HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Ken Holland Trade Deadline Report Card

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2007, 07:33 AM
  #26
MotownMadman
Registered User
 
MotownMadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stu the grim reaper View Post
i cant believe we still have hudler
After all the talk on this forum, that may be a bigger surprise than acquiring Bert!

MotownMadman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 09:38 AM
  #27
TheDakkster*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Halmstad, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
A+ without a doubt.

TheDakkster* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:27 AM
  #28
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Franzen and Draper are a PK tandem now and will be on a line together. Swap him for Cleary and I think you got the lines right.

There's an outside chance that Babs puts Calder on the 4th line and Samuelsson on the 2nd to get a "shooter" on that line and create a very dangerous "energy" line. We'll see.....

I know it's just one game, but I liked the way Calder attacked the boards and the way he just goes for the net. He's not trying to overthink the game/flow but looks like a nice little wrecking ball. I think he ends up a bit higher over time.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:34 AM
  #29
roccol
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
3 #1's for an impending UFA is too rich for my blood.
Why do people keep saying 3 #1's? It is not. It is only 1 #1 that Edmonton get's to draft. By all accounts the other 2 picks are not first line players. So how can this be called 3 #1's? Where they were drafted is irrelevant.

roccol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:38 AM
  #30
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuJo#31 View Post
I agree with you guys, Holland did a terrific job this year.

To be honest I think that we have one of the best GM in the league, why?
Look at other clubs and see what they gave up!

If you look around the league and see what kind of contracts players get, I truly believe that Holland made some good choices!

Some examples of bad GMs: NY Islanders, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, LA Kings, Montreal, Colorado and some more!!!


Agree. I give Kenny an A+ for structuring this deal the right way. He was willing to assume some risk by taking a player who is still injured, recognizing the guy's potential at peak performance is worth a lot more. If he doesn't work out, we're not out of much. If he does work, the deal will be one of the best ever for the Wings, but Florida ends up getting some reasonable picks (value) for trading a high impact player who they probably couldn't have re-signed. Factor in that the deal gets better for them if he does re-sign for the Wings shows that this most likely is not a pure rental. If Bert plays up anywhere close to his established level, the Wings will try to keep him. I'm not a fan of pure rentals for big names so I really like that aspect of this trade.

As for Calder, it was a nice depth move. Williams clearly wasn't making an impact. It's okay to move on and try something different. It also adds a slightly different "type" of player to the line-up... a much needed type change.

Like the other guys have summarized, some good changes to the roster - the top forward line ups in particular, good moves in the gritty direction, and very little given up in terms of players and assets. Furthermore, NOT overpaying and panicking like the other guys did. Nothing to quibble about here!

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:40 AM
  #31
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stu the grim reaper View Post
i cant believe we still have hudler

I suppose one day we'll know if that is really good... or really bad.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:47 AM
  #32
DRWR
 
DRWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Since the trade has conditional terms, it is only fitting that my grade for Holland is also conditional.

C = Reach the semifinals
B = Reach the finals
A = Reach the Stanley Cup finals

As for his grade at this moment in time, I'll just average these three grades out. He gets a B.

DRWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 11:54 AM
  #33
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anergetic View Post
Since the trade has conditional terms, it is only fitting that my grade for Holland is also conditional.

C = Reach the semifinals
B = Reach the finals
A = Reach the Stanley Cup finals

As for his grade at this moment in time, I'll just average these three grades out. He gets a B.

No fair reserving the option to be a Monday quarterback.

Ken has to make some decisions without having a crystal ball, so we get to judge him on his abilities to divine the future. If you apply the Hindsight is 20/20 rule, it just means you can never be wrong while anyone having to make these decisions never has the same luxury and probably is wrong at least some of the time. No?

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 12:31 PM
  #34
DRWR
 
DRWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No fair reserving the option to be a Monday quarterback.

Ken has to make some decisions without having a crystal ball, so we get to judge him on his abilities to divine the future. If you apply the Hindsight is 20/20 rule, it just means you can never be wrong while anyone having to make these decisions never has the same luxury and probably is wrong at least some of the time. No?
Good way of looking at it. Holland has a very tough job. He can think this and that all he wants, but he never truly knows where the dice will land until they do. He worked out some good conditions that has put an immediate focus on a good playoff run this year, without the expense of our team's future. The more I think about it, even if he is wrong about this trade, I wouldn't be too disappointed at him. I change my grade to an A.

DRWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 01:03 PM
  #35
Sadekuuro
Registered User
 
Sadekuuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DangleSauce View Post
Question: What do we do with Samuellson when everybody gets healthy?
Waive him.

While I am skeptical about Bertuzzi's attitude problems and the ability of any 30-something power forward to return from serious back surgery and be a force, I like both of these deals, the risk is quite low.

Sadekuuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 01:53 PM
  #36
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccol View Post
Why do people keep saying 3 #1's? It is not. It is only 1 #1 that Edmonton get's to draft. By all accounts the other 2 picks are not first line players. So how can this be called 3 #1's? Where they were drafted is irrelevant.
No, it's not.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 01:58 PM
  #37
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
A overall.

Holland won all the trades that he has pulled. Whether it's going to be enough in the playoffs remains to be seen, but these things you never know anyhow.

shveik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 03:34 PM
  #38
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,769
vCash: 500
Compared to other deals and what other GMs have given up this is a clear A+.

The deal itself is an A and I can't give an A+ cause Bertuzzi will not be ready in 2 weeks time yet and he just played 7 games this season. And we really do not know if he'll play at all.

If Bertuzzi does not play a single game this season or playoff then this is an A-. Calder for Williams was a very smart move and Bertuzzi was a very low risk/high reword deal not using the top prospect nor draft picks.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 04:00 PM
  #39
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartestManOnEarth View Post
But if he's the guy who scored 17 goals the season he went BigNasty on steve Moore, then I'm not so sure he gets us much further than we would go without him.
Yup. Wings fans *really* ought not to expect "Old Bert". That Bert hasn't been seen for nearly half a decade. Personally, I don't think it exists any more. He caught the "I'm a Superstar" disease, and forgot how he got there.

Just expect to be happy when he does great at times, then frustrated when he sucks at other times. Might even be the same game or same period.

Keep your expectations low, remembering that you didn't pay very much for him, and you're likely not going to get very much from him, and you'll be fine.

PecaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 04:56 PM
  #40
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccol View Post
Why do people keep saying 3 #1's? It is not. It is only 1 #1 that Edmonton get's to draft. By all accounts the other 2 picks are not first line players. So how can this be called 3 #1's? Where they were drafted is irrelevant.
The other players were picked in the first round. Hence, three first round picks.

When the Wings traded for Chelios, they gave up 3 first round picks - 2 future picks and Anders Eriksson.

sarcastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 10:27 PM
  #41
kacz
Registered User
 
kacz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,589
vCash: 500
As of this moment, the deals look great.

But this means peanuts until we can defend the transactions in the playoffs.

kacz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 09:59 AM
  #42
grinspy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarcastro View Post
The other players were picked in the first round. Hence, three first round picks.

When the Wings traded for Chelios, they gave up 3 first round picks - 2 future picks and Anders Eriksson.

That's absurd. If Zetterberg was traded, would you value him like a 7th rd pick? or Datsyuk for a 6th?

Once a player has been drafted and developed (or not, as in some cases), their value goes up and down and you no longer value them the same way. The players in the Edm-NYI trade had clearly lost value and were not considered on par with a 1st rd draft pick. They still had decent value and weren't just throw-ins, but the trade was not the equivalent of three no. 1 picks.

grinspy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 12:51 PM
  #43
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinspy View Post
That's absurd. If Zetterberg was traded, would you value him like a 7th rd pick? or Datsyuk for a 6th?
Yes, in that when judging the return of the trade when you're dealing with very young players you'd start with the initial value of the assets. In the cases you mention Detroit first took a late pick and turned it into something pretty good, and then they turned that asset around for whatever they recieved in the hypothetical trade.

Quote:
Once a player has been drafted and developed (or not, as in some cases), their value goes up and down and you no longer value them the same way. The players in the Edm-NYI trade had clearly lost value and were not considered on par with a 1st rd draft pick. They still had decent value and weren't just throw-ins, but the trade was not the equivalent of three no. 1 picks.
Depends on how you want to look at it, I guess. IMO looking at the base value of the assets being moved is the method least prone to bias. Adding in whether or not the team initially employed those assets in such a manner as to maximize their value is a matter of debate. Maybe some years down the line one or both of those players go crazy and become hugely valuable. Maybe they won't. To set the value of the picks on 2/28/07 is as arbitrary as setting them on the day the pick was awarded.

I merely elect to set my arbitrary point at the inception of the asset, not at some indeterminant time in its development.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 01:20 PM
  #44
Zorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Zorin
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinspy View Post
That's absurd. If Zetterberg was traded, would you value him like a 7th rd pick? or Datsyuk for a 6th?

Once a player has been drafted and developed (or not, as in some cases), their value goes up and down and you no longer value them the same way. The players in the Edm-NYI trade had clearly lost value and were not considered on par with a 1st rd draft pick. They still had decent value and weren't just throw-ins, but the trade was not the equivalent of three no. 1 picks.
Oh... OK... so the 1998/99 version of Todd Bertuzzi had no significant worth. I mean... he was a first round pick. But till then he produced 3rd or 4th line numbers by then. One year later he cracked the 20-goal plateau.

Or take Joe Thornton in the Summer of 1998. He had played some about as many games as Nilsson - and posted 3-4-7, as opposed to Nilssons 6-14-20... Ryan O'Marra was one of the top-rated guys 2 years ago. He never played an NHL-game yet. What does that do to diminish his value? We now know he is no Crosby. Granted. Errr.. well... so is Jack Johnson or even Kovalchuk

So, really, what have the two done to diminsh their value? Is Grigorenko worth less then when drafted today? Is Kindl? Or Shremp? Or who ever?

I think in that case "Smyth for 3 1sts" is correct, valuewise

Zorin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 05:04 PM
  #45
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin View Post
Oh... OK... so the 1998/99 version of Todd Bertuzzi had no significant worth. I mean... he was a first round pick. But till then he produced 3rd or 4th line numbers by then. One year later he cracked the 20-goal plateau.

Or take Joe Thornton in the Summer of 1998. He had played some about as many games as Nilsson - and posted 3-4-7, as opposed to Nilssons 6-14-20... Ryan O'Marra was one of the top-rated guys 2 years ago. He never played an NHL-game yet. What does that do to diminish his value? We now know he is no Crosby. Granted. Errr.. well... so is Jack Johnson or even Kovalchuk

So, really, what have the two done to diminsh their value? Is Grigorenko worth less then when drafted today? Is Kindl? Or Shremp? Or who ever?
You know that for every Bertuzzi and Thornton there are dozens of 1st rounders that post average numbers, and then do not improve, or vanish from NHL altogether.

Quote:
I think in that case "Smyth for 3 1sts" is correct, valuewise
Only if you would trade a 1st rounder for each of Nilsson or O'Marra. It is correct to say that Isles traded a 1st round pick and 2 prospects. If you would be willing to trade a 1st for each of the prospects involved right now, then to you the price paid is equivalent to three 1sts, but that value estimate would of course be highly subjective.

shveik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 01:45 AM
  #46
Zorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Zorin
A Red Wings 1st (s.th. between 25th and 30th overall likely)? Sure I would deal it for O'Mara!! Who wouldn't honestly?! He'd be just what the doctor ordered in my books. Possibly no higher 1st then 10-15 overall would I deal. But still a first. As I said, what has he done to diminish his value?!

As for Nilsson: I don't know much about him. So I couldn't say. But after all his production this year was similar to the one of a Phil Kessel. As I said, when you talk about a guy having a major dropoff in the minors or Europe... His value might have changed. That was not the case for O'Mara at least.

It is not like we are talkig about Alexandre Daigle here!

Zorin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 02:44 AM
  #47
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin View Post
A Red Wings 1st (s.th. between 25th and 30th overall likely)? Sure I would deal it for O'Mara!! Who wouldn't honestly?! He'd be just what the doctor ordered in my books. Possibly no higher 1st then 10-15 overall would I deal. But still a first. As I said, what has he done to diminish his value?!

As for Nilsson: I don't know much about him. So I couldn't say. But after all his production this year was similar to the one of a Phil Kessel. As I said, when you talk about a guy having a major dropoff in the minors or Europe... His value might have changed. That was not the case for O'Mara at least.

It is not like we are talkig about Alexandre Daigle here!
While I would love to have O'Marra on the Wings, I do not think he is worth a 1st rounder. Every time I see him, I can't help but be impressed by his character and drive, and wishing for more in the skills department. I think he'll be more of an Ethan Moreau (another 1st rounder heh) type than anything else . Again, would LOVE to have O'Marra, just like I would love to get Moreau, but I am not as high on his skills as you are perhaps. Like you, I do not know much about Nilson. Seems that the Isles fans think that he is really skilled but lazy and unmotivated, the boom or bust type. To me it looks like the Isles traded two halves of a top pick there

It's all good, just wanted to point out that it's not right to use original draft position as a reason to say "3 firsts" (in Nilson's case, he was a 1st almost 4 years ago )

shveik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:09 AM
  #48
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shveik View Post
It's all good, just wanted to point out that it's not right to use original draft position as a reason to say "3 firsts" (in Nilson's case, he was a 1st almost 4 years ago )
Basing the value on what the player is right at this moment is no more or less arbitrary or accurate than basing the value on the position of the pick. In both instances the value can (and often does) fluctuate.

As a general rule, picks become less 'valuable' as soon as they are made because it's no longer a question of being able to land a fine player out of a group of hundreds, it becomes a question of whether the single person you selected succeeds.

Heck, I'd imagine if you went back and looked at players drafted between 11-20 over the course of years you'd find that the usual success rate for selecting a top 6 forward/top3 dman/starting goalie type player is way under 50% anyway. I just glanced at the drafts from 1999-2004 and I'd estimate the success rate being around 35-40% tops.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:00 AM
  #49
grinspy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Sorry to disagree, but basing a player's value on where they were two years ago is MORE arbitrary then basing it on where they are now.

Players plateau. Players develop. Players recede.

The most accurate value would be derived from where they are now, in the context of how they have developed to determine what they may become (ie. projecting).

To set your value primarilly on what they were is perhaps the least accurate way of determining a players worth.

Drafted nearly two years ago, O'Marra has had significant amount of time to plateau/develop/recede, and hence his value is and should be influenced by his performance since July 2005.

grinspy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 01:54 PM
  #50
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinspy View Post
Sorry to disagree, but basing a player's value on where they were two years ago is MORE arbitrary then basing it on where they are now.

Players plateau. Players develop. Players recede.

The most accurate value would be derived from where they are now, in the context of how they have developed to determine what they may become (ie. projecting).

To set your value primarilly on what they were is perhaps the least accurate way of determining a players worth.

Drafted nearly two years ago, O'Marra has had significant amount of time to plateau/develop/recede, and hence his value is and should be influenced by his performance since July 2005.
That's entirely valid. It's equally valid to point out that he was a #1 pick when talking about the initial assets a team moved in a deal, as neither method comprises the full and final value of the initial asset... as we do not have the luxury of looking back on a completed career but are forced to 'forecast' into an entirely uncertain future. I'm not making an either/or case here.

As it pertains to the discussion of whether they are worth more or less than their initial pick, it's also equally valid to examine what, in fact, picks in that range generally result in and compare that to what the players in question are bringing to the table.

For instance, if picks in a range generally net solid NHLer's and a guy picked in that range becomes a very solid NHL'er, perhaps we can say at that future point he is in fact worth more than the sum of the initial pick.

The variations on that theme should be fairly obvious.

Relating to these two players in particular, it's pretty hard to make a definitive case that they are substantially over or underperforming the majority of players taken in similar spots over a period of recent history. A portion of that reality has to do with the incomplete nature of their careers and the fairly early stage of their professional development we're dealing with, but another portion of that has to do with the relative lack of significant success among NHL GMs in landing bonafide top-half NHL'ers with mid #1's.

For example, I have a hard time thinking Nilsson wouldn't be the #2 forward prospect in the Wings organization right now, marginally behind Grigorenko. He's a point per game forward in the AHL at the age of just-turned 22. He is, after all, almost exactly a year younger than Hudler. He's the best offensive player on an AHL team with a large number of top 3 round drafted players on it, including fellow #1 Jeff Tambellini.

O'Marra's development curve is still unknown, as he's been in the OHL since the age of 16 and is only 19 now. Obviously it's far, far, far too early to begin decreeing what future value he may or may not bring to a team.

So, if people want to say that since neither guy is banging down the doors of their NHL team before their 23rd and 19th birthdays, and that this fact means they aren't as valuable as an unused pick in a range where such players are far from a sure thing to be selected in the first place... that's their right.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.