Steve Yzerlland
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2018
- 8,927
- 4,549
That's what I'm saying. At least get something back. Future considerations? Wtf does that even mean
Confirmed with Link: Walman and a 2nd Round Pick traded to SJ
- Thread starter lhsgolf19
- Start date
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
Interesting story but you're stating things as fact. Do you have any evidence to support any of this?
Just means take this contract of our hands for free please lol . Ya was a bad trade
Well right when Yzerman traded Walman, there were rumblings that the Rangers were shopping Trouba. Then we get the reports that he's blocked the only teams who would trade for him on his NTC. Then July 1 happens and the Wings end the day with nearly exactly the cap space required to resign all their RFAs + 50% of Trouba. More reports about Trouba come out, more or less confirming he's not budging on his NTC. And hours later the Wings sign Tarasenko and all Trouba talk goes quiet. The plan (unnamed sources) if Trouba worked out was to buyout Holl and/or Petry and have-
Ed Seider
Chiarot Trouba
Maatta Gus
I have no idea why they didn't buyout Holl after it fell thru though.
deca guard
Registered User
why? keeping him doesn't really hurt anything, and we don't have dead cap for the next four years. We weren't going to throw 5+ years at another UFA, and the guys you can sign for a year or two aren't likely to be appreciably better than Holl.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
We know from Larry Brooks' report that Detroit was trying to acquire Trouba. It's pretty easy to piece to rest together. Unless you think he traded Walman and a 2nd just to dump 3.4m in cap to sign Tarasenko
deca guard
Registered User
the point is if he needed to move walmans hit he would have gotten somethinbg for him instead of paying to move him if your going by on ice talent alone . only way he had to pay was an off ice issue , or sjs agreed to give and asset back later . and secondly yzerman didnt not need to be cap compliant when he moved walman , there was no rush to move that hit
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
That's not piecing it together. That's you inventing a narrative and making assumptions. Like stating as fact that Yzerman did not shop Walman around.
Him not needing to be cap compliant is exactly why there was another move predicated on moving Walman/his cap.
What I've learned, if anything, about the Jake Walman trade
Two days after the deal we are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
www.shapshotshockey.com
Heres Sean Shapiro's piece on Walman. He has many connections throughout the league. I'm giving Yzerman the benefit of the doubt here, because according to Sean's sources SJ would have "claimed him off of waivers". The only options are - Walman was part 1 of a deal that fell thru, or Yzerman didn't shop Walman around and he added a 2nd onto a player that had value by himself.
The idea that SY did not put any effort in determining market value for Walman is simply ridiculous. It happened three days before the Draft, every GM is talking with each other. It was more than two months after the season ended and the team's verdict on Walman. SY is stubborn, but he's also a bit of a micro-manager. He's not going to make a trade or signing without knowing market value. Walman was an unwanted player with two years left at $3.4M. There doesn't have to be a specific purpose for the Cap space if removing him from the roster is the primary objective. On a decent team he is a 4-6 D with no significant special teams ability. The simplest explanation is that no one wanted Walman for free, A) because of the two-year Cap hit; B) because of points and a good shot inflating his modest true value as a player; and C) for generally known knowledge of baggage "issues". The cost to move him was not some random value, it was the same cost as Ottawa and St. Louis paid to get rid of unwanted players making close to the same AAV as Walman.
ShanahanMan
Registered User
Thats confirmed to be not true. GMs, according to scouts and insiders, were also surprised at the deal and admitted they would have wanted to make a better trade.
deca guard
Registered User
ya he didnt shop him around and went right to paying a 2nd to move himHim not needing to be cap compliant is exactly why there was another move predicated on moving Walman/his cap.
What I've learned, if anything, about the Jake Walman trade
Two days after the deal we are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Heres Sean Shapiro's piece on Walman. He has many connections throughout the league. I'm giving Yzerman the benefit of the doubt here, because according to Sean's sources SJ would have "claimed him off of waivers". The only options are - Walman was part 1 of a deal that fell thru, or Yzerman didn't shop Walman around and he added a 2nd onto a player that had value by himself.
Last edited:
Post a report from a respected publication/source quoting a named GM who obviously should have had interest and the means to add Walman. GMs don't post "Player Available!" messages for the whole league, they approach teams they evaluate would be interested. If a GM didn't hear about Walman's availability in the two-plus months after the Wings' season ended, and would have been interested, that's also partly on him.
Literally no reputable insider or hockey personality ever names their sources... And GM's often do have a "Player Available" message to other management groups. It happened with Hronek too, nobody knew he was available until he was traded. Yzerman works in very odd ways
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,906
- 15,826
Maatta just got moved for a pick. So no I don’t think only Ed and Mo are the only defenseman that had/have trade value.
And if we were willing to throw in a 2nd rounder as a sweetener, I think that opens up a lot of other possibilities other than Walman as far as moving someone out to open up cap.
Yzerman knows the league and its GM membership as well as anyone. He'd let specific "management groups" know because those are the teams that he suspects he could do business with in the case of a specific player. He didn't need to let the whole league know about Hronek, because he had a very good deal in place with Vancouver, who he'd obviously approached (or been approached by) for obvious reasons: they needed a RD and were willing to pay a pretty hefty price for one.
PullHard
☂
- Jul 18, 2007
- 28,559
- 2,778
You’ll notice my post didn’t touch on any of the expected/ advanced stats or defensive play
Lets not forget that Walman, who's supposed to provide an offensive boost from the blue line, scored 4 points total after 12/31 last season. He's not exactly a sound defensive player either. So if you aren't scoring, don't stop other teams from scoring well, and are an apparent locker room issue, why wouldn't you get traded?
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
Him not needing to be cap compliant is exactly why there was another move predicated on moving Walman/his cap.
What I've learned, if anything, about the Jake Walman trade
Two days after the deal we are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Heres Sean Shapiro's piece on Walman. He has many connections throughout the league. I'm giving Yzerman the benefit of the doubt here, because according to Sean's sources SJ would have "claimed him off of waivers". The only options are - Walman was part 1 of a deal that fell thru, or Yzerman didn't shop Walman around and he added a 2nd onto a player that had value by himself.
Those may be the only options you believe, but those aren't the only options.
Do you seriously think any remotely competent GM would throw a 2nd in on a player that had value by himself? That the GM making the deal has less idea what that value is then some former beat writer?
I'm guessing there's a reason why that was posted on Shapiro's substack and not The Athletic or some legit site.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
What other options are there? Why did Yzerman trade a recently signed dman who clearly had value and attach a 2nd as well? I know management didn't like his on ice antics and not playing through injury very well.. but that doesn't justify attaching a 2nd to him
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,061
- 29,906
That's a good question that none of us have even close to the full information to answer.
