Waived: Justin Holl

[sepster]

If you like Holl why do you care that Petry is available?

If you like Debrincat, why do you care if Kane is available?

 

[Frk It]

If you like Debrincat, why do you care if Kane is available?

Lol, cuz that's the same.

 

[sepster]

Petry and holl both suck, and I feel that Johansson could have provided the same thing as them for a fraction of the cost and would have had the luxury of getting a potential piece valuable experience on the roster instead of delaying it. Petry I at least get because he was like 1 million in cap space and is better than holl, but we are actively paying holl to NOT play for us. 3.4 for 2 years still wasted for actually no reason for a role a rookie could have done.

You can't imagine any scenario in which Holl could be moved over the next week, month, or two years? Teams run into injuries and needs arise out of nowhere all of the time. "Unmovable" contracts get moved. Shit, LA was able trade PLD for a roster player despite him being viewed as a locker room cancer AND having a crippling contract.

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

You can't imagine any scenario in which Holl could be moved over the next week, month, or two years? Teams run into injuries and needs arise out of nowhere all of the time. "Unmovable" contracts get moved. Shit, LA was able trade PLD for a roster player despite him being viewed as a locker room cancer AND having a crippling contract.

I can imagine a scenario where we pay assets to get rid of him, like we did with Walman.

 

[sepster]

Lol, cuz that's the same.

It is. Just because you have one player that you like, doesn't mean that you wouldn't look at another player you view as an upgrade.

I think it's been explained many times that the timing of signing Holl, then trading for Petry makes the situation appear strange, but if Yzerman knew Holl and Petry were both available at the same time, he would have chosen Petry. But that wasn't the case. He signed Holl to fill a need without knowing Petry would become available. Then, Petry did become available. And not only did Petry become available, he was in a similar situation as Debrincat, in that he told Montreal that Detroit was one of the few teams he would accept a trade to.

 

[Frk It]

It is. Just because you have one player that you like, doesn't mean that you wouldn't look at another player you view as an upgrade.

I think it's been explained many times that the timing of signing Holl, then trading for Petry makes the situation appear strange, but if Yzerman knew Holl and Petry were both available at the same time, he would have chosen Petry. But that wasn't the case. He signed Holl to fill a need without knowing Petry would become available. Then, Petry did become available. And not only did Petry become available, he was in a similar situation as Debrincat, in that he told Montreal that Detroit was one of the few teams he would accept a trade to.

Well I mean, they had plenty of space for Debrincat and Kane last year.

We gave Holl a contract and then he sat in the press box for a year.

So no, I would say not the same. There was no need to add Petry with the amount of players we already had under contract, unless you really just were not sold on the guy you just signed. And if you weren't sold on the guy you just signed, maybe don't sign that guy.

 

[sepster]

I can imagine a scenario where we pay assets to get rid of him, like we did with Walman.

Walman's reputation got him essentially blackballed. Holl, if he takes this situation in stride, will be viewed as a good soldier/locker room guy. And, he's an NHL defenseman. He's not a great one, but he's better than a lot of bottom pairing guys. There's realistically a need for him by some team down the road.

Well I mean, they had plenty of space for Debrincat and Kane last year.

We gave Holl a contract and then he sat in the press box for a year.

So no, I would say not the same. There was no need to add Petry with the amount of players we already had under contract, unless you really just were not sold on the guy you just signed. And if you weren't sold on the guy you just signed, maybe don't sign that guy.

So, you're saying the preferred route would be to not make a move intended to upgrade a position because we already have a player occupying that spot?

The point of "not sold on the guy" is Hindsight 20/20. You make moves based on need and what is available.

 

[Frk It]

Walman's reputation got him essentially blackballed. Holl, if he takes this situation in stride, will be viewed as a good soldier/locker room guy. And, he's an NHL defenseman. He's not a great one, but he's better than a lot of bottom pairing guys. There's realistically a need for him by some team down the road.



So, you're saying the preferred route would be to not make a move intended to upgrade a position because we already have a player occupying that spot?

I would say the logjam is not worth the negligible/minimal upgrade, no. Especially not when it results in Edvinsson getting blocked out.

 

[sepster]

Edvinsson isn't blocked. He's penciled into the Top 4 right now and last season he was coming off of shoulder surgery and wasn't ready. Seems like getting Petry and Holl into the lineup and allowing Edvinsson to properly recover and develop in GR worked out as planned.

 

[Frk It]

Edvinsson isn't blocked. He's penciled into the Top 4 right now and last season he was coming off of shoulder surgery and wasn't ready. Seems like getting Petry and Holl into the lineup and allowing Edvinsson to properly recover and develop in GR worked out as planned.

I was talking about last year, not this year. I think we would have benefitted from having Edvinsson on the big club earlier.

 

[Gniwder]

Walman's reputation got him essentially blackballed.

What reputation? He copied the griddy, not the kneeling (during the anthem).

 

[sepster]

I was talking about last year, not this year. I think we would have benefitted from having Edvinsson on the big club earlier.

I addressed that in my post, he was coming off surgery and wasn't ready to start the year.

His development was handled properly in that he was given time to recover and improve his game in GR while the summer signings played in Detroit. Now, a year later, Edvinsson is ready to start in a Top 4 role while one of the signings got waived. That's how this is supposed to work.

 

[stillwater]

I can imagine a scenario where we pay assets to get rid of him, like we did with Walman.

That wasn't because of a bad player being signed. That was because a bad actor was re-signed.

 

[sepster]

What reputation? He copied the griddy, not the kneeling (during the anthem).

That he's a "me-first" player and not a player you win with.

 

[jaster]

What reputation? He copied the griddy, not the kneeling (during the anthem).

Lots of little stories have leaked out about Walman. He's selfish and doesn't put team first, that is his reputation. Ain't gonna fly with Yzerman.

 

[SantosHalper]

Another vet bites the dust to make room for a rookie. I thought Husso is going to be waiver-victim but this is even better, more opportunities for Johansson and roster spot for Watson. Win-win situation.

 

[norrisnick]

I addressed that in my post, he was coming off surgery and wasn't ready to start the year.

His development was handled properly in that he was given time to recover and improve his game in GR while the summer signings played in Detroit. Now, a year later, Edvinsson is ready to start in a Top 4 role while one of the signings got waived. That's how this is supposed to work.

He was ready to start the year. Because he was cleared and at camp day 1. The Wings decided he wouldn't be ready and made him not ready. But Ed, the player, was ready.

 

[SirloinUB]

I was talking about last year, not this year. I think we would have benefitted from having Edvinsson on the big club earlier.

I'd argue Edvinsson has had a wonderful development path including playing in the AHL last year.

It seems really weird to look at a player who is developing extremely well and land on the conclusion "they did it wrong."

 

[norrisnick]

No less weird than "That's how they did it so that's the correct way."

 

[Frk It]

I'd argue Edvinsson has had a wonderful development path including playing in the AHL last year.

It seems really weird to look at a player who is developing extremely well and land on the conclusion "they did it wrong."

I don’t have an issue with it from a development standpoint. I do think having Edvinsson on Detroit for more games last year could have led to the team being better though.

 

[SirloinUB]

No less weird than "That's how they did it so that's the correct way."

So you're going to look at a player/situation that is developing well and draw the conclusion "that doesn't work/that is the wrong plan"? Well news flash. It did work out and the plan worked.

Will it always be the correct path for every player? Probably not, but in this instance it appears to have worked very well.

I don’t have an issue with it from a development standpoint. I do think having Edvinsson on Detroit for more games last year could have led to the team being better though.

Fair.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Lots of little stories have leaked out about Walman. He's selfish and doesn't put team first, that is his reputation. Ain't gonna fly with Yzerman.

Really? Somehow I didn't read any.

 

[jaster]

Really? Somehow I didn't read any.

There were a couple posted here at the time, aside from the Griddy drama. One was some locker room dust-up, which may or may not have been significant, teammates have spats and work it out all the time. The other was when the Wings were on their long road trip in March that ended in Florida and some shit went down after the Wings had not been playing well, dropped 3 or 4 in a row, and Walman was at the beach posting selfies to social media (later deleted) about how fun it is to be in Florida or something along those lines lol.

Beyond that, I heard some other tidbits that basically alluded to Walman being kinda self-centered and worried about his own personal branding (hence, the Griddy I guess). I don't get the impression that Detroit told him to knock it off and he defied them or anything, but I think expectations are pretty clear in this organization, and Walman was often operating well outside of them. It was kind of known that the front office, or at least Yzerman, didn't like his shtick, but he didn't seem to care, which is probably another red flag in and of itself.

 

[RRhoads]

One was some locker room dust-up, which may or may not have been significant, teammates have spats and work it out all the time.

I wonder if we saw signs of that dust up when Kane brushed Walman aside when he scored that gwg in Chicago. Maybe it was the start of it.

Team fell off a cliff after that game.

 

[jaster]

I wonder if we saw signs of that dust up when Kane brushed Walman aside when he scored that gwg in Chicago. Maybe it was the start of it.

Team fell off a cliff after that game.

Ah, interesting observation, perhaps. At some point I realized the Walman drama kinda went further back in the season than I originally thought.

I don't know if he is a bad guy or not, but pretty clear at this point he was not a good fit, at least.