Confirmed with Link: Olli Maatta 1 year deal

[Hen Kolland]

It was an irrational idea because we needed to rebuild and draft high. People didn't like that concept and thought signing free agents was the way to move the team forward. Your list just further proves how rediculous it would have been to sign a big free agent like Trouba instead of seeking high draft positioning.

Everything would look different today. Trouba would have probably put us a couple spots higher on his own missing out on Raymond and Edvinsson for sure. Very likely even led to a couple other free agents being signed that would have even made us a stronger bad team and lost a couple more draft positioning spots.

Being someone who watched atleast 60% of Winnipegs games for a good 2-3 year stretch at the time, Trouba wasn't a guy I would like to see locked up at 8 mill in hopes to be a #1 D. He was never a top defender in Winnipeg. Definitly someone you could have as your 2-3 guy but not an answer as a #1 defender like 95% of Detroit fans led themselves to believe. Good player, but not the #1 Detroit needed anyway.

It would have been a bad choice for Detroit, no doubt in my mind then and nobody is going to make me feel differently now.

Or, maybe Trouba puts us in the draft slot that wins the lottery and we end up with Lafreniere or Stutzle or Byfield or Power or Beniers. You see, playing the what if game is just kind of dumb.

Philosophical preference on how the team should have managed that time frame doesn't matter a whole lot. You should be able to understand why people wanted to make that move, and it isn't a less viable route to take than the one you wanted.

 

[Henkka]

Because Yekaterinburg is not in Siberia.

It is, the southwest corner and that's where Siberia will "start" if you look from the west. Ural mountains are the natural "border" and Yekateringburg is at eastern side of it. Northern Russia is all Siberia from that point until Pacific Ocean.

 

[haulinbass]

Or, maybe Trouba puts us in the draft slot that wins the lottery and we end up with Lafreniere or Stutzle or Byfield or Power or Beniers. You see, playing the what if game is just kind of dumb.

Philosophical preference on how the team should have managed that time frame doesn't matter a whole lot. You should be able to understand why people wanted to make that move, and it isn't a less viable route to take than the one you wanted.

Yes, that makes so much sense. Adding a pretty good player to your team in a position it lacked would have had very realistic odds to made us tank even harder than we did. Yes, you got this.

See, there is a big difference of playing what ifs in a false fantasy world that meets your agenda opposed to playing what ifs with realistic projections and odds. Not sure how in the world you are creating this scenario of Trouba leading to us finishing worse. GM - Hey guys, we signed Trouba. Now we are going to trade Larkin and tank harder. Yeah, that makes sense.

But even so playing your game, there is no saying someone like Lefreiniere wouldn't have had better success here. I'm a big believer in developing properly, giving your prospects the right oppertunity has a large impact on outcome. Pretty sure Yzerman wouldn't have rushed him into the NHL. We can also play your what ifs that if Yzerman didn't see Laf being the right player, that he would have traded down and possibly still got the same guys we did + additional assets. Or we could have gotten Stutzle instead of Raymond, which I would be thrilled with as much as I do like Raymond.

But still, this is about not signing Trouba opposed to signing Trouba. Not signing Trouba is what happened and led to exactly where we are (My scenario). Signing Trouba 99 out of 100 times makes that team atleast slightly better hurting draft positioning. That's the only realistic ground to have this debate on.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Yes, that makes so much sense. Adding a pretty good player to your team in a position it lacked would have had very realistic odds to made us tank even harder than we did. Yes, you got this.

See, there is a big difference of playing what ifs in a false fantasy world that meets your agenda opposed to playing what ifs with realistic projections and odds. Not sure how in the world you are creating this scenario of Trouba leading to us finishing worse. GM - Hey guys, we signed Trouba. Now we are going to trade Larkin and tank harder. Yeah, that makes sense.

But even so playing your game, there is no saying someone like Lefreiniere wouldn't have had better success here. I'm a big believer in developing properly, giving your prospects the right oppertunity has a large impact on outcome. Pretty sure Yzerman wouldn't have rushed him into the NHL. We can also play your what ifs that if Yzerman didn't see Laf being the right player, that he would have traded down and possibly still got the same guys we did + additional assets. Or we could have gotten Stutzle instead of Raymond, which I would be thrilled with as much as I do like Raymond.

But still, this is about not signing Trouba opposed to signing Trouba. Not signing Trouba is what happened and led to exactly where we are (My scenario). Signing Trouba 99 out of 100 times makes that team atleast slightly better hurting draft positioning. That's the only realistic ground to have this debate on.

Yeah I get that, I was being facetious because it's the type of response that you deserve at times. The exaggeration that I was making is that maybe Trouba making us better has us finish 3rd worst instead of the absolute worst. If you look at the 2020 lottery, San Jose was the third worst team and they won the 3rd pick in the lottery and ended up with Stutzle.

My point is, it's easy to say Trouba would have made us better, but to try to predict everything that falls out because of it is a dumb practice. In that 2019-2020 season we finished with 39 points to the next closest 62. I think it's safe to say Trouba and whatever free agent fall out wasn't going to single handedly win 12 more games than we did that year. Odds are nothing changes there. Maybe last year we get a touch better and we are discussing Eklund, Guenther, Clarke or Sillinger.

Obviously there is so much that could be different, and that doesn't change anything. You aren't superior because you didn't like the thought of acquiring Trouba. People weren't wrong for wanting to acquire Trouba.

 

[Frk It]

Lol, 98% of the Wings fans on this board wanted Trouba at all costs at the time. Funny how quickly things change for most people.

That one was a pretty firm 'no thanks' for me. (I do see the appeal with the player given where we were at the time... it was the cost I had an issue with ((to acquire and salary))

 

[Henkka]

Having Trouba now, would not have ment any difference than him instead of Mark Pysyk on next season roster.

 

[OneMoreTry]

It is, the southwest corner and that's where Siberia will "start" if you look from the west. Ural mountains are the natural "border" and Yekateringburg is at eastern side of it. Northern Russia is all Siberia from that point until Pacific Ocean.

Ural is a region itself and Yekaterinburg is the biggest city there.

Yekaterinburg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jaster]

Ural pretty good at geography.

 

[Henkka]

Ural is a region itself and Yekaterinburg is the biggest city there.

Yekaterinburg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And Siberia is not a region you can draw borders. It's a natural area, starting from Ural mountains.

 

[OneMoreTry]

It's actually both, a federal region and a geographical region, if you look at the forwarding links in that article. That's what confused me, because a person from Ural wouldn't have "Siberia" anywhere on its paperwork. But the geographical Siberia includes the federal regions Ural and Far East.

Since the geographical region is more often referred too, the situation room might rule that your puck crossed the goal line.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

It's actually both, a federal region and a geographical region, if you look at the forwarding links in that article. That's what confused me, because a person from Ural wouldn't have "Siberia" anywhere on its paperwork. But the geographical Siberia includes the federal regions Ural and Far East.

Since the geographical region is more often referred too, the situation room might rule that your puck crossed the goal line.

That's all well & good, but matters very little to 'Mericans!

basically all of Russia = Siberia if you live in Florida, like the dude who you initially responded to with "well technically Siberia is..."

It's just a matter of degrees (weather & latitude/longitude).

It'll all freeze over, just depends on when Sept. vs. Oct. & thaw in June vs. Apr.?

Make sense?

p.s. I'm the dude btw

 

[Frk It]

Ural pretty good at geography.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

Almost a quarter of the way into the season - I think it's pretty well agreed upon that Matta has stepped in nicely on our second pairing and has been a key factor in the Hronassaince.

It's early days, but let's suppose he continues his rate of play over Q2/Q3 of the season - what does an extension look like in your eyes?

 

[norrisnick]

Almost a quarter of the way into the season - I think it's pretty well agreed upon that Matta has stepped in nicely on our second pairing and has been a key factor in the Hronassaince.

It's early days, but let's suppose he continues his rate of play over Q2/Q3 of the season - what does an extension look like in your eyes?

If he doesn't fall off and stays healthy... I'd be comfortable with a 3-4yr x $4M AAV.

I know he took the 1yr to gamble on himself and then maximize, but his history doesn't completely change with 1 season. He's pretty clearly the #4 on this team and $4M is a pretty good deal for a #4. If he wants to be more than a #4, that isn't here. Especially with Ed coming up soon.

 

[lilidk]

Lots of work this season for Yzerman to negotiate new contracts

 

[JediOrderPizza]

Hopefully we can find another one of these types but for Seider.

 

[Gurglesons]

If he doesn't fall off and stays healthy... I'd be comfortable with a 3-4yr x $4M AAV.

I know he took the 1yr to gamble on himself and then maximize, but his history doesn't completely change with 1 season. He's pretty clearly the #4 on this team and $4M is a pretty good deal for a #4. If he wants to be more than a #4, that isn't here. Especially with Ed coming up soon.

You think Olli Maatta gets that much?

 

[13to40]

Arguably one of the most underrated signings from the off season.

He’s been a rock for us this season.

Definitely a huge upgrade on the backend compared to seasons of the past.

4 years 3.5M would be a nice number as an extension if he’s willing to stay in Detroit.

 

[norrisnick]

You think Olli Maatta gets that much?

If he plays out the season as he's started, yeah. He's not old. A full season of rock solid 20 minutes a night isn't cheap.

 

[Gurglesons]

If he plays out the season as he's started, yeah. He's not old. A full season of rock solid 20 minutes a night isn't cheap.

He played 18+ a night last season. I dunno. I think you'd be able to get him with term on a 2.5 million deal.

 

[Henkka]

Määttä was 4.0M player on those Pittsburgh days, and he is back at that level, maybe even better now.

4M figure is oure realism with 3-4 year extension.

One of the weirdest stat is his playoff plusminus, from last 10 seasons.

With that +28 he ranks Top3 of all NHL players, and as a best defenceman.

 

[Oddbob]

If he keeps it up, I would give him 2-3 years at no more than 3 per. I think he is a very nice solid defender, but you also don't want to overpay a guy like him. He looks great right now, but he also only has a low cap hit to compare it to. More money means you naturally will expect more.