Speculation: Roster Turn Over

[njx9]

Poster said "if Holland was open to benching Ericsson".
I said "Holland doesn't make those decisions".
You said "He employs the guys that does and if he disagree it would be fixed".
I asked what is there to fix?

And from the context of that conversation, why do you think that's anything other than an obvious answer? If Holland didn't want E playing, he would fix the situation, i.e. tell Blashill to sit him or find a coach who would. This isn't a difficult conversation to follow, and I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with it.

The entire discussion is about whether or not the kids will play if they are better than the veterans.

Maybe, but nothing I've said or responded to has anything to do with that. I've *specifically* disagreed with the notion that poor Holland is at Blashill's mercy, with regards to player-personnel decisions, because it's pointedly not true and is being used as a distraction.

I say that in Blashill's tenure the kids have been brought up quickly and mostly gotten good minutes. I see no reason to think that will stop as our prospect improve in quantity and quality while our veterans get worse.

And here we are, trying to move the goal posts and discuss something else again. Whatever, have at it.

You kinda lost me at your second paragraph, but I find it a ridiculous notion that a GM doesn't allow the coach to play exactly who he wants to play. If he wants a kid to sit as 7th D, yeah the GM might say "I'm gonna send him down then". If results are bad, the GM can say "you're fired". But if Blashill comes out for Game 1 and say "Nielsen and Kronwall are healthy scratches", no way would Holland stop him from doing that.

If Blash sat Nielsen game 1 and Holland disagreed, the decision would be fixed by game 2. Again, not rocket science. Anything else is tacit approval of the coaching decisions, and the buck ultimately stops with Holland (and beyond that, the Illitches).

 

[Frk It]

DDK was always going to be a #4-5 guy. The team was in desperation to fill glaring holes in the defense pushed him into a defacto #2 slot. He did okay for awhile, not great, but okay, and then the wheels came off. Its not fair to call him bad, anymore than its fair to call Helm bad. The hammer isn't bad when an idiot uses it to try to drive a screw. There is a lot of asset misuse by this organization which becomes kind of self-fulfilling because those players then get contracts above their ability and then are used in those positions they aren't good enough for to justify their pay.

Yeah well, go back a few years and look at how many people thought he had some big upside.. there was definitely a crowd of folks who did.

People thought he might improve because he came in to the league looking decent, it is what it is. But he hasn't improved or even stagnated, he has clearly regressed. I at least thought he would get stronger so he could be a competent defensive defenseman, but he hasn't really made any progress there. Part of why he looks bad is because he is overused, but I just don't see him offering very much even when he gets easier matchups.

I am hoping our future top 4 consists of players who are currently not on this team, so I am not worried about it.

 

[shanman]

Reading this thread makes it obvious there isn't much to talk about right now haha. Can we just fast forward to preseason at least

 

[odin1981]

Yeah well, go back a few years and look at how many people thought he had some big upside.. there was definitely a crowd of folks who did.

People thought he might improve because he came in to the league looking decent, it is what it is. But he hasn't improved or even stagnated, he has clearly regressed. I at least thought he would get stronger so he could be a competent defensive defenseman, but he hasn't really made any progress there. Part of why he looks bad is because he is overused, but I just don't see him offering very much even when he gets easier matchups.

I am hoping our future top 4 consists of players who are currently not on this team, so I am not worried about it.

I actually think Big E will get resigned for a 1-3 year deal. If he has had his hip issues corrected which last season would indicate he is a viable def-d top 4 player. He will never score points past 20-25 or so people will hate on him for it. But he has returned to the level of player he was when he was paired with #5. He will likely be a qualified vet that gets paired up with a up and coming younger top 4 offensive minded player like Hronek or Cholo. Hronek would be the likely one due to lh and rh together.

 

[Pavels Dog]

And from the context of that conversation, why do you think that's anything other than an obvious answer? If Holland didn't want E playing, he would fix the situation, i.e. tell Blashill to sit him or find a coach who would. This isn't a difficult conversation to follow, and I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with it.



Maybe, but nothing I've said or responded to has anything to do with that. I've *specifically* disagreed with the notion that poor Holland is at Blashill's mercy, with regards to player-personnel decisions, because it's pointedly not true and is being used as a distraction.



And here we are, trying to move the goal posts and discuss something else again. Whatever, have at it.



If Blash sat Nielsen game 1 and Holland disagreed, the decision would be fixed by game 2. Again, not rocket science. Anything else is tacit approval of the coaching decisions, and the buck ultimately stops with Holland (and beyond that, the Illitches).

I simply don't think we're talking about the same things here or we are badly misunderstanding eachother. The conversation was about whether veterans will sit if the kids outplay them. That is definitely up to the coach. A GM does not have to agree with 100% of decisions that a coach makes. That doesn't mean Holland is "at Blashill's mercy".
It simply means the coach controls how to deploy the players he has on his roster.

 

[jkutswings]

I actually think Big E will get resigned for a 1-3 year deal. If he has had his hip issues corrected which last season would indicate he is a viable def-d top 4 player. He will never score points past 20-25 or so people will hate on him for it. But he has returned to the level of player he was when he was paired with #5. He will likely be a qualified vet that gets paired up with a up and coming younger top 4 offensive minded player like Hronek or Cholo. Hronek would be the likely one due to lh and rh together.

A new deal for Ericsson? With a chance that it goes 2-3 years?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

 

[odin1981]

A new deal for Ericsson? With a chance that it goes 2-3 years?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Well due to age and lack of offense it would make it easy for the wings to get him for under 5 million since he will be close to 35. Don't get me wrong I would love to pluck a Vladdie clone from ufa for one of the kids to be paired with but that in this day and age of the cap would cost 7.5+ per year. I would hope however that big rig gets a 1-2 year deal but we all know holland so I can't discount the possibility of a 2-3 year deal.

 

[Henkka]

A new deal for Ericsson? With a chance that it goes 2-3 years?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Lower caphit would make Ericsson a fan favourite.

Ericsson for 2M could be totally possible extension.

 

[Winger98]

I actually think Big E will get resigned for a 1-3 year deal. If he has had his hip issues corrected which last season would indicate he is a viable def-d top 4 player. He will never score points past 20-25 or so people will hate on him for it. But he has returned to the level of player he was when he was paired with #5. He will likely be a qualified vet that gets paired up with a up and coming younger top 4 offensive minded player like Hronek or Cholo. Hronek would be the likely one due to lh and rh together.

I've been sorta expecting Helm and Gator to be re-signed eventually for the same reason. Remove all of Nielsen, Z, Nyquist, Glendenning, and Franzen from this roster, push guys like Svech, Ras, and Zadina on, and keeping Helm/Gator as a couple of grizzled vets wouldn't look like the craziest thing in the world.

 

[jkutswings]

Lower caphit would make Ericsson a fan favourite.

Ericsson for 2M could be totally possible extension.

Over 30? Check.
Best years clearly behind him? Check.
Zero chance of still contributing once the team is making noise again? Check.

 

[Invictus12]

And half the board thinks that if a guy "can't keep up" you'll somehow be worse off than the 5th worst team in the NHL.

Oh yes, it's absolutely dumb to have a guy that's qualified for the position over the one that's not, absolutely. It's especially dumb to think that a prospect (look up the meaning of the word) might be better off in the league where the emphasis is on development (hence, 'farm team') as oppose to expectations as is in the big league.

Holland employs and oversees the dude who does. If he disagreed, it would be fixed. We're not talking about in-game adjustments, here.

Some of the most common dumb thing managers do is interfere with their employers jobs. You oversee and hold accountable but interfering is actually detrimental. I actually criticized Holland when he and Babcock were having differences in regard to who stays up. You accommodate the coach but, you also hold him liable for his decisions.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Oh yes, it's absolutely dumb to have a guy that's qualified for the position over the one that's not, absolutely. It's especially dumb to think that a prospect (look up the meaning of the word) might be better off in the league where the emphasis is on development (hence, 'farm team') as oppose to expectations as is in the big league.



Some of the most common dumb thing managers do is interfere with their employers jobs. You oversee and hold accountable but interfering is actually detrimental. I actually criticized Holland when he and Babcock were having differences in regard to who stays up. You accommodate the coach but, you also hold him liable for his decisions.

Yep. If you delegate, you delegate.

If the GM is telling the coach what moves to make, you're the Dallas Cowboys after Jimmy Johnson/Barry Switzer. You're ****ing terrible because you have a guy woefully underqualified to make positional decisions making positional decisions.

 

[Henkka]

Was it Babcock who told how they argued for years what are the coaches need and what does GM give him? But he admitted, that coaches job is 100% to survive what you are given. GM decides it. Coach can ask, GM will give, if possible. Sometimes possible, sometimes not. And they both liked it that way. They are working with two brains. Two brains will beat one brain any day. And when they disagree with each other, Imo, it's a better environment than if they would always agree about decisions. Disagreeing keeps development going all the time.

I do same at my work, I'm not happy every day, but at same time I know that 2-man combo is better in the big picture. Sometimes the other guy is right, sometimes wrong, but we'll always use the better solution.

 

[Invictus12]

Was it Babcock who told how they argued for years what are the coaches need and what does GM give him? But he admitted, that coaches job is 100% to survive what you are given. GM decides it. Coach can ask, GM will give, if possible. Sometimes possible, sometimes not. And they both liked it that way. They are working with two brains. Two brains will beat one brain any day. And when they disagree with each other, Imo, it's a better environment than if they would always agree about decisions. Disagreeing keeps development going all the time.

I do same at my work, I'm not happy every day, but at same time I know that 2-man combo is better in the big picture. Sometimes the other guy is right, sometimes wrong, but we'll always use the better solution.

Two brains are fine but depending on the work, one needs to respect the others expertise. If Babcock tells Holland that he needs said player in the line-up to make a line work better for whatever reason, even if you disagree, it should be Babcock's call. As a GM, I'd think you try and get the coach the tools he asks for but it's his job to put them to proper use.

 

[SCD]

Sort of like Stephen Weiss ?

There needs to be checks and balances to best avoid disasters.

 

[njx9]

Oh yes, it's absolutely dumb to have a guy that's qualified for the position over the one that's not, absolutely. It's especially dumb to think that a prospect (look up the meaning of the word) might be better off in the league where the emphasis is on development (hence, 'farm team') as oppose to expectations as is in the big league.

Seriously? You think cribbing from Webster's adds anything to the discussion? I'm not even sure what you think "qualified" means, but most of the guys we've put on our defense wouldn't be "qualified" to play on nearly any other team in the league, so going from one "unqualified" guy to another isn't meaningful.

Further, it's absolutely untrue to suggest that the only place you can develop is in GR. That's unsubstantiated trash that's not backed up by anything you can quote. I can just as easily say it's better to play in a league where you're actually challenged by actual NHL players. But then, you'd probably argue that Zadina is better off spending max time in the CHL, since it's a "developmental league", and then you'd screech at me to look up what "developmental" means.

Some of the most common dumb thing managers do is interfere with their employers jobs. You oversee and hold accountable but interfering is actually detrimental. I actually criticized Holland when he and Babcock were having differences in regard to who stays up. You accommodate the coach but, you also hold him liable for his decisions.

Yep. If you delegate, you delegate.

If the GM is telling the coach what moves to make, you're the Dallas Cowboys after Jimmy Johnson/Barry Switzer. You're ****ing terrible because you have a guy woefully underqualified to make positional decisions making positional decisions.

If Blash wants to sit Zadina in the press box for the next 3 years, should Holland sit on his thumbs, shrug sadly, and say, "well, he's the coach and that's that"? If KH and the development staff think that it's better for Hronek to play in Detroit this year, should they just suck their thumbs if Blash would rather play Kronwall's best impression of a pylon? I don't buy it.

I also don't buy the comparison. There's a world of difference between needing to ok every line up, or calling down decisions mid game, and telling a coach "The organization wants this guy to play, that's why we've moved him up from GR/left him in Detroit/signed him/whatever. You can either play him in whatever role you'd like, or find alternate employment."

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Seriously? You think cribbing from Webster's adds anything to the discussion? I'm not even sure what you think "qualified" means, but most of the guys we've put on our defense wouldn't be "qualified" to play on nearly any other team in the league, so going from one "unqualified" guy to another isn't meaningful.

Further, it's absolutely untrue to suggest that the only place you can develop is in GR. That's unsubstantiated trash that's not backed up by anything you can quote. I can just as easily say it's better to play in a league where you're actually challenged by actual NHL players. But then, you'd probably argue that Zadina is better off spending max time in the CHL, since it's a "developmental league", and then you'd screech at me to look up what "developmental" means.





If Blash wants to sit Zadina in the press box for the next 3 years, should Holland sit on his thumbs, shrug sadly, and say, "well, he's the coach and that's that"? If KH and the development staff think that it's better for Hronek to play in Detroit this year, should they just suck their thumbs if Blash would rather play Kronwall's best impression of a pylon? I don't buy it.

I also don't buy the comparison. There's a world of difference between needing to ok every line up, or calling down decisions mid game, and telling a coach "The organization wants this guy to play, that's why we've moved him up from GR/left him in Detroit/signed him/whatever. You can either play him in whatever role you'd like, or find alternate employment."

Hell yes, if Blash has a good reason to sit Zadina in the press box. It's like my CFO directing me on how to get my reports to do their work. If I'm going to do something abjectly stupid, I better have a good reason for it.

 

[vladdy16]

Seriously? You think cribbing from Webster's adds anything to the discussion? I'm not even sure what you think "qualified" means, but most of the guys we've put on our defense wouldn't be "qualified" to play on nearly any other team in the league, so going from one "unqualified" guy to another isn't meaningful.

Further, it's absolutely untrue to suggest that the only place you can develop is in GR. That's unsubstantiated trash that's not backed up by anything you can quote. I can just as easily say it's better to play in a league where you're actually challenged by actual NHL players. But then, you'd probably argue that Zadina is better off spending max time in the CHL, since it's a "developmental league", and then you'd screech at me to look up what "developmental" means.





If Blash wants to sit Zadina in the press box for the next 3 years, should Holland sit on his thumbs, shrug sadly, and say, "well, he's the coach and that's that"? If KH and the development staff think that it's better for Hronek to play in Detroit this year, should they just suck their thumbs if Blash would rather play Kronwall's best impression of a pylon? I don't buy it.

I also don't buy the comparison. There's a world of difference between needing to ok every line up, or calling down decisions mid game, and telling a coach "The organization wants this guy to play, that's why we've moved him up from GR/left him in Detroit/signed him/whatever. You can either play him in whatever role you'd like, or find alternate employment."

Is it really news to you that rushing a prospects development and playing him in the best league in the world has been a notoriously/historically risky proposition? There's a million substantiated examples and quotes on the phenomena, so I assure you the other posters point was not trash.

 

[jkutswings]

Hell yes, if Blash has a good reason to sit Zadina in the press box. It's like my CFO directing me on how to get my reports to do their work. If I'm going to do something abjectly stupid, I better have a good reason for it.

A better analogy might be if your CFO recruited a young hotshot with a great resume, and you asked them to change the printer cartridges and empty the wastebaskets for the first few months. I'm not saying there's that degree of nothing to be gained in the AHL, but it's just not a matter of "how to get (them) to do their work".

 

[Pavels Dog]

If Blash wants to sit Zadina in the press box for the next 3 years, should Holland sit on his thumbs, shrug sadly, and say, "well, he's the coach and that's that"?

No, Zadina would get sent down. No need to exaggerate. Discussions are had between GM and coach. "Do you want this kid on the roster?". "Yes.". "Are you gonna play him?". "No.". "Okay, then let's send him down and call him up when you want to play him.". Pretty simple.

If KH and the development staff think that it's better for Hronek to play in Detroit this year, should they just suck their thumbs if Blash would rather play Kronwall's best impression of a pylon? I don't buy it.

Yes, they would need to be okay with. And if the results are bad, it makes it a lot easier to fire the coach with an "hey, I tried to tell ya we had better players available..".
But this is an unlikely scenario. Blashill wants to win. If he calls down to the guys watching the Grand Rapids every day and asks "got anyone good down there?" and they say "this kid Hronek is absolutely killing it! He's amazing!", it's very unlikely that Blash says "nah.. I'm good" while the Wings keep losing their way to the bottom of the league.

 

[Invictus12]

Seriously? You think cribbing from Webster's adds anything to the discussion? I'm not even sure what you think "qualified" means, but most of the guys we've put on our defense wouldn't be "qualified" to play on nearly any other team in the league, so going from one "unqualified" guy to another isn't meaningful.

Well, you either can't understand what Zadina is at this point or refuse to. So yeah, look up the word, understand what it mean and maybe rethink the crap you wrote. You might want to look up what 'qualified', means apparently too by the way. In hockey sense it would mean that the player is actually able to do what he's assigned to do on the NHL ice. You want to pretend to be like an ignorant child (probably because you can't defend you position and need to divert it into something else) fine, I'll treat you like one.

Oh and you have proof that the defensmen we have wouldn't be able to fill a roster on other teams? Outside of the fact that most teams don't need them because they have their own players comparable in effectiveness on the ice and often to a better cap hit, you have no actual leg to stand on here.

Further, it's absolutely untrue to suggest that the only place you can develop is in GR. That's unsubstantiated trash that's not backed up by anything you can quote. I can just as easily say it's better to play in a league where you're actually challenged by actual NHL players. But then, you'd probably argue that Zadina is better off spending max time in the CHL, since it's a "developmental league", and then you'd screech at me to look up what "developmental" means.

The only one thats suggesting that is the invisible voice in your head. Key words that I used was 'might be' and I stand by that. Maybe you should also work on your comprehension skills along with interpretation of words...

It might be good for him, sure, but what if he isn't handling his matchups and Blash gives him soft minutes as a result? (Meaning, little ice-time) Where do you think he'd be better off? And Blashill will do that because the point of making matchups is to get the upper hand on your opponent. How many times do I have to remind folks here of Pulkkinen, Jurco?

If Blash wants to sit Zadina in the press box for the next 3 years, should Holland sit on his thumbs, shrug sadly, and say, "well, he's the coach and that's that"? If KH and the development staff think that it's better for Hronek to play in Detroit this year, should they just suck their thumbs if Blash would rather play Kronwall's best impression of a pylon? I don't buy it.
"

Yeah, lets not pretend to be completely out of touch with reality here. If in 7 years, where it's clear that Zadina is a bust, then your scenario might actually happen. However, so far, we have yet to have anything even close to that happening, ever, in the entire league. If somehow it does, yeah, Holland would be justified in firing the guy. (Hence hold him accountable) In this case, for being delusional.

I also don't buy the comparison. There's a world of difference between needing to ok every line up, or calling down decisions mid game, and telling a coach "The organization wants this guy to play, that's why we've moved him up from GR/left him in Detroit/signed him/whatever. You can either play him in whatever role you'd like, or find alternate employment."

Well, as was pointed out, two heads are better than none and there are plenty of options and opportunities to explore and discover. When you have a situation of who to put on the ice in Marchenko vs Oulette, ultimately, it should be a coaches call. When he has a clear directive to make the playoffs for instance, you don't tell him which players to do it with, which was what was happening with Babcock. (although, too much information is missing to really know what exactly was happening.) When it comes to signings and things like that, I'd think as a GM, you absolutely need to discuss these things with the coach. I mean, some are no brainers, like Tavares but for the most part, its a matter of filling in the dimension, so to speak. If the coach says, I need a guy who's good as a front-net presence type, you see whats around and make a decision on who'd be at the top of your list and on.

 

[njx9]

Hell yes, if Blash has a good reason to sit Zadina in the press box. It's like my CFO directing me on how to get my reports to do their work. If I'm going to do something abjectly stupid, I better have a good reason for it.

If your CFO gives you the highest performing analysts in the company, and you sideline them so that your mediocre best friend can do the work, and then your team falls to the bottom of the productivity barrel, you'll either be told to re-assign work, or you'll be told to find new employment.

Is it really news to you that rushing a prospects development and playing him in the best league in the world has been a notoriously/historically risky proposition? There's a million substantiated examples and quotes on the phenomena, so I assure you the other posters point was not trash.

Did you really take from that that players should be rushed?

"the only place you can develop is in GR. "

I've bolded the key word in what I said, and I'd appreciate it if you argued with what I said, instead of what you wish I'd said. The poster implied that the developmental league was the only place a player could develop. That's fundamentally untrue.

You want to pretend to be like an ignorant child (probably because you can't defend you position and need to divert it into something else) fine, I'll treat you like one.

And we're done here. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who twice dives immediately into personal attacks.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

If your CFO gives you the highest performing analysts in the company, and you sideline them so that your mediocre best friend can do the work, and then your team falls to the bottom of the productivity barrel, you'll either be told to re-assign work, or you'll be told to find new employment.



Did you really take from that that players should be rushed?

"the only place you can develop is in GR. "

I've bolded the key word in what I said, and I'd appreciate it if you argued with what I said, instead of what you wish I'd said. The poster implied that the developmental league was the only place a player could develop. That's fundamentally untrue.



And we're done here. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who twice dives immediately into personal attacks.

As I said... if I do something abjectly indefensible, I better have a good reason to do it... and a good manager will let me try to make a case until it's clear it is a mistake.

But your debate point isn't a fair comparison. Filip Zadina is not one of the highest performing players on the team. He's not one of the best players on the roster. He absolutely has the talent to be so... but he's also completely new to it.

You are also all over the place on this. The Wings dropped down because of a general decay of talent and of putting guys in positions too high for what they're capable of. Rushing Zadina up come hell or high water to be a top line guy might be more of the same. Bring him up and slot him there if his play in the preseason and work in training camp point to him doing so.

Make him prove he's ready to go full bore. If he's in Detroit, I don't want any "learning on the job, it's okay if he's awful for half a season, he's a rookie". That's what Detroit has seemed to want to do for decades too. If you have a spot in the National league, you're expected to do your job to the best of your ability. They won't call up a guy like Zadina to just ride the pine or play garbage minutes. If he's there, he's getting leaned on... but they should be given the time to ensure that they can do so.

 

[Henkka]

One major thing is always missing from this "bring the kid up" -discussion.

Why does the kid go down?

Because the CBA rules enable it to be that movable piece. ELC can go up and down, without waivers. SPC can't go down without waivers. Veteran would go to waivers, and then you could lose them for free before you know is the kid really better.

If the kid isn't ready and you lost the vet on waivers, what a hell then? The roster both in NHL and AHL level gets mismanaged in a worse way, than if you build it the opposite way.

People are hoping for the opposite way, because they have never seen it completed with opposite way at Detroit. "The grass is greener" on the opposite way. "Always same, boring, fire Holland."

But in theory, it's a lot worse way and that's why we'll never ever see that even with a different GM. Toronto does the same, Kyle Dubas, that smartest and youngest man on Earth, does exactly same as old and dumb Holland.

CBA facts, how they are constructed imo, plays 95% of the reasoning of kids going down AT FIRST, and vets staying up. And that "tie goes to veteran"-policy. It's nothing else. Ken Holland makes decisions based on that, and those are no-brainer decisions. There's no other option in reality.

 

[njx9]

You are also all over the place on this. The Wings dropped down because of a general decay of talent and of putting guys in positions too high for what they're capable of. Rushing Zadina up come hell or high water to be a top line guy might be more of the same. Bring him up and slot him there if his play in the preseason and work in training camp point to him doing so.

I mean, you're right, but it's because I'm arguing that the GM can and sometimes should override the coach. I want Zadina up if he's ready, and the training/dev staff think it will be beneficial, and I don't particularly care if Blashill doesn't want to play him because he thinks Glendening (or whoever, that's not the point) gives him a better chance to win a few more games. If KH is truly thinking about what does the team the most good long term, he should have the same view.

Again, I fully agree that the GM shouldn't be messing with game day lines, or minutiae like that. But I think he should be taking an active role in ensuring that the decisions being made are what's best for the team, and not what's best for the coach's perception of his continued employment.

I'm also not arguing that Zadina *should* be up, but that if he's not, it's only because the training/dev team has decided it's better for him to play 10 games in Detroit, then finish in GR. Not bringing him up because you might lose one of the vets, or because you don't think you can demote them, is a terrible, terrible decision.

Hopefully that's clearer.

If the kid isn't ready and you lost the vet on waivers, what a hell then? The roster both in NHL and AHL level gets mismanaged in a worse way, than if you build it the opposite way.

I'd argue that, of the veterans we'd really be bumping, nothing of value would be lost. If we waive Nielsen and someone claims him, we're not losing anything of value, and we're not really making the team measurably worse than it already was. There isn't a move we can make that keeps this team from being a bottom 10 performer, and if losing a vet who has no trade value (but who someone might take on for free) makes us a bottom 9 team instead, well, that's not something that gives me any pause.

I mean, again, the team is bad. It's bad if we dump all of the Hroneks and Cholos and Zadinas in GR< or if we keep them in Detroit. There's no scenario that suddenly makes this a great team. I prioritize making it better in the long term at the chance of making it slightly worse today.

And again, I say all of this in light of whatever the internal development teams think is best for each player. If they think it's better to bring up Ras and get him as much NHL time as possible, that's what I want, even if it means losing a mediocre vet "for free".