Still pissed Nosek left unprotected...

[Bench]

You’re being disingenuous. If OP wanted to have a conversation about a small roster move he would start by providing arguments in favor of his position.

I can't speak for the entire thread, only the comment chains I reply to.

Most of the other “pro-Nosek” posts (including yours) is just whining.

There is is. Nice.

 

[abbbaron]

If your point is "opportunity cost" that means you are saying that we lost potential improvement by not keeping Tatar and going in a different direction (ie. acquiring picks).

Poor point, we are not in "win now" mode and are re-building. Criticize the Tatar trade all you want, I dont think anybody without bias will agree with you there. The only people who will criticize that trade are either hardcore Tatar fans, or people who refuse to give Holland credit for anything, I assume you are the ladder based on your rant on the first page.

Great point. Because maximizing return on assets is a stupid thing to do...
good lord

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

I'm happy that Nosek went somewhere, got a chance, and has ran with it. Looked good here, has looked good in Vegas. Wish him all the best.

My only issue with exposing him over Gator is that we could have packed our exposed list with crap contracts and been virtually guaranteed to have lost one of them. might not have been gator, it might have been Helm or Dekeyser or someone else. That or Vegas might have given us a pick to take the guy back from them

Nosek wouldn't have been a difference maker here, so losing him isn't something that really bothers me. Just disagree with the strategy of who the Wings protected and who they didn't. Again, wish the guy all the luck.

Hopefully Yzerman does this strategy for us when the Seattle draft is in place.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I think it still hasn't been decided whether taking Helm or Glendening wouldn't have been the better move for Vegas. Certainly over the last two seasons either of those guys would have been more useful than Nosek. Of course, there is an age difference. So, going forward, perhaps not.

I'm sure had they known they would be this contender from the get go, they would have taken Helm or Glendening imo

 

[kliq]

Great point. Because maximizing return on assets is a stupid thing to do...
good lord

Wow, you're really trying hard to force this false narrative.

Either you are clueless to what the value of Tomas Tatar was, or you're trolling. Either way, this debate is ridiculous.

I think the give away that you are trolling is that when you started you were saying that the only reason why we got such a good return was because McPhee couldn't land Karlsson, but then you shifted your argument to saying that the return was no good anyways.

Next time ask Jonas for some better pointers.

 

[Debrincat93]

nosek isnt anything special.
a dime a dozen player.

 

[wingfan]

Let's get angry about every prospect that's turned into a bottom 6 NHL mainstay we've traded away/lost in the past 5-7 years.

 

[TCNorthstars]

Let's get angry about every prospect that's turned into a bottom 6 NHL mainstay we've traded away/lost in the past 5-7 years.

Lets not and say we did?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

If you want to make this into a bigger picture conversation, look at any other thread on the board as pretty much every conversation tends to head in this direction.

Ken Holland has made plenty of mistakes over the years, there is no denying that. However this is simply not one of them. I completely understand the logic behind not wanting to protect Abby in the expansion draft, however had we protected Nosek over Abby the outcome is not better, in reality it didn't matter.

If we protected Nosek, most likely the player chosen by Vegas is Mrazek, a player who we later traded for picks. I would rather have those picks then Nosek. Now, my guess is that you will counter that we should have protected Mrazek and Nosek and exposed Abby and Mrzek...ok. Most likely scenario in that situation, Glendeing or Sheahan are taken. I'd rather have the picks we got for Sheahan then Nosek, and I'd definitely rather have Glendening then Nosek. People are trying to frame this as if Vegas was going to take Abby, that was never going to happen as nobody is every taking that awful contract.

Regardless, I understand your point, you don't like that the Wings are loyal to a fault. I see your point, there is some truth there, however I do believe this narrative is blown our of proportion, and the direction our team went it was more so due to the cyclical nature of the sport. The Wings were bound for a drop off and now people are taking something that at one time was considered a strength of the organization and are making it into a weakness, loosing will do that. This is the way Mike Illitch operated his teams, and this is the culture he created, I just can't blame Holland for continuing to foster that environment. If the down side to this mentality is that we loose Nosek instead of Glendening, I fail to see the true ramifications of this move.

Look, I get it. You are not happy with the a lot of the moves Holland has made. I wont even argue you on that, between 2013-2017 a lot of mistakes were made that prolonged the re-build, you will not get an argument from me about that. However, with that said lets not make minor moves that truthfully had zero impact on the franchise into something they are not.

And @Bench , Kliq is basically saying what I said but way less inflammatory. Or what he's saying is closer to what I actually meant. Is that protecting/not protecting Nosek is not something you look back at and say "Yep, that's where we went wrong". Nor is it indicative of a larger team building philosophy gone wrong. Tomas Nosek was never anything more than a dime a dozen fourth line C. He isn't an improvement on Glendening or Helm or Abdelkader or whoever. Or if he is an improvement on them, he's not sufficient enough an improvement to take the L in trading one of those guys to ensure he had a spot.

Really look at it. He played in 17 games with Detroit split over two years and had one goal. He's made a nice home for himself in Vegas, but he's still only got 30 points in ~120 games. A decision to let him go is not one that haunts a team nor is it indicative of them going vet over young. He was 24 at the time they let him go and had 1 NHL goal. There wasn't a huge amount of potential upside there. Would the Wings be better with Nosek over Witkowski or Ehn? Maybe. But it just is something that is so immaterial to the discussion of why the Wings are rebuilding that it doesn't warrant any of this discussion and to point to this and other minor transactions as "oh, well they pile up and all of a sudden are a pile of ****" is missing the point. The Wings are bottom of the league because the top of their roster is bereft of talent. That's the beginning and ending of the discussion. Marginally improving the bottom six does nothing to pull this team out of anywhere.

 

[ShelbyZ]

You think that's bad... I still haven't gotten over Matt Ellis...

 

[Bench]

The Wings are bottom of the league because the top of their roster is bereft of talent.

We agree there, no question.

That's the beginning and ending of the discussion.

I don't think it's fruitless to comb over the finer details. I mean, I find it interesting, if nothing else.

I think saying, "it doesn't matter" is a way to shut down conversation on what is essentially a conversation board. Nosek does not matter individually, we agree, but the decision to dump him and keep a low production veteran, to me, is indicative of a larger systemic issue.

This team would still be bad with Nosek and all the other cheap bottom 6 guys. But they would have been far more nimble with the salary cap and potentially created trade assets rather than cap sinkholes. And maybe that's the difference between scraping the bottom 5 for a few extra years.

 

[Invictus12]

We agree there, no question.



I don't think it's fruitless to comb over the finer details. I mean, I find it interesting, if nothing else.

I think saying, "it doesn't matter" is a way to shut down conversation on what is essentially a conversation board. Nosek does not matter individually, we agree, but the decision to dump him and keep a low production veteran, to me, is indicative of a larger systemic issue.

This team would still be bad with Nosek and all the other cheap bottom 6 guys. But they would have been far more nimble with the salary cap and potentially created trade assets rather than cap sinkholes. And maybe that's the difference between scraping the bottom 5 for a few extra years.

Its very possible that a guy like Abby was protected over prospects like Nosek and Frk for leadership reasons. Meaning, Abby is a vet on a team that has youngsters incoming. A young Nosek, outside of cap reasons, would serve no purpose in that role nor would be an improvement on the ice either. So, cap space would have been the only benefit. Even that, as pointed out as already, would have been a big if anyway.

 

[JustJokinenAround]

i don't think losing nosek is something to be 'pissed' about. his ceiling is a bottom 6 forward who can chip in 20-25 points a year and kill penalties.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

We agree there, no question.



I don't think it's fruitless to comb over the finer details. I mean, I find it interesting, if nothing else.

I think saying, "it doesn't matter" is a way to shut down conversation on what is essentially a conversation board. Nosek does not matter individually, we agree, but the decision to dump him and keep a low production veteran, to me, is indicative of a larger systemic issue.

This team would still be bad with Nosek and all the other cheap bottom 6 guys. But they would have been far more nimble with the salary cap and potentially created trade assets rather than cap sinkholes. And maybe that's the difference between scraping the bottom 5 for a few extra years.

I do agree and I'll try to be better about not curtailing discussion. It is just that there are certain things that ARE completely irrelevant and not worth discussing. And protecting Justin Abdelkader over *insert 4th line plug here* in an expansion draft two years ago is one of them.

And yes, we would be more nimble with the cap if we hadn't signed Justin Abdelkader until eternity or given Jonathan Ericsson a 6 year deal to have his hip and hand explode. Or signed Weiss to a 5 year deal only to have his entire body explode two years into it and then we decided to buy him out and extend the pain for multiple years.

And I guess my issue and why I stretched it this far is that the Wings didn't chose to lose Tomas Nosek. They didn't pick Justin Abdelkader over Tomas Nosek. I'm sure that they fully expected Petr Mrazek to be the one taken.

I guess I'm just weird in that I don't think it's a systemic "problem" that the Wings do things the way they do. Maybe they play it a little too safe, but based off of what the league did with the retroactive "penalty" of recapture on Franzen and Z, it is hard to blame them. They've made some pretty glaring missteps (Abby's contract chief among them), but realistically, they've had cap flexibility. They continue to have cap flexibility. They are actually kind of built that had they gotten luck in the lottery any of the last couple years or Stamkos, Tavares, Karlsson, etc. took their money, they'd actually have a base of decent to good players that they could turn it around very quickly. Not necessarily be a Cup contender, but add a further developed Zadina, Hughes, and Karlsson to this roster and they are much much closer to making some noise, as you're not asking DDK to be a top pair guy or Nielsen to carry a line as the center. Or Larkin to be the only offensive water carrier.

It's a problem in that when they don't hit the power ball they're not going to make huge jumps, but they did need to just tread water for a little bit to deal with some of the cap fallout from signing guys who then got hurt.

 

[Ezekial]

The only reason Holland got a late 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Tatar is because GMGM figured out too late that he wasn't going to get Karlsson. When McPhee struck out on Karlsson and was up against the deadline, he was eager to make a splash in order to signal to his team that the organization was all in / "win now". Had McPhee landed Karlsson, he wouldn't have dealt for Tatar, so Tatar would either still be a Wing or would have brought in an even lower return...
A late 1st (the 30th overall would've been a 2nd rounder twenty years ago), a 2nd and a 3rd for a 50pt top six winger on a fair contract with 3 yrs of term left was no coup for Holland. If anything, Holland sold Tatar at a relative low point.

And given that Holland seems pretty self-assured that he has the Seattle gig waiting for him, people may well have a reason to be pissed given that he's managing assets he could soon be picking from. Look out for incoming NMC/NTCs...

This ain't it, chief.

 

[abbbaron]

Wow, you're really trying hard to force this false narrative.

Either you are clueless to what the value of Tomas Tatar was, or you're trolling. Either way, this debate is ridiculous.

I think the give away that you are trolling is that when you started you were saying that the only reason why we got such a good return was because McPhee couldn't land Karlsson, but then you shifted your argument to saying that the return was no good anyways.

Next time ask Jonas for some better pointers.

My "argument" of McPhee swinging out on Karlsson and consequently pulling the trigger on Tatar isn't mine. It has been known, and it has been documented in the press. Nothing more than a cursory search with your favorite search engine would turn that up for you, if you care...but, yeah, why do that when you can instead just jump on HF to BS and lob false accusations in effort to defend Holland's piss-poor management?

The "good return" wasn't nearly as good as all the giddy fanboys around here tout it as. Holland didn't need to trade Tatar at that point, which was a relative low in his career. He wasn't on an expiring contract; in fact Tatar's contract was one of the few on the team that was actually reasonable. With more than 3 seasons left, Tatar's remaining term was the longest of any active/rostered player to be traded in the last few seasons outside of ROR. Cost certainty/control is valuable asset (see Hamonic, who, with less term than Tatar, returned a 12thOA, and 2 2nds). There are and have been comparable forwards who as rentals returned comparable or better returns than what Holland got out of a frustrated and desperate McPhee.

 

[Invictus12]

My "argument" of McPhee swinging out on Karlsson and consequently pulling the trigger on Tatar isn't mine. It has been known, and it has been documented in the press. Nothing more than a cursory search with your favorite search engine would turn that up for you, if you care...but, yeah, why do that when you can instead just jump on HF to BS and lob false accusations in effort to defend Holland's piss-poor management?

The "good return" wasn't nearly as good as all the giddy fanboys around here tout it as. Holland didn't need to trade Tatar at that point, which was a relative low in his career. He wasn't on an expiring contract; in fact Tatar's contract was one of the few on the team that was actually reasonable. With more than 3 seasons left, Tatar's remaining term was the longest of any active/rostered player to be traded in the last few seasons outside of ROR. Cost certainty/control is valuable asset (see Hamonic, who, with less term than Tatar, returned a 12thOA, and 2 2nds). There are and have been comparable forwards who as rentals returned comparable or better returns than what Holland got out of a frustrated and desperate McPhee.

So whats the narrative? When another GM finds a great deal, they're genius but in Hollands case its luck of opportunity?

 

[abbbaron]

So whats the narrative? When another GM finds a great deal, they're genius but in Hollands case its luck of opportunity?

For those with literacy challenges: Holland traded Tatar at a relative low

 

[Invictus12]

For those with literacy challenges: Holland traded Tatar at a relative low

Based on??? Your superior abilty to just claim it as a fact? Mind giving comparables of what we should have gotten?

 

[abbbaron]

Based on??? Your superior abilty to just claim it as a fact? Mind giving comparables of what we should have gotten?

Ok, you got me. Tatar was so obviously at his zenith. Can we establish that as "fact"?

 

[Invictus12]

Ok, you got me. Tatar was so obviously at his zenith. Can we establish that as "fact"?

There is no fact when it comes to something you negotiate outside of the actual return. However, you can measure it up to other instances and even there, perception will play a mojor roll. That said, the return we got, and most importantly, the way the prospects look so far due to that return is definitely something to cheer for in my view. And something, quite frankly, to cry about if you are Vegas at this moment.

 

[abbbaron]

There is no fact when it comes to something you negotiate outside of the actual return. However, you can measure it up to other instances and even there, perception will play a mojor roll. That said, the return we got, and most importantly, the way the prospects look so far due to that return is definitely something to cheer for in my view. And something, quite frankly, to cry about if you are Vegas at this moment.

The conditions of McPhee overpaying for something (in the sense that his club didn't appear to need Tatar and he could've deployed his resources better) and Holland likely underachieving on the return for Tatar aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Invictus12]

The conditions of McPhee overpaying for something (in the sense that his club didn't appear to need Tatar and he could've deployed his resources better) and Holland likely underachieving on the return for Tatar aren't mutually exclusive.

True but at the same time, when looking at actual facts like his production and the contract length and its cap hit, we can generally draw conclusions whether the deal made sense for on or both sides by comparing other, similar deals. I generally not much of a cap hit watcher so I won't be the best person to comment on that... However, reading the board at the time, Detroit fans and fans of other teams (generally folks who love the money topic of this sport) seem to pretty much agree that this was a very good deal for Detroit. You say otherwise. Perfectly fine but, based on what?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Ok, you got me. Tatar was so obviously at his zenith. Can we establish that as "fact"?

This is a major deflection. You aren't going to convince anybody by asserting Tatar was sold at a lower relative value if you can't come up with comparables to demonstrate it. That's kind of the point of using the term "relative" in this context. Relative to what?

 

[TatarTangle]

I would have started a riot if the Red Wings lost Brett Lebda