Confirmed with Link: Walman and a 2nd Round Pick traded to SJ

[Winger98]

You trade away a 2nd and receive a 2nd in return. Then you trade away a 2nd.

Your net is giving away one 2nd, not two


This crossed my mind that perhaps Holl gets more hate than he deserves. He's a big body vet that was a +8 last year.

But that doesn't explain why the team played Walman on the 1st pair all year and had Holl in the press box. If they believed in Holl, they would have just played him over Walman

EDIT: Guess I skimmed too much and ignored the LHD vs RHD thing. Which my god, I will never understand why everyone in the hockey world acts like that is so important

elsewhere in this thread (I think, might have been main board?) it was said the call to move Walman off the first pair came from management, not from Lalonde. And that our first pair then became much more efficient.

For all of the consternation over losing a 2nd with Walman, I was sort of surprised someone didn't take this and run with it a bit. We've all had occasional issues with Uncle Fester's coaching. If it's true that his hand was forced here, it seems management isn't thrilled with it at times, either. Curious to see how long his leash is this season.

 

[jaster]

You would think that all of you that are this upset/invested in Jake Walman would be invested enough to pay attention to rumblings surrounding the Wings.

Why am I not upset or surprised by this move? Aside from the fact that my own eyes told me during the middle of the season that Walman was playing like shit, but also I've known since the end of the season that more that likely Walman was on his way out. How did I know this? Because reliable posters let us know that on these very boards at that time, which I was then able to confirm on my own. This move was predicted months ago for you all to read.

Having said that, I wasn't expecting to have to PAY to get rid of him, but I guess Yzerman felt the cost was acceptable for what he has planned. Which brings me to another point, we are at the very beginning of offseason moves. This complaining about minor, individual moves among the process of building is beyond absurd.

Have you ever worked on a project and then had someone come up behind you and start critiquing your process? "What are you doing? Why are you doing that way? That's not the way I would do it. I don't understand what you're doing." Yeah, lots of that going on.

I suspect the Venn diagram of people who are teeing off on Yzerman and of people unwilling or incapable of considering an overarching plan... is damn near a circle.

 

[Henkka]

Because it’s (very clearly) disregarding why NTC’s exist and how waivers are supposed to be used.

Too bad.

Next time you should negotiate The NMC to prevent waivers....

 

[Tatar Shots]

elsewhere in this thread (I think, might have been main board?) it was said the call to move Walman off the first pair came from management, not from Lalonde. And that our first pair then became much more efficient.

For all of the consternation over losing a 2nd with Walman, I was sort of surprised someone didn't take this and run with it a bit. We've all had occasional issues with Uncle Fester's coaching. If it's true that his hand was forced here, it seems management isn't thrilled with it at times, either. Curious to see how long his leash is this season.

Put me in the not happy with Lalonde camp. I think a lot of our issues come down to coaching structure with our terrible transition play and awful shot metrics.

 

[jaster]

EDIT: Guess I skimmed too much and ignored the LHD vs RHD thing. Which my god, I will never understand why everyone in the hockey world acts like that is so important

Well, because it is. Especially for defensemen. I've argued this topic many times before from the perspective of how the game is played and the systems deployed, but you don't need to take it from me. Just look at how GMs construct their rosters, and how coaches deploy their players.

 

[izlez]

Well, because it is. Especially for defensemen. I've argued this topic many times before from the perspective of how the game is played and the systems deployed, but you don't need to take it from me. Just look at how GMs construct their rosters, and how coaches deploy their players.

Ummmm, pretty sure I know better than coaches and GM's

 

[HoweFan]

Initially I was puzzled by this trade but I trust Steve. Eventually there will be a very good reason come out

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Moving on from Walman is a non-issue. It's that he somehow has significant negative value is somewhat baffling. As you alluded to in paragraph 3.

Getting a 4th vs a 3rd in return? Yeah, that's nit-picking value of a trade.

Having to add a 2nd to move a seemingly serviceable player? That's hand typing pages of code that can be copy pasted levels of weird.

The addition of the 2nd corroborates claims that he has professionalism issues off of the ice and that those issues are well known around the league.

He certainly isn't a top pair defensemen long-term and I do think he struggled defensively for stretches this year. Like all things Detroit Red Wings defense, however, the criticism of his play could also be levied at four or five other defensemen on this roster. This too leads back to the professionalism narrative.

I still don't know why we didn't try waivers first.

 

[better Red than Dead]

I've slept on this. And it's still terrible. I'd be less upset if this came after we somehow got rid of holl/petry/copp.

Free agency or the off-season haven’t even started yet, good lord. I can guarantee that Yzerman doesn’t make rash, impulsive moves like this unless he’s up to something big. This is not Ken Holland we are talking about. He knows fans are running out of patience and he sees what Ottawa and other teams inter division are doing and are going to do, he’s going to be aggressive.

 

[jaster]

So, based on a lot of what has been said in this thread, do I have the following correct as a plausible theory?

Yesterday was the first half of the plan. The second half of the plan unfolds once Holl is waived, at which point San Jose claims him, and proceeds to buy him out. This gets around his M-NTC, but may not be considered circumvention, since he's getting bought out anyway and will never suit up for SJ.

If that's the plan, why hasn't Holl been waived yet?

 

[DTR]

So, based on a lot of what has been said in this thread, do I have the following correct as a plausible theory?

Yesterday was the first half of the plan. The second half of the plan unfolds once Holl is waived, at which point San Jose claims him, and proceeds to buy him out. This gets around his M-NTC, but may not be considered circumvention, since he's getting bought out anyway and will never suit up for SJ.

If that's the plan, why hasn't Holl been waived yet?

I think players being waived hit at noon EST but I’m not sure

 

[lilidk]

My speculation is that there is some kind of hockey GM code, you can't lie when you trade. There is some kind of problem with Walman that we don't know , but other GMs new. In this case we don't have no more potential headache and price was second round.

 

[better Red than Dead]

The more I think of this the “future considerations “ are interesting. You cannot trade players for nothing, so there has to be something coming back at some point.

 

[DTR]

The more I think of this the “future considerations “ are interesting. You cannot trade players for nothing, so there has to be something coming back at some point.

Future considerations are traded all the time and never amount to anything. When Draper was traded for $1, the $1 was the future consideration.

 

[Hammettf2b]

The more I think of this the “future considerations “ are interesting. You cannot trade players for nothing, so there has to be something coming back at some point.

That's literally not the case.

 

[Euro Twins]

We literally have the 4th longest playoff drought in professional sports right now, but we're making fun of other teams for thinking they will make the playoffs?

Yes

 

[SirloinUB]

There have been many "Future Considerations" trades where the "FC" is literally nothing. Ya'll are setting yourselves up for disappointment by thinking something else is coming. Yzerman will make other moves but there will not be some epiphany or subsequent move that contextualizes Walman's lack of trade value.

It is tough for me to square the goals/$ to this negative value but the proof is kind of in the pudding. Fundamentally, he was a player that no one wanted. That surprises me, but it is what it is.

For better or worse, opinion's of Walman were much lower than I (or many of us) perceived them to be.

 

[better Red than Dead]

That's literally not the case.

You can’t just dump players.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

You can’t just dump players.

Eh you kinda can. Future considerations is so loosely adhered to. It could be a 7th round pick swap, it could be facilitating an AHL swap, it could be something totally undefined years into the future.

I’ve never seen it enforced as requiring a team to give up any real asset, and honestly I think there are plenty of cases where the future considerations didn’t amount to anything public.

 

[better Red than Dead]

Eh you kinda can. Future considerations is so loosely adhered to. It could be a 7th round pick swap, it could be facilitating an AHL swap, it could be something totally undefined years into the future.

I’ve never seen it enforced as requiring a team to give up any real asset, and honestly I think there are plenty of cases where the future considerations didn’t amount to anything public.

My point, it’s got to be something. Maybe it’s a 2040 7th rd pick, but maybe it’s part of something more

 

[SirloinUB]

My point, it’s got to be something. Maybe it’s a 2040 7th rd pick, but maybe it’s part of something more

What did we give the Rangers for Mark Staal and a 2nd round pick? To my understanding it was literally nothing.

 

[jaster]

Not only do teams trade players for nothing all the time, under the guise of "future considerations," I can't think of a single instance where "future considerations" turned into literally anything. Does anyone have any examples?

I'd have to dig back into the CBA, but I recall reading in it once that technically, yes, you can't trade a player for nothing. But that also, a team can not only send back in return "future considerations," but those future considerations are not required to actually be anything at all. I mean, that's the point of the word "considerations." We are only obligated to consider sending you something.

 

[izlez]

There have been many "Future Considerations" trades where the "FC" is literally nothing. Ya'll are setting yourselves up for disappointment by thinking something else is coming.

I'm curious if there are any examples of "Future Considerations" NOT being literally nothing.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

There have been many "Future Considerations" trades where the "FC" is literally nothing. Ya'll are setting yourselves up for disappointment by thinking something else is coming. Yzerman will make other moves but there will not be some epiphany or subsequent move that contextualizes Walman's lack of trade value.

It is tough for me to square the goals/$ to this negative value but the proof is kind of in the pudding. Fundamentally, he was a player that no one wanted. That surprises me, but it is what it is.

For better or worse, opinion's of Walman were much lower than I (or many of us) perceived them to be.

It surprises me as well. The question is why doesn't anyone want him? He's definitely not a top pairing guy but still seems worth it as a 4/5 guy.


Hopefully all will be revealed at some point.

 

[Ezekial]

Fun fact: We picked Gibson with the pick we got from St. Louis in the same trade we acquired Walman.