Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

Svoboda’s Jagr dangles continue (and Red Wings free agency talk)

I’m finding this one hard to believe, per the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Dave Molinari:

Petr Svoboda, the agent who represents Jaromir Jagr, said late this afternoon that his client still has not received a contract offer from the Penguins. Svoboda did, however, confirm that he has spoken with Penguins general manager Ray Shero today. He added that he is engaged in ongoing discussions about Jagr, but declined to say with whom.

Detroit has publicly expressed an interest in signing Jagr, while the Penguins have been contemplating the possibility for more than a week. A third NHL club, believed to be Montreal, also is believed to be at least considering whether to try to sign him.

So he’s met with the Penguins, he’s talked to the Red Wings, and yet neither club has supposedly submitted a contract offer? Come on already…

Inline update: Per the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Rob Rossi:

Jagr agent: We’ve exchanged a few things, will talk again tonite. ... Tomorrow afternoon maybe something will be done #jagrwatch
...
Numbers have been discussed btwn #Pens and #jagrwatch, but not final offer from #Pens. Talks to continue tonite. #tribpens

Update 5:05 PM: Also, with Carolina Hurricanes defenseman Joni Pitkanen off the market, MLive’s Ansar Khan looks at the Wings’ remaining free agent options on defense...

Who’s left for the Red Wings, who are seeking a top-four defenseman, a good puck-mover who can play the point on the power play, essentially replaced the retired Brian Rafalski?

The three-most prominent defensemen still available are Vancouver’s Christian Ehrhoff, Montreal’s James Wisniewski, Boston’s Tomas Kaberle and Washington’s Scott Hannan, who is more of a stay-at-home defender. These players will surely be seeking long-term deals north of $4 million per season.

Lesser-priced alternatives include Ian White (San Jose), Anton Babchuk (Calgary), Andy Greene (New Jersey), Steve Montador (Buffalo), Jan Hejda (Columbus) and Shane O’Brien (Nashville).

If the Red Wings opt to sign an older player to a shorter-term deal, the pool includes Ed Jovanovski (Phoenix), Roman Hamrlik (Montreal), Sammy Salo (Vancouver), Bryan McCabe (Rangers) and Brent Sopel (Montreal).

While the Sporting News’s Craig Custance offers this take on the top 25 free agents available, throwing a bit of a wrench into things:

1. Brad Richards, C, Dallas Stars

Refused to waive his no-trade clause to give a prospective buyer an early crack at signing him. He is, by-far, the best option available on July 1.

Potential destinations: Toronto, New York Rangers, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Detroit, Philadelphia.
...
3. Christian Ehrhoff, D, Vancouver Canucks

Even with Bieksa’s deal, there might still be room in Vancouver if general manager Mike Gillis can unload Keith Ballard’s contract.

Potential destinations: Detroit, Buffalo, Vancouver.
...
6. James Wisniewski, D, Montreal Canadiens

Can produce offensively and plays with more of an edge than other offensive defenseman in this group.

Potential destinations: Detroit, Montreal, Columbus, Boston.
...
11. Radim Vrbata, F, Phoenix Coyotes

It would be in the best interests of both the Coyotes and Vrbata to get a deal done in the desert. He immediately helps any power play.

Potential destinations: Phoenix, Detroit, Los Angeles.
12. Ian White, San Jose Sharks

Played well for San Jose after being acquired from Carolina, but the Brent Burns trade might send him to the market.

Potential destinations: Detroit, San Jose, Toronto, Minnesota.
...
21. Ed Jovanovski, D, Phoenix Coyotes

According to a source, he won’t be signing with the Coyotes before July 1.

Potential destinations: Detroit, Colorado, Florida, Toronto.
...
24. Jonathan Ericsson, D, Detroit Red Wings

Regressed a bit following a breakout performance in the 2009 playoffs. The 6-foot-5 defenseman is just 27 years old, leaving room for development. As of Tuesday, he will still in negotiations with Detroit.

Potential destinations: Florida, Detroit, Minnesota.

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous        < 1 2 3 >       Next »

Guilherme's avatar

Ahhhh, the memories.  What is so depressing about it?

To see how much we cared about him.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:06 PM ET

Avatar

I’m meaning to stop posting here because I’m taking up too much of the comment thread, but I just realized I said Datsyuk and Zetterberg’s contracts go on another 10 years or so. That would be Franzen and Zetterberg. I just wanted to clear that up. People here commenting today, Brandon, etc, have been respectful and cool and all that, but in the past there have been people trolling who look for any typo or mistake you make to jump on you and call you an idiot and discredit everything else you’re saying.

BrandonR:

“Thanks for the reply and fair enough - the reason I said short-term was because we’d be losing a valuable pick (with no guarantees to move up in the 2nd round…need to remember the re-building teams that had those early 2nd round picks)”

Of course smile Thank you as well. As for the point you make, it’s a great point. I guess if this were debate club I would say “well how did they get the #35 pick then?” And you would probably say, because rebuilding teams (even if Toronto isn’t really rebuilding the typical way) will trade you their early 2nd round picks if it means moving up in the draft, but not the other way around; to which I would probably say, but if a team is rebuilding, it means they need to fill a lot positions, and bring in a lot of new good players, not just a single first rounder every year, so therefore they could use the extra picks… etc etc

I use the term bottom line a lot, and for me the bottom line here is, if the argument against Burns is that he keeps you from getting Jurco, and Jurco is too amazing to pass up, I say that’s a false argument, and here’s why. Maybe you’re right, and the teams in the early rounds wouldn’t be interested in a typical two 2nd rounders for a high 2nd rounder swap, right? Well, since the argument is that Jurco is so amazing that we had to pass up Burns, that means you can offer more. Those rebuilding teams aren’t interested in the typical deal, you offer more than the typical deal because Jurco is that good. You offer next year’s first for the #35 overall pick (which this just reminded me of something i’ve been overlooking). Or you offer your two 2nds, and a 2nd next year. That’s 3 2nd round picks for 1. I think you could find someone early in the 2nd round to do that deal. Normally those troll people here would find a problem with that too, saying I’m overpaying, and I’m an idiot, but the premise is that Jurco is amazing, so therefore it’s not an overpayment.

Also, the thing I was overlooking, maybe you just give the Wild next year’s 1st rounder. That’s another idea.

Which leads me to the bottom line about that bottom line. There are SO many scenarios out there of how things could have gone, and what various teams would and wouldn’t do, you know? This is the same as when I outline a UFA strategy, putting in players I want the Wings to sign, and how much money they might sign for, and then those trolls come here and tell me how stupid I am, and this guy would sign for more, and this guy less, and all that. There are so many scenarios. I can outline one i think is realistic, that the Wings could have done, and then someone can always disagree. The bottom line is this: the Wings have plenty of attractive assets to make a trade. If they had wanted to, they could have put together a better package than Sj did (or an equal one that MIN liked more). And the Wings also have 1st round picks next year, and the year after that, and every year after that for infinity. It’s a re-filling asset. They also have 7 picks total to start each year. So the bottom line is, maybe Minnesota wants the 1st next year not this year, or maybe not, maybe they want another 2nd, maybe it goes this way, maybe that, etc, but whatever the scenario, the bottom line is, if you want Burns, and you want Jurco, you can have both. It is possible. I can’t outline a scenario and guarantee it would have worked that way. I can outline the most realistic scenario I can think of and say this is what they should have done, and how they should have done it, but anyone can always say “I don’t think it would have worked out exactly like that. That wouldn’t have worked.” Fine. All I’m saying is that it would have been possible, and if Holland wanted to trade for Burns and draft Jurco, I’m sure he could have found a way. The two latest ones I gave, either using next year’s 1st to trade for Jurco (the easiest way), or Minnesota wanted this year’s 1st, giving them this year’s, and then trading three 2nds to move into early 2nd round this year for Jurco, one of those two would have worked, for sure, like 99%. And if it’s the 1% it doesn’t, something else would. You add a 4th on top of the three 2nds. It’s getting a little steep now obviously, but most likely you don’t have to do that. It’s just an example of how, you think Jurco is amazing, but you also want Burns, you make it happen. There are a thousand scenarios, I couldn’t possibly lay out every single one and prove positively that one of those scenarios would have worked, but I can tell you there was a way to do it and get both those guys (while keeping Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, and all of that of course, it would have been within reason), but Ken Holland didn’t want to. That’s the problem I see. Holland didn’t want Brent Burns as badly as Doug Wilson did. And for people who don’t fault Holland there, and think he made the right decision in not trading for Burns, that’s completely fine. They are entitled to their opinion. All I’m saying is let’s not pretend like Holland didn’t have the option to get Burns. My argument is Holland could have gotten Burns, and should have. Other people can argue that Holland could have gotten Burns, and shouldn’t have, that he made the right decision in not trading for him. All I’m against is if anyone says “there’s no way Holland could have gotten Burns,” or “there’s no way Holland could have gotten Burns, and Jurco, without tearing down the team,” or something like that. Because it’s just not true. Maybe they would have had to give away an extra second round pick in the exchange to ensure still getting Jurco, things like that which I talked about earlier, but Holland certainly could have gotten Burns, and still drafted Jurco, if that’s what he really wanted to do. He just didn’t really want to do that. He obviously doesn’t value Burns like I do, and like Doug Wilson does. There’s another argument to be made there which is maybe that should have been irrelevant, as in, even if you don’t value Burns as high as I do, you should recognize the value in keeping a player like Burns, even if you think he’s just very good and not great, away from San Jose. That aside, Holland clearly didn’t want Burns very badly.

I’m saying that’s a big mistake. It’s my opinion. If Holland uses the cap space to get Brad Richards and Jokinen and Wisniewski, my opinion will change somewhat. I will still think, Burns has a smaller cap hit than Wisniewski will, so why didn’t you get Burns, Richards, and Jokinen instead? But if he has a big master plan to improve the club even though he missed Burns, I will be happy with that. But unless he does that, I’m still going to think he made a huge mistake not only missing Burns, but letting San Jose get him. I mean, for me anyway, that’s the worst case scenario. The one team you don’t let get their top defenseman is San Jose. That’s their achilles heal, and you just let them turn it into an achilles bicep (how do you like that eh? Took me 15 minutes to think up that metaphor) (just kidding about the 15 minutes part).

Anyway, bottom line, Holland could have gotten Burns, and still drafted Jurco, and he chose not to. Jurco didn’t stop Holland from going after Burns. He could have had both. He just didn’t think Burns was worth it. I disagree with that. Others agree with Holland. Maybe someone out there agrees with me too. I don’t know. But that’s the bottom line, brought to you by Johnson22, King of redundancy. And the bottom line, for the dictionary deprived who are deprived of dictionaries, is that redundancy means redundant, and that’s what redundant means (not as good as my achilles metaphor but hey…).

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:09 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

  Kane to Toews to Hossa… scores, glove side on Howard.  Wow, what a goal!!!  That is going to suck to hear for the next 12 plus seasons for sure.

  Posted by Gretzky_to_Lemieux on 07/03/09 at 05:27 PM ET

There’s a major flaw in your argument… Howard’s not going to be around that long.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/03/09 at 05:38 PM ET

Hehe, JJ

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:11 PM ET

BrendonR's avatar

Have to admit Brad Richards was not on my radar at all as a potential pickup for the Wings.  All this talk has got me thinking about how that could actually work out. He’s too old for Toronto (at least I hope the Buds don’t get him..just doesn’t fit in with their solid direction right now), and the NYR are not at all close to winning the Cup. Richards has stated he wants to go somewhere he can win. Could we see the Master and the Apprentice get into a bit of a bidding war?  Right now I see TB as his most likely destination. The only issue I imagine, from the Wings’ perspective, is term.  But adding in Jagr would just make our Top 6 even scarier:

Filppula-Datsyuk-Zetterberg
Franzen-Richards-Jagr

Posted by BrendonR on 06/28/11 at 10:12 PM ET

Chris in A^2's avatar

Ken Holland rarely makes the “Win Now” move that some people go for and this is often criticized as a lack of agression.  His style comes off to many in the public as stodgy and boring.
- monkey

That’s what I’m worried about.  If there ever was a time for win now, this is it.  The roster and cap are set up to allow for overpaying for a superstar, Lidstrom is on his way out, we’ve only got a couple seasons left with the Euro Twins in their prime and there are no good, cheap options for fixing the worst defense wings team in decades.

Posted by Chris in A^2 from Nyquist Puck Control on 06/28/11 at 10:13 PM ET

Avatar

RyanVM: “Johnson22, what if there’s a big cap rollback after next season?”

I guess I’m today’s hockey encyclopedia. If there’s a big cap rollback, the Wings will have benefited this year from their big signings being able to play, and help their team win the Cup, and then the next year, when they have to shed salary to get under the lower cap ceiling, they will benefit from having some of the best tradable assets in the NHL. The teams that missed out on Brad Richards this free agency will be lining up to trade top prospects for him if the Red Wings ever have to trade him. Basically if you sign Brad Richards and James Wisniewski to 11 mil in cap hits, total, and then the next season the cap goes 11 mil down, you just trade those guys for picks and prospects and great assets. It didn’t ruin your team. You have the same exact team as you have today. You got to have a much better team for one season, and then back to the same. NEVER negative, or worse. And maybe James Wisniewski, at 4 million, has proven to be much better than Brad Stuart, so you trade Brad Stuart instead of him. Now your roster is actually better with Wisniewski, and you’ve gotten assets for Brad Stuart.

That’s the beauty of free agency.You don’t pay any assets to get these guys, so if for whatever reason, you ever have to get rid of them, you make a profit, even if you just get a 3rd round pick, you make a profit. And you NEVER lose anything.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:14 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

Richards could work, but the fact he didn’t accept to waive his NTC doesn’t sound good to me.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:15 PM ET

Avatar

Christina: “That’s what I’m worried about.  If there ever was a time for win now, this is it.”

Exactly! Especially when you don’t have to sacrifice any of the future to win now. You don’t trade Tatar for a 35 year old. If you’d have traded Tatar for Burns, Burns is 26, he is also a future player same as Tatar.

And when it comes to free agents, you’re not giving up anything at all, and you sign them for term, so they help you now and in the future as well. They also give you more depth, so if you have an underachieving player, they open it up for you to trade him and get even more picks or prospects to help the future, when maybe before you had that depth you couldn’t trade an underachieving guy, you needed him.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:17 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

From Pleiness:

Opportunities up front could also be sticking points with Eaves and Miller.

“I’m sure they look at our depth and they’re not sure where the opportunities are going to present themselves,” Holland said. “They think they can have a bigger role with other teams.”

Holland said Eaves’ agent was going to talk to his client today and then get back with the Wings by Thursday.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:18 PM ET

Avatar

Guilherme:  soccer fan or is that your name?

“Richards could work, but the fact he didn’t accept to waive his NTC doesn’t sound good to me.”

Im not sure what you’re tlaking about. If you’re referring to waiving his rights, it wasn’t to Detroit. He didn’t turn down a trade to Detroit, far as we know. It was probably Toronto or New York. So the fact he turned them down to see ‘all his options’ (possibly Detroit) is actually a good thing for Detroit’s chances of signing him.

I’m leaving now before someone else says something or asks me something that I have to explain.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:19 PM ET

Chris in A^2's avatar

I doubt Richards is going anywhere without a NTC.

Posted by Chris in A^2 from Nyquist Puck Control on 06/28/11 at 10:20 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

Guilherme:  soccer fan or is that your name?

My name.

Im not sure what you’re tlaking about. If you’re referring to waiving his rights, it wasn’t to Detroit. He didn’t turn down a trade to Detroit, far as we know. It was probably Toronto or New York. So the fact he turned them down to see ‘all his options’ (possibly Detroit) is actually a good thing for Detroit’s chances of signing him.

To me, not waiving his NTC (for his negotiating rights) tell he’s interested in how much money he could make. Which shows he’s interested in money. THat’s what I meant.

Anyway, he said he don’t wanna go to a place with much media pressure (Toronto, New York?), I don’t know how he feels about Khan(!).

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:26 PM ET

Avatar

monkey:

“The Sharks, in my view, did not improve, they went sideways.  But we will see how things go.  That’s why they play the game.”

That’s because you value Setoguchi as equal to Burns. But Burns scored more points last season being a defenseman, on a low scoring team, than Setoguchi scored as a forward, on a high scoring team, playing next to Joe Thornton. That in and of itself would suggest Burns is far superior to Setoguchi. But I understand the argument. Is a #1 defenseman, losing Setoguchi, better than a #3-4 defenseman, keeping your players? It’s a good question to ask, hard to answer. As for Holland in free agency, the reason I don’t have faith is because there is no Dman out there who is as good as Brent Burns. If Drew Doughty was UFA this year, I wouldn’t be up in arms about not trading for Burns. I’d be like, those suckers in SJ just gave up assets for Brent Burns, and we’re going to go get Doughty for free. Great! But there is no Doughty. No one like Burns is out there. Burns is one of very few defenseman who can take over a game offensively, not to mention still be good (and big) defensively. I don’t see anyone out there in UFA who can even do the first thing, let alone both.

But you bring up a good point. I’m down about not getting Burns because now I believe, looking at the UFA class, that nothing Holland does from here on out can improve the Wings defense as much as if they’d acquired Burns. However, the small bit of hope I do have is if he makes up for that by improving the offense a lot, i.e Brad Richards.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:27 PM ET

BrendonR's avatar

However, the small bit of hope I do have is if he makes up for that by improving the offense a lot, i.e Brad Richards.

This is a good point.  A lot of people seem to be up in arms about the Wings poor defensive play.  Yet the way the Wings play defense is by having the puck all game. Upgrading our forwards could go a long way in reducing our shots and chances against.  Honestly, just getting rid of Big E (please, please…) would go a long way. Without him, Raf’s periodic lapses (and I was a big fan of his), or Salei’s indifferent play it’ll improve enough as it is.

And imprving defence with a forward upgrade doesn’t mean we need a two-way player either, just someone good at dishing and working the cycle.

Posted by BrendonR on 06/28/11 at 10:38 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Im not sure what you’re tlaking about. If you’re referring to waiving his rights, it wasn’t to Detroit.

I guess I’m today’s hockey encyclopedia.  What he is referring to is that Richards will not sign with Dallas and refused to waive his NTC, meaning Dallas gets nothing for him, not so much as a bag of pucks.  It’s interesting; it could be interpreted many ways.  Some see as a huge middle finger to the Stars, others may believe he has already negotiated a contract with another team.  I like to believe he is just really really excited to be a free agent and doesn’t want to spend any time at all associated with the New York Islanders.

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 10:40 PM ET

Avatar

Guillherme:

“To me, not waiving his NTC (for his negotiating rights) tell he’s interested in how much money he could make. Which shows he’s interested in money. THat’s what I meant.”

Ah okay. But that’s not why you’d turn down a NTC.  He could have requested being traded to the team who would pay him the most (maybe Florida), and Dallas could have gotten assets back from him. Or he could have accepted a trade to whoever would give Dallas the best assets, turned them down, and gone to UFA and signed for the biggest money. All turning down the trade means is that he didn’t want to let whoever traded for him down, because he already had his mind made up that he wanted to test the market, see all the teams who are interested in him, and maybe sign with one of the teams who wasn’t trying to trade for his rights (like Detroit, potentially).

So let’s not read too much into things. Every free agent wants money. Brad is a Smythe winner. He’s obviously a motivated, hard-working player who loves the game, and wants to win. All of those things, winning and money, location, etc, will likely be weighed when he makes his decision, same as every other free agent. If Holland is serious about Richards, and really wants him, then Detroit has as good a chance as anyone besides maybe Tampa Bay if they make a real offer.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:40 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

All turning down the trade means is that he didn’t want to let whoever traded for him down, because he already had his mind made up that he wanted to test the market, see all the teams who are interested in him, and maybe sign with one of the teams who wasn’t trying to trade for his rights (like Detroit, potentially).

So let’s not read too much into things.

But you’ll read into his actions and make your own assumptions. Ok.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:44 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Burns is one of very few defenseman who can take over a game offensively, not to mention still be good (and big) defensively. I don’t see anyone out there in UFA who can even do the first thing, let alone both.

Maybe, but the Sharks defense still isn’t all that great, and as noted Burns is currently slated to become UFA in a year.  Having Brent Burns did not make the Wild a contender.  I might undervalue the guy but the move did not move me.

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 10:48 PM ET

monkey's avatar

But you’ll read into his actions and make your own assumptions. Ok.

He begins to understand…

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 10:49 PM ET

Avatar

monkey:

Thanks. You can take over man =P. This encyclopedia is going to need shoulder surgery by the time this day ends. And yeah that’s what I thought he meant, him not letting Dallas waive his rights, I just didn’t see any connection of that to Detroit. He doesn’t want to come to Detroit because he wouldn’t let Dallas trade him to New York or Toronto or whoever? I didn’t get the connection. Maybe like you said he’s talking about Richards character, but I’m taking him at face value when he says he doesn’t want to let down a team that trades for his rights. Maybe like you say his priority should be to Dallas getting assets and who cares if he lets another team down, but yeah I don’t know if it affects Detroit’s odds of getting him.

As for adding him and you talking about the defense, exactly. The other concept about those who argue “We shouldn’t add an elite forward because we need an elite defenseman more,” well there are two things. The first is that, there is no elite defenseman available now in UFA. But the bigger concept is, that they don’t understand, money - if you could improve, for next season, the Wings’ goals per game average by 1 goal, or the Wings’ goals against average by 1 less goal, which would you choose?

What is better, to score 1 more goal per game, or to get scored on 1 less goal per game?

So that’s the concept. I posed it as a trick question or whatever because it’s easiest. The point is, adding a forward who gives your team 40 more goals per season, or adding a defenseman who makes your team get scored upon 40 less goals, it’s the same. Either way, you are 40 goals better. That’s the concept: it doesn’t matter if you’re better through offense or defense, it just matters how much better you are. Better is better. You might think you need defense, so you choose a #4 defense over a #1 center, but that’s a mistake. The #4 defenseman is going to improve your defense by 20 less goals against per season, so you’re 20 goals better, but the #1 center would have improved your team by 40 goals for, so you’re 40 better. 40 > 20.

Those are just example numbers, I don’t know that one player would improve your team by 40 goals (at least given that the Wings are already so good at offense), but that’s the concept. You also have to consider that a good forward will help you a little on goals against too, and likewise a good defenseman will help your offense as well as defense, not to mention with both positions you have to weigh non-goal related things like puck possession and all that (which is the main reason people make the argument about needing a defenseman more than a forward). But, in terms of goals, or improvement, Brad Richards improves the team more than any other player available in free agency. Maybe if there was a defenseman who was as good at being a DMan as Richards is at being a forward, he would improve the Wings more because it’s the position of “need,” but no defenseman is in Richards’ league. Richards improves the team more than anyone else. Luckily, you don’t have to choose. There is room for Richards and Wisniewski, not just one or the other.

Alright, I’m out of here. Good talking hockey. About time a decent discussion came of my commenting here. Usually it just leads to people trolling.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:55 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Tampa Bay has a a lot of cap space, but they also have about seven roster spots to fill.  They have zero goalies under contract, Simon Gagne is UFA, Steven Stamkos is RFA (and if they’re smart, and we know they are, they will sign him to term now)... at $3millionish per roster spot they don’t have a lot of wiggle room to keep their stars, bring back Richards, and ice a team.  Signing Brad Richards is possible but something has to give.

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 10:56 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

Steven Stamkos is RFA (and if they’re smart, and we know they are, they will sign him to term now)

On twitter:

Hearing tonight Stamkos may be signed at between $7-7.5 mil per season

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 10:57 PM ET

Avatar

Guilherme:

“But you’ll read into his actions and make your own assumptions. Ok.”

No idea what you’re talking about. That was my whole point, Im not taking anything from him not waiving his NTC. He’ll be a free agent on July 1. The Wings should try and sign him. I dont know anyting either way, if he’d like to come or not. I haven’t read in one way or another. Lots of free agents like to come to Detroit, so I’m hoping Brad feels the same, and I want Detroit to offer him a contract. My whole response to your NTC stuff was saying how I don’t see how it affects Detroit’s chances of signing him at all.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:58 PM ET

Nate A's avatar

I have a question. If Kenny signs Wisniewski for $5M cap hit, for any length of time, can we just all shut the hell up and let the man do his job?

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 06/28/11 at 10:59 PM ET

monkey's avatar

can we just all shut the hell up and let the man do his job?

No.  Yes.

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 11:03 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Hearing tonight Stamkos may be signed at between $7-7.5 mil per season

Twitter: diarrhea of the fingers.

Posted by monkey from Praha, Česká republika on 06/28/11 at 11:04 PM ET

Nate A's avatar

No.  Yes.

Posted by monkey

LOL

True. I don’t actually expect any of the 19 to shut up. I think that would be a bad sign.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 06/28/11 at 11:05 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I was wondering what ever happened to buttercrunch Alwayshockey kingofthefans…airfans jacktheboxboss... whatever the hell his/her name was.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/11 at 11:19 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Kane to Toews to Hossa… scores, glove side on Howard.  Wow, what a goal!!!  That is going to suck to hear for the next 12 plus seasons for sure.

  Posted by Gretzky_to_Lemieux on 07/03/09 at 05:27 PM ET

There’s a major flaw in your argument… Howard’s not going to be around that long.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/03/09 at 05:38 PM ET

Hehe, JJ

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 06/28/11 at 09:11 PM ET

Hahaha.  Shut up, Herm.  We’ve got another ten years to prove me wrong.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/11 at 11:22 PM ET

Avatar

Here, regarding Burns.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/41032-Campbell-Brent-Burns-trade-moves-Sharks-closer-to-Stanley-Cup.html

Convinced yet Holland missed the boat? Even the Wings head coach is beside himself.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 11:53 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

Johnson- You believe a single word that comes out of Babcock’s mouth?

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 06/29/11 at 12:56 AM ET

Avatar

So lets see…SJ has Blake, Boyle, Luckowich, Erhoff, Vlassic, etc, and lose to Anaheim in the first round, overreact and ship Erhoff and Luckwich out to trade for Heatley, cuz you know they needed more offense to get past the first round.  Then they lose to Chicago and ship out the goalie cuz you know he wasn’t good enough.  Then they lose to Vancouver and now they ship out Setagouchi cuz you know their defense wasn’t good enough. 
See a pattern yet?  Looks to me like the tail wagging the dog.
I dont think a guy with at least one concussion, takes nights off, and has trouble processing the game…all from your linked article….is the end all be all, player you think he is. (i could be wrong)  But unless he brings about 6 real players worth of guts/heart with him it will be all for naught in SJ.

The Holland comments seem a bit harsh this early, and without being a mouse in his pocket.

Posted by akwingsfan from alaska on 06/29/11 at 02:10 AM ET

WestWing's avatar

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/28/11 at 10:53 PM ET

Wow, do you have a basement full of Chinese slave laborers taking dictation for you?

Posted by WestWing from Portland, Oregon on 06/29/11 at 02:40 AM ET

WestWing's avatar

have a question. If Kenny signs Wisniewski for $5M cap hit, for any length of time, can we just all shut the hell up and let the man do his job?

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 06/28/11 at 09:59 PM ET

Yes Nate, but he will still have missed an opportunity to obtain the almighty, all-world, dare I say, other-worldly Brent Burns who has averaged .4 points per game, and is ONLY 26 years old!!!!

Wisniewski, on the other hand, is 27 and has averaged .45 points per game in his career.

Oh wait.  That would mean that they are actually pretty comparable players with perhaps even a slight edge going to Wiz. 

So, if that were to happen, it would mean that Holland and Doug Wilson will have eached obtained a comparable player. 

The difference being that Wilson gave up a top-six forward off his roster, one of the organization’s top prospects and a first round pick to get a guy who could very well walk away as a UFA at the end of next season whereas Holland will have locked his guy into a contract without losing so much as a single asset in the process.

Gosh maybe KH actually knows what the f*^k he’s doing after all.

Posted by WestWing from Portland, Oregon on 06/29/11 at 02:50 AM ET

Baroque's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/11 at 10:19 PM ET

LOL. smile

Posted by WestWing from Portland, Oregon on 06/29/11 at 01:50 AM ET

He’s not just only 26 years old, but he also likes animals. Especially snakes. Don’t underestimate the significance of the herpetology factor in hockey.

If there is a major cap rollback after the next CBA, I don’t think any team will be able to trade diddly poo to other teams. It will likely take the form of a reduced cap with the option of buying out contracts that put a team over, with the bought-out players being available to sign by any team other than the one buying them out. Why Darren McCarty had to be bought out and signed with Calgary after the lockout.

Few teams are going to have space to take on trades, and even if they do, why the heck would they give up any assets at all when all they need to do is wait, see which good players get bought out so high-payroll teams can fit underneath the cap, and then pick through the jettisoned talent for whatever they want, with the certainty that they don’t have to compete against half the league at all because they are all capped out?

Thus the league furthers parity by redistributing talent from the better teams to the worse teams. The NHL would be happy if everyone was pretty much the same, with each team having just enough flashy stars for marketing purposes, but not too many.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/29/11 at 03:36 AM ET

Avatar

akwings fan:

“takes nights off” - you mean like Zetterberg? “They say you can’t turn on the switch, but you can. There’s a switch, I’ve seen it.”

It’s a long season. Plenty of players have been quoted as saying you can’t go 100% every night. You do that in the playoffs if you make it. You can’t do it in the regular season. Doug Wilson said so himself. He said his club hurt its chances by falling behind the first half the year, because then they had to go all out the rest of the regular season, and they were gassed for the playoffs. And that’s just half a season at full effort.

As for the concussions, you obviously didn’t read what I wrote earlier. Past concussions do not increase likelihood of future concussions, so Burns’ concussions are a non-factor in any discussion about him. He is at no more risk than any other NHL player.

As for trouble processing the game, I have no idea why that was in the article, or why the writer thinks that, what he’s basing that on. I posted the article for Babcock’s quote, his opinion, not the author’s opinions on a opinion. Maybe the reason you don’t see eye to eye with me is that I’ve watched the player play, a lot, and you’re basing your opinion of him on what you’re reading in an article. You clearly don’t even know the player we’re talking about very well, and would be defending the Wings not trading for him no matter what unless he was a name like Drew Doughty.

However, your other point is a great point, and I agree. Doug Wilson is very reactionary. He’s made a lot of moves in the past, some bad. And I have said so when he made them. I thought losing Ehrhoff was stupid. But I thought getting Boyle was a fantastic move for them. My point is, yes, he has been reactionary, and he’s gotten it wrong a bunch of times. But even a blind man dropped in the middle of a freeway with heavy traffic makes it to safety every once in awhile. Doug Wilson keeps making moves, adding big players. He added the Stanley Cup goaltender because he figured if he won the Stanley Cup, and played so well against the Sharks, he must be an elite goalie. But sometimes players like that, goalies especially, playing behind great defenses, become overrated. So sometimes when he’s gone after big players in a reactionary manner, he misses, or he gets an overrated player. But eventually, you make so many moves, you are going to hit the jackpot. Not every player perceived to be talented by either you, or everyone, is going to turn out to be overrated. Sometimes you hit the jackpot. Brent Burns is amazing. He and Drew Doughty are two of the most fun to watch and ultra-skilled defenseman in the league. Watching his 6’5 frame skate with the puck up the ice, motoring, with so much power and precision, blowing by people, is a sight. He’s fantastic. I’m telling you, he is. Doug Wilson may be reactionary, and pompous, and a copy-cat GM, and bad at certain aspects of his job, but this time he got it right. Maybe it’s just by luck. Maybe if Robyn Regehr had declined Buffalo and said he wanted to go to San Jose, he would have traded the package for Regehr instead, even though Regehr is nowhere near Burns level. But the way things turned out, Doug Wilson got the best player he possibly could have, whether he knows it or not.

Anyway man, you bring up a great point about Doug Wilson. He certainly has his flaws as a GM. But he’s out GMing Holland despite them right now. I don’t like Doug Wilson at all, but he is kicking our GM’s butt. The Burns side of things, I understand why you wouldn’t be as pissed about the trade as me or Babcock because you don’t know how good he is, but unfortunately, I’m telling you, he’s amazing. He’s not perfect, but he’s one of those players, there is no limit on his talent. The only limit is how well he can implement his talent into the game. For example, Pavel Datsyuk is an amazing stickhandler, but if he decided to never stickhandle in a game, and always passed the puck as soon as he got it, he wouldn’t be nearly as good. Likewise, Burns has all the talent in the world, all we can hope for is that he doesn’t use it to its full potential. Moreover, we can hope he doesn’t re-sign. Maybe he won’t tap all of his potential next season, but if he re-signs with them, he will win Norris trophies. If anyone has some sort of idea to inflate his value and get it around the internet that market value for Burns is 8.5 mil a year for 15 years, that would probably help the Wings, finding a way to make Burns not re-sign this summer with the Sharks, and make him think he can get way more if he waits to be UFA. You might think it’s a ridiculous idea to think we can affect these things, but twitter, the internet, you can do a lot. If George Malik wrote some blog about how he thinks the Red Wings should sign Brent Burns next offseason, but “he will likely command 8.5 million per year for 10+ years in such a weak defense market, and I’m not sure the Wings can pay him that much,” that gets into everyone’s mind, and it starts to set a value. Then the next blogger says “I heard he’ll get at least 8 million per year - that’s his value,” and it spreads. If anyone has an idea of how to do this short of George doing that (which he won’t probably), let me know.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/29/11 at 03:52 AM ET

Avatar

Westwing:

“Brent Burns who has averaged .4 points per game, and is ONLY 26 years old!!!!

Wisniewski, on the other hand, is 27 and has averaged .45 points per game in his career.”

Come on you’re better than this. Ice time, PP time, quality of PP unit you are on, defense partners, quality of team you are on, quality of team offensively you are on (because we’re talking pts here), and many other variables, are all factors in the PPG stats for a career. You didn’t even do the last couple seasons, which would have been slightly more reasonable, if still subject to all those variables I mentioned. What that means is, the quality of the defenseman is only of many, many things that factor into PPG average.

What that means is, your analysis is ridiculous. PPG means very little. Burns is bigger, faster, stronger (ring a bell? those are three big reasons the Sharks continue to beat the Red Wings) with way more upside. He also scores way more. Approximately 1.6 or so assists are awarded for every goal. The average goal counts more than the average assist. But again, that’s just production. Burns gives a team a lot more than that. Wisniewski is obviously the best option left (there are some problems with Ehrhoff), and the Wings better get him if they want to save face here (and save their blueline), but Brent Burns he is not.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/29/11 at 04:01 AM ET

Avatar

Baroque:

“If there is a major cap rollback after the next CBA, I don’t think any team will be able to trade diddly poo to other teams. It will likely take the form of a reduced cap with the option of buying out contracts that put a team over, with the bought-out players being available to sign by any team other than the one buying them out. Why Darren McCarty had to be bought out and signed with Calgary after the lockout.”

Well one should always be encouraged to share their thoughts and the things you imagine. You could start a boardgame or something with your own imagined National Hockey League.

However, if you’re talking about reality, and not what you “think” will happen based on… nothing (I, and someone else here, have both already told you that a major cap rollback will come with salary decreases or some other form of allowing existing contracts to stand). Additionally, I have also already explained the worst case scenario, that even in your dreamworld NHL where the Wings have to shed salary, they will just be able to trade the players they signed for assets. As long as the Wings don’t make stupid signings for bad players, you can always trade good players. If Toronto is dying to add Brad Richards right now, why wouldn’t they still be in the near future? Worst case scenario is you give him away for free to Toronto, the Rangers, Florida, Buffalo, etc, and you’re back even.

So there you go. Even if you don’t realize this, I know subconsciously you’re just playing devils advocate at this point, so I’m going to stop responding if there are any more outlandish reality-ignoring responses. I’ve already explained why signing a Brad Richards, or any good player, at a reasonable cap hit, would help the Wings. A potential cap rollback does nothing to change this fact. As you will see on July 1, these players will get signed. Many teams will attempt to sign them, they will each pick a team and sign with that team, and a potential cap rollback will not have stopped any of those teams from making offers or signing these players, and that is because of the scenario I’ve described to you, twice. You’re just in your own world so you haven’t actually taken in what I and others are telling you.

Posted by Johnson22 on 06/29/11 at 04:10 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

I am comfortable with vehement disagreements, but please stop any personal attacks.

Please know that I am highly concerned about the all-out-war that the comments sections of the past few entries have turned out to be over the past few days and that it must be mentioned that no matter how much time, energy and effort we spend arguing between now and July 1st, it isn’t going to change what happens.

My readers and TMR commenters mean the world to me—you guys are paying for my trip to Traverse City, for goodness’ sake—and I value all of your opinions greatly, but I’m quite concerned about the amount of rancor that’s developed and I’m politely asking you to please refrain from personal attacks or insults.

I’m afraid to start shaking the teacher’s finger and say, “You know, I can just close the comments for this post and/or close comments for future posts as punishment,” but it is an option and I have to be honest with you in saying that I’ve considered doing so over the past couple of days because it’s just…

It’s getting a little nuts in here, everybody. I won’t do so but I’m very concerned.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/29/11 at 04:29 AM ET

Avatar

I guess all I am saying is the track record of Holland says that he has a plan, the price was to high, or there is a hole of some type in Burns.  The track record of Wilson says he is overreacting, has no plan, and is blind to any hole. I will hold off on saying Holland has “lost it” at least until july 2nd of next year.

Posted by akwingsfan from alaska on 06/29/11 at 04:40 AM ET

« Previous        < 1 2 3 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Malik Report

The Malik Report is a destination for all things Red Wings-related. I offer biased, perhaps unprofessional-at-times and verbose coverage of my favorite team, their prospects and developmental affiliates. I've joined the Kukla's Korner family with five years of blogging under my belt, and I hope you'll find almost everything you need to follow your Red Wings at a place where all opinions are created equal and we're all friends, talking about hockey and the team we love to follow.