Need to move Quincey AND Kindl

[WingedWheel1987]

So where is Q? Unless one is traded one of them has to play on the 3rd.

All defenders make mistakes. Kronwall gets out of position and makes big mistakes plenty, Suter, Hedman, all of them. The difference is Ericsson doesn't put up 40+ points so when he does mess up people heavily hold it against him. When you don't score points on a defense that is less than acceptable to the Detroit Red Wing fan base you are going to be scrutinized. Ericsson isn't the Suter we expect to have as a 2nd pairing D so he will always be under appreciated and scrutinized no matter what. Even if today we got a legit 2nd D the fan-bases view on Ericsson would never recover regardless if he was the perfect 2nd pairing D. This is how society works. The majority of the population doesn't make decisions based on logic and reason. They are unconsciously influenced by other factors. It's easy to see. I have said many times he is not an ideal top pairing D. But how can't people be realistic and understand that he would be a very good player in the proper role which is the 2nd pair. You have said we would be better off without him and bringing in a young guy. That is insane. You are the one disagreeing against the opinions of Babcock, Holland, Blash, and all other Wings management.

I don't even know where to begin with this, but i'll give it a go.

Yes hopefully Q is traded. That would be ideal, but playing Q on the third line isn't bad. That's exactly where he belongs, but he is going to want a multi year contract that will see him getting a rise, which i want no part of. There is no chance in Hell that Mike Green plays a single second on the third pairing.

Didn't these so called experts bring back a certain player last year that was incapable of even pretending he could still play hockey?

Your appeal to authority sounds good, but when that same authority is signing HOCKEY PLAYERS for non hockey related reasons, well the authority looks pretty inept and unreliable.

Let's summarize your opinion.

Jonathan Ericsson is a great hockey player because The Wings signed him.

Ohhh man, very convincing argument.

 

[haulinbass]

There is no chance in Hell that Mike Green plays a single second on the third pairing.

That is where he played in Washington.. On the third pair

 

[WingedWheel1987]

That is where he played in Washington.. On the third pair

The Detroit Red Wings are not the Washington Capitals. They had the luxury of playing Green on the third pair.

 

[TheOctopusKid]

The Detroit Red Wings are not the Washington Capitals. They had the luxury of playing Green on the third pair.

So I can certainly agree in sentiment with what you are saying - that none of our weaker players are ideal and that we should replace them. Okay, I'll bite:

Replace them with what?

Now, the rookies seem like a logical starting point. We have X, and March, and maybe even Jensen. But AHL success by no means guarantees NHL production, as we can see the dangers of trasnlating lower league dominance to NHL stardom - I.e. AHL All-Stars Smith and Kindl.

Free Agency? Well, we got the best free agent out there on defense in Green so the Red Wings organization seemed to agree with you on that front.

Trade then. How many top end Top 4 defensemen are available at a reasonable price? Probably not a lot so let's assume the standard star price of Player, Prospect and Pick as the asking price of a good quality top 4 defenseman who isn't in his final year.

So if I were another GM, and you wanted a Justin Faulk or Shattenkirk, I would start with Tatar, Larkin and a first.

The opportunities to improve this defense are few and far between, man. I get it. You want a better defense. We all do. But just because you want that, you need to weigh the cost to obtain it. And what we have now. Ericsson and Quincey are fine for what they are. Solid, defensive defensemen who are willing to throw their bodies around and have the size to pair up against the O'Reilys and Ryans of the league. Our defense is stronger and better this season than last. And it doesn't threaten the flexiblity of our long term cap to risk the outside chance one of the kids blows up.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Ericsson is bad at playing defense on the 1st pair. That has been thoroughly proven in the playoffs.

I think this is false. Ericsson had a rough season but he played his best hockey of the year in the playoffs. 4 points in 7 games, +/- 0, he played very solid imo. And he was alright in 2013 against Anaheim/Chicago. His absence against Boston was a big part of why we were so outmatched in that series (our 3rd pair KILLED us that series, showing how important defensive depth is).

It's okay to think he's not a legit #2 D-man, that he's nothing amazing. It's okay to wish for an upgrade to him. But I think you're not looking at him objectively, nor are you looking at what options we have other than him. We are lucky if Green plays well in the #4 slot, we are lucky if one of the kids grabs the #6-7 spot this season. Ericsson will move down the depth chart when there is a better option, until then he is what he is. A #2 that on most nights has no real impact on whether we win or lose.