Speculation: Larkin trade return

[FMichael]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

Denial? This Wings fan?



I'm the ring leader of pessimism...Outside of a handful of players this team still sucks...As I've said in other posts - making the playoffs would be like winning the Cup - even getting swept in 4 straight.

Kane was one of the few that actually PRODUCED the last few week of season, along with DeBrincat and Seider. And once again, Larkin and Raymond both disappeared

I've wondered if there's a disconnect within the locker room where it's Cat/Kane on 1 side - then Larkin on the other?

Wouldn't surprise me if there was.

I mean, I agree for the most part.

I just don't think its very hard or complicated to not be "dog shit" and not pick in the top-10 for 2 years

I guess it depends on your take regarding what we have coming up from GR...'Winged Wheel Podcast' guys seem positive with our abundance of prospects, but how many will actually develop into legit top 6 forwards, or top 4 Dmen?

I'm not gonna hold my breath.....

 

[Pavels Dog]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

I don't think it's controversial but I also think changing that type of vibe or outlook can go a lot faster than people generally give it credit for. Look at Buffalo. Would anyone pencil them in for playoffs at the start of the season? Not really. 82 games later and no one would have been shocked had they gone to the SCF.

 

[TheOctopusKid]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I mean, I agree for the most part.

I just don't think its very hard or complicated to not be "dog shit" and not pick in the top-10 for 2 years

We absolutely need to be willing to accept the risk of being dog shit for two years. I do not want to use the Larkin trade capital to just avoid being really bad. I want back assets that make us better in some thoughtful sense (if not immediately) and will help complete the foundation of a team that can compete for a long time. Instant gratification is to be avoided.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

I think the controversial thing is that some Wings fans are content building a team to make the playoffs vs building a team to win championships

 

[Hen Kolland]

We absolutely need to be willing to accept the risk of being dog shit for two years. I do not want to use the Larkin draft capital to just avoid being really bad. I want back assets that make us better in some thoughtful sense (if not immediately) and will help complete the foundation of a team that can compete for a long time. Instant gratification is to be avoided.

I get that the lack of success has been painful at times, but I'm shocked that there are any fans (specifically that post here, who are more in tune than the casual fan) who would be absolutely against the notion of having a two-year buffer to try to make a more significant pass at building something more dynamic and sustainable.

It can't get much worse than what we've already endured, and maybe the development will allow us to watch a brand of hockey that doesn't require clothespins to keep our eyes open.

 

[izlez]

I get that the lack of success has been painful at times, but I'm shocked that there are any fans (specifically that post here, who are more in tune than the casual fan) who would be absolutely against the notion of having a two-year buffer to try to make a more significant pass at building something more dynamic and sustainable.

It can't get much worse than what we've already endured, and maybe the development will allow us to watch a brand of hockey that doesn't require clothespins to keep our eyes open.

Just want to make sure this isn't about me or what I just said.

I'm not saying we SHOULD trade for Pettersson. I'm just arguing that IF we trade for Pettersson on top of whatever we get for Larkin, that we will not be a bottom of the barrel team.

Seider
Edvinsson
Raymond
Debrincat
Gibson

isn't that bad of a base to start with

 

[Tetsuo]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

No disagreement on how far away the Wings are. The team is nowhere close to a championship.

I do think though that the last 3 years have been the Wings attempt to build a consistent playoff team, despite the lack of success. I do think that in 2024 and in 2026 the team ought to have made the playoffs, just to be clear, given how those respective seasons shook out. But by not acquiring, drafting, developing the requisite high end top 6 talent, this team would peak, at best, as a middling playoff team, who would be hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and make a Cup run.

So now, I think it's clear that the Wings need to retool and pick high in the draft (again) to go get that high end talent, while also prioritizing young, talented, under 25 year old players to acquire in return for Larkin, Gibson, Faulk and even Cat (if he doesn't want to stick it out). One thing that I do not see brought up enough is that if the Wings acquire good-but-not-elite players this off season in an effort to keep the team competitive it carries some risks too. The team risks recreating the problem of being too good to bottom out and not good enough to attract talent that will push them over the top. The team risks of stalling out as a 1st or 2nd round ceiling team and then having players like Mo and Ray leave at the end of their deals. The team risks the development of the prospects they already have.

Of course, engaging in a retool of this nature is risky itself, as Mo and Ray might not want to wait around to see this process through, and the pressure the org could face internally and externally might result in more unforced errors. Steve has to nail the Larkin return before I could really have any hope of this process working. But with how good the Atlantic is poised to be, and how much talent the Wings need to acquire to even have a hope of making the Wild Card, I think this is the less risky path forward.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Just want to make sure this isn't about me or what I just said.

I'm not saying we SHOULD trade for Pettersson. I'm just arguing that IF we trade for Pettersson on top of whatever we get for Larkin, that we will not be a bottom of the barrel team.

Seider
Edvinsson
Raymond
Debrincat
Gibson

isn't that bad of a base to start with

No, not at all, generic comments.

I think buying low on Pettersson is a move that is made specifically to try to capture a resurgence, and it doesn't need to be against bottoming out. Like if you rediscover 100 point Pettersson and it prevents you from bottoming out, you probably don't mind. A 27 year old, 100 point player signed for 5 more years is something that completely alters your approach.

Personally, I think you can do both IF you get a return with a heavy emphasis on largely developed prospects for Larkin. Like the common Utah talking points, one of Desnoyers/Iginla, maybe a Beaudoin or Lamoureux, maybe a roster player like Hayton or Peterka. Where you know more about what you have in hand.

If you are just getting lots of draft picks in return, then you probably don't want Pettersson because the timeline won't align great due to development timelines, and you'll be seeking to push your own pick up the lottery odds.

 

[Henkka]

I get that the lack of success has been painful at times, but I'm shocked that there are any fans (specifically that post here, who are more in tune than the casual fan) who would be absolutely against the notion of having a two-year buffer to try to make a more significant pass at building something more dynamic and sustainable.

It can't get much worse than what we've already endured, and maybe the development will allow us to watch a brand of hockey that doesn't require clothespins to keep our eyes open.

Throwing the target 2 years ahead, could really help with the Division. It changes the rebuild timeline as well, but bigger problem at everything is that damn Division battle.

Tampa's days are gonna be over, as well as Toronto. Florida will be old some day too. I would faster the Florida regression, by trading 30y Larkin for 24y Lundell. That makes them old faster. Boston is looking already like a mess, even though they usually rebound the best from any bad years.

Montreal and Buffalo wil lstart to shine long-term and I'm sceptical Ottawa can do it. Brady is gonna leave like it always goes. Everyone will want to leave Ottawa and their forever rebuilds will continue forever. It has been that from the 90's.

So, behind Montreal and Buffalo, the two legit rebuilds, there is our place in the future as the Division 3rd team, after 2 or some years.

 

[TheOctopusKid]

I might be in the minority here: but I found the 2014-2019 seasons infinitely more painful to deal with than the 2020-2026, despite the better record, playoff appearances, etc. vs. the drought that we're in at the moment.

That last 5yrs of the Holland-Era (I bear Holland zero ill will), every year you knew the Wings were only going to get worse. Sure they were a playoff team, but I remember watching the...Bruins series in Rd1, and how hopelessly outclassed we were and looking at our roster, cap, prospects, etc., it was obvious that the next year was going to be worse. We had painted ourselves into a corner and holding on to declining talent season after season, trying to find aging stopgaps to eek out just one more playoff appearances. Those were slow, miserable teams to watch and that was win deep love and respects for the Datsyuk, Zetterbergs, Kronwall, Lidstrom, etc., they were shadows of themselves. Those seasons felt meaningless other than to let the last core retire with dignity.

19-26? We were not a good hockey team but it felt like there was something new and interesting to watch. For every season we added more to the pipeline, more players were moved off and traded for new assets, random veteran plugs would pop up for 1-2 seasons and traded away, young kids would keep surprising or take on roles while we waited, we built cap which made conversations on this board a lot more interesting than debating the longest of the longshots of prospects or UDFAs would be able to defy all statistical reality to become something. How many minutes did we used to waste talking about Kindl or Marchenko or Jurco, or if Fabian Brunstrum would be the start we were looking for, etc. etc. Now we had real prospects who when they stepped on the ice, you could see "hey, I get it. I can understand why we're high on this kid" and every season the Wings look better and better, not like the 14-19 era, where every season you could feel them getting older, slower, weaker.

Sorry, this ended up rambling a bit but I think the general point is: This isn't the low point for me. What really sucked was when I knew we were going through the motions to be a 1st Rd exit to play out the rest of the old guard. That was low impact, boring, and fruitless hockey. I am considerably less frustrated with the current team because of the potential for possibility and watching it come together. I fine if the Wings take a step back and loss a lot next season as long as its in service of making them better: loaded with prospects getting key minutes, getting another class of prospects up (Mazur, Danielson, Cossa, etc.) seeing longer team guys and getting a sense of where they are (AnJo, MBN, Kiskiinen, Bear, Lombardi). As long as the team is comepting, playing hard, getting better, getting smarter, I don't mind if they go 25 - 50 - 7. Honestly, it would probably be better if they did next season so we can add one more elite prospect to finish the core.

I don't mind this team losing as long as it serves in the development and future success and I definitely prefer that to the Wings of the 2010's despite their playoff appearances

 

[FMichael]

I think the controversial thing is that some Wings fans are content building a team to make the playoffs vs building a team to win championships

I get that the lack of success has been painful at times, but I'm shocked that there are any fans (specifically that post here, who are more in tune than the casual fan) who would be absolutely against the notion of having a two-year buffer to try to make a more significant pass at building something more dynamic and sustainable.

It can't get much worse than what we've already endured, and maybe the development will allow us to watch a brand of hockey that doesn't require clothespins to keep our eyes open.

I would be 1 of those fans...Not entirely against a step back for 2 seasons, BUT 10 years is 10 years - shall we aim for12, 15 or 20?

From my point of view - many continue to over value prospects/picks/etc - that's all fine and dandy, but that means nothing if they don't contribute at the NHL level (I'm talking top 6 forward/top 4 Dmen).

Kasper, ASP, MBN, Bear, Danielson, Plante, etc, etc...Any guarantees of them being good in Detroit?

As for Larkin - depending what rumors you read about - it seems less likely in getting a quality roster player/s as part of a package (which is what I'd prefer) - and more likely a package of picks/prospects.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I would be 1 of those fans...Not entirely against a step back for 2 seasons, BUT 10 years is 10 years - shall we aim for12, 15 or 20?

From my point of view - many continue to over value prospects/picks/etc - that's all fine and dandy, but that means nothing if they don't contribute at the NHL level (I'm talking top 6 forward/top 4 Dmen).

Kasper, ASP, MBN, Bear, Danielson, Plante, etc, etc...Any guarantees of them being good in Detroit?

As for Larkin - depending what rumors you read about - it seems less likely in getting a quality roster player/s as part of a package (which is what I'd prefer) - and more likely a package of picks/prospects.

Here's the counter to your position. Based on what we've seen and heard, your options are...

1. Get on board with a reset.
2. Pick another team.

You have to be able to keep emotion out of it otherwise you are just lying to yourself about what is needed and what is achievable. What option does this team have that doesn't revolve around taking a step back?

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

I get that the lack of success has been painful at times, but I'm shocked that there are any fans (specifically that post here, who are more in tune than the casual fan) who would be absolutely against the notion of having a two-year buffer to try to make a more significant pass at building something more dynamic and sustainable.

It can't get much worse than what we've already endured, and maybe the development will allow us to watch a brand of hockey that doesn't require clothespins to keep our eyes open.

My only problem with this is that it ignores that the Wings came out of the 2019 and 2020 drafts with basically the best case scenario. For them to be that bad again, they'd end up throwing Seider and Raymond into the ether too and they'd have to get lucky and take one of the top 3 players in a draft twice to just get back to where they are now.

This has nothing to do with tanking until they're good and everything to do with utilizing the rest of the draft to get players, FA to supplement those players, and trades to get out of players before they go worthless or to take chances on other teams young guys to see if they can break through. Lump a bunch of assets to go after the equivalent of a Tage Thompson before he blew up.

People want to tank because they think it gives losing meaning and the team isn't just drifting along, but that's backwards thinking. If they're that bad that losing on purpose is the better choice, why do you think that staff should keep their jobs to see through further growth?

It just rings of the Ricky Bobby "If you're not first, you're last" thinking. That like the Golden Knights would have an unsuccessful season because they ran into a better team in the finals. That Connor McDavid isn't rapidly approaching top five player all time status because Edmonton managed to run into a fantastic Florida team and choke away a series lead. It's the thought of... if you're not a contender right now, you should be losing. Teams can get away with that because they have at least 20,000 hockey crazy people in a market who will just fill up the stadium regardless of team quality in most places and the TV contracts make it so that you're not really reliant on gate revenue anyway.

 

[FMichael]

Here's the counter to your position. Based on what we've seen and heard, your options are...

1. Get on board with a reset.
2. Pick another team.

You have to be able to keep emotion out of it otherwise you are just lying to yourself about what is needed and what is achievable. What option does this team have that doesn't revolve around taking a step back?

I think this teams future - both immediate and long term - will be determined by the return Yzerman gets with Larkin.

 

[Henkka]

What comes to those Utah boys:

- Cole Beaudoin, 6'2 Lefty Center.
Scouting reports will remind me of him being like Marco Kasper. Do we need another one? Of course mad hard workers won't hurt, but maybe need some different dynamic for the core?

- Dmitry Simashev, 6'5 Lefty Defenceman.
Hulking guy like Edvinsson. Kind of feels like more defensive defenceman, than Edvinsson is. But did pot 35 points in 40 AHL games suddenly, which was impressive. Ed was never able to do that high points/game, even as 1st PP quarterback for the GR. And I think 1st PP QB for Tucson was always Perunovich.

- Tij Iginla, 6'0 Lefty winger
Sounds like another Carter Bear for me. Maybe more skilled. These guys are always welcomed to have a 3 or 4-line grinder hell machine as a team, but maybe we have these type of guys already enough, Bear, MBN, Genborg.

- Caleb Desnoyers, 6'2 lefty Center
A playmaker, transition player. More like Danielson. Yzerman loves playmakers. HE would give that different dimension, something different to add in our grinder-group (Kasper, MBN, Bear etc.). Think this should be the idea.

I would leave Beaudoin on the table, because we have same guy in Kasper already. Same with Iginla, we have those kind of wingers. Think I would want Simashev, because he smells some untapped potential. That would enable trading Ed, for a better center than Desnoyers is.

So Simashev + Desnoyers + 19th overall <> for Dylan Larkin + Sebastian Cossa.

Then another trade with San Jose to get Michael Misa, for Edvinsson. Maybe we throw that 19th overall there too. So it could be kind of a 3-way trade.

Future kid core after that:

Bear 19y ------ Misa 19y --- Raymond 24y
Finnie 20y --- Desnoyers 19y --- MBN 20y
Plante 20y --- Kasper 22y/Danielson 21y
Genborg 19y -- Rochette 24y -- Mazur 24y
(Lombardi 23y)

Simashev 21y --- Seider 25y
AlbertJo 25y --- Pellikka 21y
Wallinder 23y --- AntonJo 22y

Gylander 25y
Postava 24y
Augustine 21y
Guimond 21y
Pradel 19y

 

[izlez]

Bear 19y ------ Misa 19y --- Raymond 24y
Finnie 20y --- Desnoyers 19y --- MBN 20y
Plante 20y --- Kasper 22y/Danielson 21y
Genborg 19y -- Rochette 24y -- Mazur 24y
(Lombardi 23y)

Simashev 21y --- Seider 25y
AlbertJo 25y --- Pellikka 21y
Wallinder 23y --- AntonJo 22y

Gylander 25y
Postava 24y
Augustine 21y
Guimond 21y
Pradel 19y

I'm not as into the details of the cap as a lot of people around here, but my gut tells me this team would be below the cap floor for a year or two and then, if this plan works at all and they are any good, immediately skyrocket and be impossible to keep below the cap ceiling.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

What comes to those Utah boys:

- Cole Beaudoin, 6'2 Lefty Center.
Scouting reports will remind me of him being like Marco Kasper. Do we need another one? Of course mad hard workers won't hurt, but maybe need some different dynamic for the core?

- Dmitry Simashev, 6'5 Lefty Defenceman.
Hulking guy like Edvinsson. Kind of feels like more defensive defenceman, than Edvinsson is. But did pot 35 points in 40 AHL games suddenly, which was impressive. Ed was never able to do that high points/game, even as 1st PP quarterback for the GR. And I think 1st PP QB for Tucson was always Perunovich.

- Tij Iginla, 6'0 Lefty winger
Sounds like another Carter Bear for me. Maybe more skilled. These guys are always welcomed to have a 3 or 4-line grinder hell machine as a team, but maybe we have these type of guys already enough, Bear, MBN, Genborg.

- Caleb Desnoyers, 6'2 lefty Center
A playmaker, transition player. More like Danielson. Yzerman loves playmakers. HE would give that different dimension, something different to add in our grinder-group (Kasper, MBN, Bear etc.). Think this should be the idea.

I would leave Beaudoin on the table, because we have same guy in Kasper already. Same with Iginla, we have those kind of wingers. Think I would want Simashev, because he smells some untapped potential. That would enable trading Ed, for a better center than Desnoyers is.

So Simashev + Desnoyers + 19th overall <> for Dylan Larkin + Sebastian Cossa.

Then another trade with San Jose to get Michael Misa, for Edvinsson. Maybe we throw that 19th overall there too. So it could be kind of a 3-way trade.

Bear 19y ------ Misa 19y --- Raymond 24y
Finnie 20y --- Desnoyers 19y --- MBN 20y
Plante 20y --- Kasper 22y/Danielson 21y
Genborg 19y -- Rochette 24y -- Mazur 24y
(Lombardi 23y)

Simashev 21y --- Seider 25y
AlbertJo 25y --- Pellikka 21y
Wallinder 23y --- AntonJo 22y

Gylander 25y
Postava 24y
Augustine 21y
Guimond 21y
Pradel 19y

I can tell you what's not going to happen. good lord, this team would be absolutely cratered by most teams in the league.

 

[FMichael]

My only problem with this is that it ignores that the Wings came out of the 2019 and 2020 drafts with basically the best case scenario. For them to be that bad again, they'd end up throwing Seider and Raymond into the ether too and they'd have to get lucky and take one of the top 3 players in a draft twice to just get back to where they are now.

This has nothing to do with tanking until they're good and everything to do with utilizing the rest of the draft to get players, FA to supplement those players, and trades to get out of players before they go worthless or to take chances on other teams young guys to see if they can break through. Lump a bunch of assets to go after the equivalent of a Tage Thompson before he blew up.

People want to tank because they think it gives losing meaning and the team isn't just drifting along, but that's backwards thinking. If they're that bad that losing on purpose is the better choice, why do you think that staff should keep their jobs to see through further growth?

It just rings of the Ricky Bobby "If you're not first, you're last" thinking. That like the Golden Knights would have an unsuccessful season because they ran into a better team in the finals. That Connor McDavid isn't rapidly approaching top five player all time status because Edmonton managed to run into a fantastic Florida team and choke away a series lead. It's the thought of... if you're not a contender right now, you should be losing. Teams can get away with that because they have at least 20,000 hockey crazy people in a market who will just fill up the stadium regardless of team quality in most places and the TV contracts make it so that you're not really reliant on gate revenue anyway.

My concern with the 'sucking with the hope of getting top tier talent via the draft' has had mixed results - especially when taking into consideration the lottery...The never ending rebuild.

 

[Hen Kolland]

My only problem with this is that it ignores that the Wings came out of the 2019 and 2020 drafts with basically the best case scenario. For them to be that bad again, they'd end up throwing Seider and Raymond into the ether too and they'd have to get lucky and take one of the top 3 players in a draft twice to just get back to where they are now.

This has nothing to do with tanking until they're good and everything to do with utilizing the rest of the draft to get players, FA to supplement those players, and trades to get out of players before they go worthless or to take chances on other teams young guys to see if they can break through. Lump a bunch of assets to go after the equivalent of a Tage Thompson before he blew up.

People want to tank because they think it gives losing meaning and the team isn't just drifting along, but that's backwards thinking. If they're that bad that losing on purpose is the better choice, why do you think that staff should keep their jobs to see through further growth?

It just rings of the Ricky Bobby "If you're not first, you're last" thinking. That like the Golden Knights would have an unsuccessful season because they ran into a better team in the finals. That Connor McDavid isn't rapidly approaching top five player all time status because Edmonton managed to run into a fantastic Florida team and choke away a series lead. It's the thought of... if you're not a contender right now, you should be losing. Teams can get away with that because they have at least 20,000 hockey crazy people in a market who will just fill up the stadium regardless of team quality in most places and the TV contracts make it so that you're not really reliant on gate revenue anyway.

Isn't it more of an indictment of how bad things were that you could come out with the best possible result in 2019 and 2020 and arguably 2021, and even with that success, there's not f***-all within the organization to help the lift? Cap increase has certainly hurt, the Atlantic being murderers' row has certainly hurt.

The thought with a "gap year" or two would be to figure out how to invigorate around that 2019-2021 stretch of success. The time elapsed between Seider and MBN was the same as between Larkin and Seider. Undeniably you have more to support Seider than you have for Larkin, but if you let that progress stagnate, it'll end up the same result. Using Larkin to enhance that at the cost of 2 years where you aren't even thinking about the playoffs is the best bet to breakout.

 

[FMichael]

I can tell you what's not going to happen. good lord, this team would be absolutely cratered by most teams in the league.

Yup - Grand Rapids NHL...

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I would be 1 of those fans...Not entirely against a step back for 2 seasons, BUT 10 years is 10 years - shall we aim for12, 15 or 20?

From my point of view - many continue to over value prospects/picks/etc - that's all fine and dandy, but that means nothing if they don't contribute at the NHL level (I'm talking top 6 forward/top 4 Dmen).

Kasper, ASP, MBN, Bear, Danielson, Plante, etc, etc...Any guarantees of them being good in Detroit?

As for Larkin - depending what rumors you read about - it seems less likely in getting a quality roster player/s as part of a package (which is what I'd prefer) - and more likely a package of picks/prospects.

The problem with insisting upon quality roster players in return is that you won't be able to get any quality roster players who are centers (let alone ones who are better than Larkin) or that can be readily converted into top-six centers. The only name anyone has mentioned that fits that description is Lundell who is a massive downgrade from Larkin.

I also don't understand this obsession with making the playoffs. I want a team that competes for cups over a sustained period of time, not one that yo-yos in and out of playoff contention or that squeaks in and gets curb stomped.

 

[lilidk]

I'm not sure DBC will get much more then that in an early trade. Much like the trade to Detroit he completely controls his destiny. I actually think a deadline package might net more because he'd probably be open to more teams on the short term cup run and teams will be more interested in him as a rental. I think he likely gets two firsts at the deadline if he has a solid season. If he goes with the 8 year deal he may only give one or two teams. He has actually a lot more control than Larkin does.

Unless Faulk tanks I don't think he is pulling less than a 1st. This era of NHL has almost no UFAs. If Faulk plays similar to last year, contenders will want him. The NTC will be a factor a bit but I think he'll give enough options for a cup run to at least snag a low first.

Traded assets are going to be at an absolute premium until teams run out of cap space again because very few good players are making it to UFA.

both Faulk and Debrincat should get new contracts or they are just going to be rentals.
We probably tank , but who knows, could be opposite. It's possible that Our best player was also the one who tanked the team. Who knows where new leadership will take this team, who knows if Todd learned from his mistakes. It's possible we make playoffs without our best player, then those guys not going to get traded.

 

[jkutswings]

I’m going to say something controversial that most wings fans here are in denial about:

The wings are so far from thinking about championships that it doesn’t matter.

They need to start thinking about how to make the playoffs consistently before they start thinking about the steps afterwards.

I agree in the sense that any short term gains are not likely to result in making the playoffs consistently for more than a few years. For example, doing a swap of Larkin for Barzal and then signing EP40 might get them in the playoffs in 2027 and a year or two beyond that. But then you're right back here with Barzal aging out.

If Detroit is approaching the Larkin trade and this summer in general with a priority on not extending the playoff drought, I think that's a mistake, but the best way to thread that needle for more than a flash in the pan is probably a combination of younger second line candidates and prospects. Maybe dealing for McTavish, Peterka, and some kids...while also crossing your fingers that some combination of Kasper / Danielson / MBN / ASP take a significant step forward.

 

[FMichael]

The problem with insisting upon quality roster players in return is that you won't be able to get any quality roster players who are centers (let alone ones who are better than Larkin) or that can be readily converted into top-six centers. The only name anyone has mentioned that fits that description is Lundell who is a massive downgrade from Larkin.

I also don't understand this obsession with making the playoffs. I want a team that competes for cups over a sustained period of time, not one that yo-yos in and out of playoff contention or that squeaks in and gets curb stomped.

How many more seasons of missing out on the playoffs is acceptable for what might become a team capable of contending?

At this rate we're going - it's gonna be a while.