

Totally at peace with anyone that doesn't agree.

 

[JohanFranzenstein]

End of the day, we cleared up cap to try to make a run at Stamkos. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but it makes no difference now.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Josi instead of McCollum and we rebuild on the fly. Hindsight drafting is 20/20 and any moron can do it, including me

I'm glad Kenny left, because I don't think Stevie could have fired the scouting staff if Kenny was still around.

I'm focusing on top 10 picks because those are the ones that when you get them wrong they set you back. And we got a whole bunch of top 10 picks wrong. At least we corrected that problem by cleaning house in our NA scouting staff.

 

[Gniwder]

I'm focusing on top 10 picks because those are the ones that when you get them wrong they set you back. And we got a whole bunch of top 10 picks wrong. At least we corrected that problem by cleaning house in our NA scouting staff.

By whole bunch, you mean 2? Or are you going all the way back to Marty LaPointe?

 

[kliq]

I'm fine with how it went. I heard from a lot of people that see value in the Datsyuk trade. I still personally don't. I don't see it as we should've drafted player X here or player Y there though. I agree with others that kinda hind sight happens with every team. I see it as we gave up our pick where we could have taken BPA just to clear cap space to sign a horrible contract. As far as Hronek we had plenty of excess project players or rentals to trade off to get the Hronek pick. He didn't need to trade away our first round pick. I still see this as a trade that hurt us then and now.

Totally at peace with anyone that doesn't agree.

Your issue isn’t with the trade. I think this post shows that. The disconnect between yourself and the Wings at the time is that you differ on who BPA was. The Wings didn’t believe Chychrun was the BPA, you did. This is why the Wings traded the pick because they figured they could dump cap, gain a pick, and still pick the player they wanted. For you, they gave up the better player in order to dump cap space and gain a second rounder.

long story short, your actual issue is that they viewed Chychrun as low as they did.

 

[Retire91]

Your issue isn’t with the trade. I think this post shows that. The disconnect between yourself and the Wings at the time is that you differ on who BPA was. The Wings didn’t believe Chychrun was the BPA, you did. This is why the Wings traded the pick because they figured they could dump cap, gain a pick, and still pick the player they wanted. For you, they gave up the better player in order to dump cap space and gain a second rounder.

long story short, your actual issue is that they viewed Chychrun as low as they did.

I don't know that I believe that though. If I wanted to trade down to stop gap my way to another wild card chance I would certainly have my PR firm say that the guy that all sources agreed was BPA was not our organization's BPA. I totally get what you are saying though. If it's believed cholo was our BPA anyway then it is truly a dynamite trade.

I just have trouble beveling that an organization with multiple seasons of stop gap management suddenly saw something the entire hockey world didn't in cholo and saw a no risk opportunity to benefit. That story worked for a few seasons but now that we are seeing Cholo's actual development curve I think the jury is in and the real story was the priority was clearing the cap space at BPA expense.

I am not completely dismissing that there is a chance you are right and it was cholo all along I just think its some crafty narrative control to hide how bad the move was.

 

[kliq]

I don't know that I believe that though. If I wanted to trade down to stop gap my way to another wild card chance I would certainly have my PR firm say that the guy that all sources agreed was BPA was not our organization's BPA. I totally get what you are saying though. If it's believed cholo was our BPA anyway then it is truly a dynamite trade.

I just have trouble beveling that an organization with multiple seasons of stop gap management suddenly saw something the entire hockey world didn't in cholo and saw a no risk opportunity to benefit. That story worked for a few seasons but now that we are seeing Cholo's actual development curve I think the jury is in and the real story was the priority was clearing the cap space at BPA expense.

I am not completely dismissing that there is a chance you are right and it was cholo all along I just think its some crafty narrative control to hide how bad the move was.

If they are lying about thinking that Chowolski was the BPA, then I see your point. If they are telling the truth, like you said its a dynamic trade. We'll never know for sure though unless Holland or Wright come out and say something to the contrary which will never happen.

 

[Retire91]

If they are lying about thinking that Chowolski was the BPA, then I see your point. If they are telling the truth, like you said its a dynamic trade. We'll never know for sure though unless Holland or Wright come out and say something to the contrary which will never happen.

I think I can come around, if we will truly never know we might as well look on the positive side. I also hope Cholowski can put it together, heck if he outperforms Chychurn in the long run then we can print this thread and burn it. I just have some mental blocks maintaining that attitude haha but I see the logic.

Edit: also while I am here I just wanted to post, I never meant this to be a discussion about pure redrafting. Who we took with what pick truly is hind sight exercises. I am talking about a pick we moved we actually traded down and gave up our opportunity to draft 16. I know I know potato patato but I just wanted to add that disclaimer this is not who we coulda shoulda woulda picked wiht a pick we had, its about us giving up a higher pick if that makes sense.

And I know, but Hronek, but consider we could have got a second in other ways.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I think I can come around, if we will truly never know we might as well look on the positive side. I also hope Cholowski can put it together, heck if he outperforms Chychurn in the long run then we can print this thread and burn it. I just have some mental blocks maintaining that attitude haha but I see the logic.

Edit: also while I am here I just wanted to post, I never meant this to be a discussion about pure redrafting. Who we took with what pick truly is hind sight exercises. I am talking about a pick we moved we actually traded down and gave up our opportunity to draft 16. I know I know potato patato but I just wanted to add that disclaimer this is not who we coulda shoulda woulda picked wiht a pick we had, its about us giving up a higher pick if that makes sense.

And I know, but Hronek, but consider we could have got a second in other ways.

It doesn't. This absolutely is a "coulda woulda shoulda" pick topic. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be bemoaning dropping 4 slots. You wanted them to take Chychrun or Fabbro. That's okay... but be honest with why you're upset with the trade. To get a second round pick for moving back four slots and ostensibly still getting the guy you want is a good move. The Wings, by all accounts, weren't taking Chychrun. The Wings may have been interested in Fabbro, but more likely had him, Chychrun, and Cholowski on roughly equal ground. If there was a Matthew Barzal on the clock and we missed him by moving back? Sure, whinge about that trade. However, it sounded like the Wings were in on Cholowski even at 16. So are you happier about the pick if they just make it at 16? I mean, they wouldn't have traded down. You know the answer to that question is no, so this is talking about a re-draft.

 

[Retire91]

It doesn't. This absolutely is a "coulda woulda shoulda" pick topic. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be bemoaning dropping 4 slots. You wanted them to take Chychrun or Fabbro. That's okay... but be honest with why you're upset with the trade. To get a second round pick for moving back four slots and ostensibly still getting the guy you want is a good move. The Wings, by all accounts, weren't taking Chychrun. The Wings may have been interested in Fabbro, but more likely had him, Chychrun, and Cholowski on roughly equal ground. If there was a Matthew Barzal on the clock and we missed him by moving back? Sure, whinge about that trade. However, it sounded like the Wings were in on Cholowski even at 16. So are you happier about the pick if they just make it at 16? I mean, they wouldn't have traded down. You know the answer to that question is no, so this is talking about a re-draft.

A redraft would be if both Cholowski and Chychurn were available at 20 and we took Cholowski. Chychurn wasn't even available when we selected so how is this about a redraft?

Wanting Cholowski is a very convenient story when you took the inferior player so that you could sign Neilsen to a 5 year first line deal.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

A redraft would be if both Cholowski and Chychurn were available at 20 and we took Cholowski. Chychurn wasn't even available when we selected so how is this about a redraft?

Wanting Cholowski is a very convenient story when you took the inferior player so that you could sign Neilsen to a 5 year first line deal.

If you like chychrun so much more than Cholowski, wouldn’t taking/wanting Cholowski over chychrun make the GM and scouts look like total idiots? Why would they lie to intentionally make themselves look stupid?

 

[Retire91]

If you like chychrun so much more than Cholowski, wouldn’t taking/wanting Cholowski over chychrun make the GM and scouts look like total idiots? Why would they lie to intentionally make themselves look stupid?

When you control the narrative you can look any way you want. Everyone knew and knows that Chychrun is better than Cholowski. It was clear in the scouting reports and its clear in how things turned out. But when your GM wants 5 million quickly freed up to sign a stop gap then all of a sudden Cholo is our guy. Give me a break. Not saying this was gonna be a huge impact but its certainly a downgrade. We got Chychurn in our top pairing right now and things are a lot different. Sure he has 15-20 games a season out here and there but those isseus aren't always permanent and I would still take 50 games of Chychrun over 82 games of Cholowski at this point. Chychrun also has some trade value if the injury thing is too much for people.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

When you control the narrative you can look any way you want. Everyone knew and knows that Chychrun is better than Cholowski. It was clear in the scouting reports and its clear in how things turned out. But when your GM wants 5 million quickly freed up to sign a stop gap then all of a sudden Cholo is our guy. Give me a break. Not saying this was gonna be a huge impact but its certainly a downgrade. We got Chychurn in our top pairing right now and things are a lot different. Sure he has 15-20 games a season out here and there but those isseus aren't always permanent and I would still take 50 games of Chychrun over 82 games of Cholowski at this point. Chychrun also has some trade value if the injury thing is too much for people.

I’m not arguing that cholo is better than chychrun. Also you keep basing this off of wanting to free the cap space to sign a stop gap, when I’ve provided proof that freeing up that space was to take a run at stamkos.

 

[Gniwder]

When you control the narrative you can look any way you want. Everyone knew and knows that Chychrun is better than Cholowski. It was clear in the scouting reports and its clear in how things turned out. But when your GM wants 5 million quickly freed up to sign a stop gap then all of a sudden Cholo is our guy. Give me a break. Not saying this was gonna be a huge impact but its certainly a downgrade. We got Chychurn in our top pairing right now and things are a lot different. Sure he has 15-20 games a season out here and there but those isseus aren't always permanent and I would still take 50 games of Chychrun over 82 games of Cholowski at this point. Chychrun also has some trade value if the injury thing is too much for people.

I would also take 50 games of Chych over 82 games of Cholo, but I'd take 82 games of Hronek over both.

Imagine if we had kept the pick and selected Cholo over Chych, then we'd really be having a fit.

In any case, you can't change the past so deal with it.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

Lol true true. But I’m sure he’s happy with the 7 pages of dialogue. Not much to talk about . . . until April 9th!

This didn’t age well . . .

*puts gun to head*

 

[MBH]

Coul have had Fabbro, though. Instead of Chychrun.

 

[Retire91]

I’m not arguing that cholo is better than chychrun. Also you keep basing this off of wanting to free the cap space to sign a stop gap, when I’ve provided proof that freeing up that space was to take a run at stamkos.

I know that is also part of the narrative but Stamkos was never going to sign here. Holland signing Neilsen to 5 years shows a comfort level that he was at least the backup plan if not the plan all along which I think is more likely. Also All Stamkos would have done for this team is extended Holland's stop gap bubble decline for more seasons.

I would also take 50 games of Chych over 82 games of Cholo, but I'd take 82 games of Hronek over both.

Imagine if we had kept the pick and selected Cholo over Chych, then we'd really be having a fit.

In any case, you can't change the past so deal with it.

He could have got the pick to draft Hronek in several other ways. You don't have to trade your first to get a second. I did deal with it, every time I watched Holland's dumpster fire roster. Let's keep in mind that a team desperately in need of a rebuild traded down to get rid of a contract. That is just moronic asset management.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

I know that is also part of the narrative but Stamkos was never going to sign here. Holland signing Neilsen to 5 years shows a comfort level that he was at least the backup plan if not the plan all along which I think is more likely.

You’re starting to sound delusional. I posted a USA Today article stating Detroit was stamkos preferred destination and with quotes from Holland about the trade and freeing up cap space.

If he wanted to sign Nielsen all along, why create a narrative? At the time I liked Nielsen a lot and was cool with the signing (not the term)

since you’re brushing off the stamkos stuff and still pushing YOURE “it was Nielsen all along” narrative, even after I was asked to provide proof about stamkos, I know I can no longer talk to you about this. Totally unreasonable.

 

[Retire91]

You’re starting to sound delusional. I posted a USA Today article stating Detroit was stamkos preferred destination and with quotes from Holland about the trade and freeing up cap space.

If he wanted to sign Nielsen all along, why create a narrative? At the time I liked Nielsen a lot and was cool with the signing (not the term)

since you’re brushing off the stamkos stuff and still pushing YOURE “it was Nielsen all along” narrative, even after I was asked to provide proof about stamkos, I know I can no longer talk to you about this. Totally unreasonable.

Just because there is a USA today article doesn't make it true especially when the GM has a history of stop gap maneuvers. I have not doubt that Holland entertained the idea of stamkos and I am sure they talked, but Stamkos was NEVER going to sign here. And the fact that Neilsen 5 years happens shortly after shows at the 'very least' there was a comfort level that Neilsen was always part of the plan if not the plan all along. I hated that signing from the beginning and I would have hated Stamkos even more. We needed to rebuild, neither of those moves were rebuilding. And it cost us BPA.

It was very careless to trade down to go after a free agent we stood no chance of signing, and even if we signed only enabled the stop gap era to drive the team even further into the need for a rebuild. You really think Stamkos was going to sign to a declining team that is going to make moves like 16 games of Legwand to bubble into the playoffs when he can just stay at home on a cup contender with a competent GM? Come on

 

[ArmChairGM89]

Just because there is a USA today article doesn't make it true especially when the GM has a history of stop gap maneuvers. I have not doubt that Holland entertained the idea of stamkos and I am sure they talked but Stamkos was NEVER going to sign here. And the fact that Neilsen 5 years happens shortly after shows at the 'very least' there was a comfort level that Neilsen was always part of the plan.

It was very careless to trade down to go after a free agent we stood no chance of signing, and even if we signed only enabled the stop gap era to drive the team even further into the need for a rebuild. You really think Stamkos was going to sign to a declining team that is going to make moves like 16 games of Legwand to bubble into the playoffs?

I’m just not going to continue reading these. You’re denial of facts is appalling.

 

[Retire91]

I’m just not going to continue reading these. You’re denial of facts is appalling.

If you don't want to discuss any further no big deal, you don't gotta get personal. Throwing down click bait articles about the seasons top FA does not = facts IMO. You gotta look at the situation holistically and incorporate the GM's track record and a more likely scenario takes shape.

 

[kliq]

If you like chychrun so much more than Cholowski, wouldn’t taking/wanting Cholowski over chychrun make the GM and scouts look like total idiots? Why would they lie to intentionally make themselves look stupid?

Well no, because the knock on Chychrun was always that is was injury prone, never lack of skill set. So far they haven’t been wrong. A guy like that is going to demand a big contract based on his skill, but be on and off IR, not great in the cap world.

If he stays healthy from here forward, different story.