Speculation: Damien Cox on CBC: Wings willing to move 1st round pick and/or Mantha at draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,981
11,626
Ft. Myers, FL
just brainstorming here-
why not move jurco in a package for phaneuf? id rather see Pulk in the NHL under blash see what he really has in him

Jurco has a fantastic relationship with Blashill and has the size and defensive acumen to be a big impact two-way player.

Nyquist, Tatar and Pulkkinen are all undersized. I like their compete levels, but honestly the fit is better with using one of them to get the trade you're looking for.

Blashill eluded to the fact that what he puts up with at the AHL level with Pulkkinen isn't something he can get at the NHL level... Something along the lines of you have trust he can play that way at the AHL level and his contribution far out weighs some of the other things you live with and NHL coaches just won't see that way. So the idea he is getting ready to build his whole offensive philosophy and PP around Pulkkinen is probably out to lunch. Blashill is now a NHL coach, he is going to expect more out of Pulkkinen as well.

You are going to run your PP with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Nyquist (3rd in PP goals last season) and Tatar. The idea of reworking that whole thing for Teemu just isn't that realistic.

I think Blashill is ideal if they decide to push forward with the concept of Pulkkinen on the third line and second PP unit. But Pulks remains probably our best movable asset that we can stomach. Nyquist and Tatar are just simply too good to really debate which leaves Pulkkinen the loser in terms of that debate. We will see what happens, in all honesty this is a good problem to have assuming you move whatever player loses out on the wing for the right thing or things. Eventually we are going to have to trade some of these wingers coming up.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,812
2,186
Detroit
I wouldn't move anyone to bring in Phaneuf. Why give up a guy who will be a lot like Robert Lang for a guy who has never lived up to the hype and won't make the Wings much better?

My point is if they make a move a treading water move isn't the type they should make, especially with an NHL ready offensive minded right handed shot forward.

who is like robert lang? pulkinnen?

never lived up to the hype? are you kidding me, phaneuf has had a very good careerr and was capt in the hardest market in pro sports

come on now, the phaneuf hate is a little over the top

a smaller and 1/10th as good dany heatley isnt or at least shouldnt be untradeable for a 30 year old top pairing(for us) dman
 

Eggberto

Registered User
Oct 26, 2013
1,344
0
just brainstorming here-
why not move jurco in a package for phaneuf? id rather see Pulk in the NHL under blash see what he really has in him

For starters because Phaneuf is terrible and we shouldn't give up anything for him.

On a real note it won't work because for some reason people believe Jurco has significant value around the NHL despite putting up a whopping 18 points at the NHL level last year. Plus wanting to see how a player does under Blash compared to Babs is logic that works for both Pulks and Jurco.
 

wingfan

Registered User
Jul 1, 2012
875
425
For starters because Phaneuf is terrible and we shouldn't give up anything for him.

On a real note it won't work because for some reason people believe Jurco has significant value around the NHL despite putting up a whopping 18 points at the NHL level last year. Plus wanting to see how a player does under Blash compared to Babs is logic that works for both Pulks and Jurco.

Put up 18 points in 64 games playing a little more than 11 minutes a night with a bulk of those games on the 4th line. That argument against Jurco holds no water. At worst, we see what he is now, a solid, grinding big body who has no issue mucking it up in the bottom six and brings it every shift even when he's not contributing offensively. Quite a few of us believe there is more there. I'd much rather move Pulkkinen, who, at best, might be another Tomas Tatar. He's redundant. We don't exactly have big bodied forwards with offensive upside in spades here...
 

Eggberto

Registered User
Oct 26, 2013
1,344
0
Put up 18 points in 64 games playing a little more than 11 minutes a night with a bulk of those games on the 4th line. That argument against Jurco holds no water. At worst, we see what he is now, a solid, grinding big body who has no issue mucking it up in the bottom six and brings it every shift even when he's not contributing offensively. Quite a few of us believe there is more there. I'd much rather move Pulkkinen, who, at best, might be another Tomas Tatar. He's redundant. We don't exactly have big bodied forwards with offensive upside in spades here...

I won't argue that he might have more to give, but he put up 18 points. Apart from his minutes and playing on the 4th line he was mostly invisible unless he was giving the puck away, missing passes, or letting is flutterball of a shot go towards the net. He was consistently outhustled and given Babcock wanted him in Detroit and he still couldn't crack the the 4th line consistently is telling.

I do believe that he has potential to be better, but my point is I doubt his actual trade value could get much lower in other GM's eyes, meaning this isn't the time to trade him nor would he be the "key piece" in landing a big fish defenseman. You say the argument againdt Jurco's production holds no water and I admantly disagree when we are discussing his value in a trade.

On another unrelated note--- At best Pulks is more of a pure goal scorer than Tatar. Tatar is quick, agile, strong on the puck and a solid pissession player. Pulks is none of those but he has a booming shot. I understand how Pulks, Nyquist, and Tatar are all comparable because of their size but Pulks is a much different player than them.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,998
8,749
Ansar Khan
‏@AnsarKhanMLive

@DetroitRedWings no longer interested in pursuing a trade for @MapleLeafs defenseman Dion Phaneuf, I was told.
That's fine, but not making a (potentially, depending on salary retention) bad deal doesn't mean he can now make no deal at all.

Clock's ticking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad