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

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

ok considering Walman only made it 13 games before getting scratched for "non-hockey reasons" I retract my previous statement that if I knew the full reason Yzerman shipped him out I'd likely feel he pulled the trigger too quickly.

 

[The Zermanator]

Linking to the reddit thread since I don't want to encourage any traffic to the cesspool formerly known as Twitter.

• Warsofsky didn't want to divulge details, but said about the scratch: "No one is bigger than the team. We're about the team, and getting better as an organization, our culture, our standards, is really all I can say to that."

Can the Walman issue be put to rest now? That's two teams now where there are similar whispers that he's not committed and invested in the success of the team. Yzerman wanted to get rid of a locker room cancer (who's on-ice play wasn't much better) and he found a way to do it by making a lateral move rather than being forced to take a step back to get rid of him. Considering the team is full of young, impressionable players, with more on the way, I'd say that was a very sensible decision. Good riddance and move on.

 

[RED WINGS STOMP]

Sorry, one SJ scratch is not enough to justify what Steve did. Maybe Walman is locker room poison I don't know, but I don't believe we had to make the move we did to get rid of him. I am ready to move on about this however.

 

[izlez]

Linking to the reddit thread since I don't want to encourage any traffic to the cesspool formerly known as Twitter.





Can the Walman issue be put to rest now? That's two teams now where there are similar whispers that he's not committed and invested in the success of the team. Yzerman wanted to get rid of a locker room cancer (who's on-ice play wasn't much better) and he found a way to do it by making a lateral move rather than being forced to take a step back to get rid of him. Considering the team is full of young, impressionable players, with more on the way, I'd say that was a very sensible decision. Good riddance and move on.

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of him

 

[Gniwder]

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of him

You don't get far in the NHL by screwing over other GMs. Everyone talked about Stevie "fleecing" other GMs, but what they gave him were flawed players at a discount whether it be Vrana, Walman, Husso, Ned, Fabbri, Leddy, etc. It's not like selling a used car, you only have 31 trading partners and ALL of them talk to each other. Get a reputation as a guy that sells damaged good at a premium, and you get no trading partners. Good example is McPhee, he had such a bad reputation that other GMs would only talk to him if he overpaid, like Erat or Tats.

Walman has issues. Stevie sold him to the one team that needed him despite his personality flaws. Stevie threw the 2nd in because a buyout is definitely a possibility. You need to look at the whole picture and not just Walman's on ice performance. He's actually beyond ADA territory for healthy scratch, Walman didn't even last ONE MONTH.

I questioned the trade as well, but given the new data, I am on Stevie's side with it. Sometimes when you get new information, you have to digest it and change your mind.

 

[The Zermanator]

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

Because on the morning of June 25th, Detroit's organizational assets included Walman and Gibson. On the evening of June 25th, Detroit had the exact same assets, minus Walman and with Kiiskinen instead of Gibson. Dropped Walman and all it cost was a lateral move from Gibson to Kiiskinen.

The level of attachment around here to this 2nd round pick we had for all of 20 minutes is downright bizarre. Here's the plain, obvious truth: we were never meant to have that pick. He wanted to get rid of Walman, he found out what it would cost, and he found a way to do it without having to take any steps back as an organization. He clearly already knew that 2nd round pick was destined for San Jose when he acquired it from Nashville, it was never intended to be ours. Therefore we didn't 'lose' anything.

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of him

I said this in a previous comment at some point, paraphrasing here: The simplest explanation is that people around here need to consider the possibility they were wrong about Walman's trade value.

Other NHL teams aren't stupid. They have scouts and the decision-makers also pay attention to what's happening around the league. The undefined background issues are only one part of the problem, his on-ice play was the other one. He was not good in Detroit in 2023/24, simple as that. In fact he was quite bad, notwithstanding a few flashy goals.

At a time when cap space was at a major premium, that not only limited which teams could even fit him under the cap, but also which teams would even see value in him with his contract relative to his performance. 2 years at 3.4M for a defensive chaos agent is not a "how much are you willing to pay me" situation, it's a "how much will it cost to take him off my hands" situation. Yzerman had to pay to get rid of Walman for the same reason he would need to pay to get rid of Holl. They had/have negative value relative to their cap hits.

And like @Gniwder said, there are consequences for dishonest, underhanded tactics. No other GM would want to deal in good faith with Yzerman if they had no confidence he'd do the same.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

Only took four and a half months for it to become obvious to hopefully everyone now that Yzerman knew what he was doing all along. The really savvy aspect of all this is the Gibson trade. I wouldn't be surp;rised to find out the Walman plus a 2nd rounder agreement was settled days before it was announced, the Wings wantiing some time to come up with another second round pick. Nashville obviously liked Gibson a lot to give up a pick they could have used to try to draft a better prospect, and the Wings must have done a deep dive into their prospect list to find the guy they wanted most. There were some complaints about the Gibson pick -- he's purely a defensive type -- but he proved to have pretty good value. Walman wasn't wanted, Gibson likely never needed with Seider/ASP/AlJo ahead of him, and the result is almost $7M in Cap space over two years and an interestng new winger prospect.

Almost sounds like a trade win instead of a debacle.

 

[Geezer WC]

He re upped the guy and then paid to get rid of him. Others are allowed their opinion that the guy wouldn't clear waivers. GM's make mistakes..even ours.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of him

And what should he have answered when the other GM asked "Ive seen your defensive corps. What do you mean he doesn't 'fit your vision?'"

It's a tightknit GM community. It's not going to bode well in future negotiations if a GM isn't relatively honest about a player they're trading.

 

[Retire91]

We live in an age where people will triple down on their own bias rather than take in new information.

Yzerman is a seasoned and savvy GM, there was a reason he paid to "git rid of" Walman

 

[Geezer WC]

We live in an age where people will triple down on their own bias rather than take in new information.

Yzerman is a seasoned and savvy GM, there was a reason he paid to "git rid of" Walman

Don't. I'm not in the US.

Yes, but he failed to see it before he gave him a raise. That happened. Are we not at the point where we can bitch about what Yzerman did yet?

 

[deca guard]

Don't. I'm not in the US.

Yes, but he failed to see it before he gave him a raise. That happened. Are we not at the point where we can bitch about what Yzerman did yet?

so your whining about yzerman not being able to predict what improper , according to nhl culture at least , off ice habits a player may assume ????? youve a ridiculous/worthless veiwpoint on the matter that shouldnt be taken seriously . its more like you just have a need to bitch about something

 

[Gniwder]

Don't. I'm not in the US.

Yes, but he failed to see it before he gave him a raise. That happened. Are we not at the point where we can bitch about what Yzerman did yet?

Sometimes personality issues with prospects don't manifest itself until that prospect become a full time NHLer. Heck, I've seen similar issues when contract worker get hired on full time. It's not just a NHL thing. People can hide issues. If you took a ski lesson from me, you'd swear I'm the nicest guy in the world, lol.

The trend with Walman is that the better he does on the ice, the bigger his off ice issue becomes. Maybe one day we'll find out what the issue actually is, but it's a moot point now, at least for us.

 

[Gniwder]

He re upped the guy

Hindsight is 20/20. We didn't know how bad Walman has issues until he got benched one month into a season with a new team, there's no way Stevie would have known back then.

Was it a mistake? Yeah.
Was it a foreseeable mistake? No.

It is what it is.

 

[Oddbob]

Shorthanded goals against.

That would be a negative thing though. Giving up goals shorthanded usually means someone on the PP messed up.

 

[GarlicbreadTB]

According to some sources(believe it or not) but apparently Walman have a tendency to be late for team meetings and plane rides a lot. Apparently both the Wings and Sharks have told Walman to lay off gaming because they believe that is distracting Walman both on and off the ice.

In terms of other misbehaviour there is none. Most people think he's a good person with a good personality but perhaps not the most professional person as previously mentioned.

 

[sepster]

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of him

The Wings did not end up with "losing" a 2nd round pick.

Yzerman traded a prospect for an equal-value prospect AND a 2nd round pick. At that point, the Wings are "up" one 2nd. He then used a 2nd to get rid of Walman. The Wings are now back to "even" in regard to picks and prospects.

 

[izlez]

The Wings did not end up with "losing" a 2nd round pick.

Yzerman traded a prospect for an equal-value prospect AND a 2nd round pick. At that point, the Wings are "up" one 2nd. He then used a 2nd to get rid of Walman. The Wings are now back to "even" in regard to picks and prospects.

Ugh. Ok, fine. Whatever you say.

...but that doesn't leave us with a no-good scoundrel of a GM that screwed over another GM by taking a 2nd round pick in a swap of equal prospects?

 

[sepster]

Don't. I'm not in the US.

Yes, but he failed to see it before he gave him a raise. That happened. Are we not at the point where we can bitch about what Yzerman did yet?

Proper asset management is to sign your RFAs to reasonable contracts, thus retaining that asset. Hopefully, a team can retain assets at a value that is both good for the team if they retain that asset, or is viewed favorably enough that it can be moved if the need comes along. In Walman's case, he turned his value into a negative sum. It was a gamble Yzerman lost on, but that happens.

A player has a responsibility to live up to the contract they sign with a team. If they don't, then why would that be an indictment on management? Mantha, Zadina, and Walman were all given "prove it" deals by Yzerman and all of them clearly didn't "prove it" and were all shipped out. You could say that's on Yzerman, but considering they've all flamed out since they've moved on, I would say the players were the problem. You could then argue, "why were they given contracts in the first place?" and I would refer you to my first point, which is that they are team assets and you pay to retain team assets.

Ugh. Ok, fine. Whatever you say.

...but that doesn't leave us with a no-good scoundrel of a GM that screwed over another GM by taking a 2nd round pick in a swap of equal prospects?

Not if the other GM valued a defensive prospect more than the offensive prospect he had. In that case, they could view trading a 2nd for a prospect that is a better positional fit as reasonable.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

People have been wanting SY and Holland before him to turn over every rock in search of solutions to what for a long time was a really thin pool of prospects or good young players. Take some risks, look beyond the beaten path, etc. I would bet there were some concerns about Walman even at the time he was signed to the three-year extension. Probably nothing major, but something they thought they could live with or Walman able to deal with, with a little time and help. There are very few mysteries about players in the NHL. It's as Lazlo said, a tight-knit community not only of GMs, but players, coaches and staff that is constantly moving from team to team. Walman was a bit of a mystery to fans -- "Walman's better than Leddy! What was St. Louis thinking?" -- but probably not within that small NHL community. Walman, if had any sense at all and looking ahead to imminent Free Agency, would have been on his best cooperative behaviour that season because the payoff for that could be measured in milllions.

Walman in his final year as an RFA looked like he might be one of those unexpected solutions. A trade throw-in who was playing top pair minutes, could skate, had a great shot. He hadn't yet burned any bridges with teammates, or many of them, or been a major problem. They had to make a decision on him prior to the 2023 TDL: make him an offer good enough to keep him from opting for Free Agency, or trade him for whatever they could get at the TDL, probably a mid-round pick at best. So they took the risk, the potential upside of keeping that asset outweighing the value from a later Draft pick. For fans tempted to criticize SY for signing him, or even despite all the evidence critical of his last move, the choice is either to think SY made a mistake in keeping Walman and then compounded it, or realize he was prepared to take a risk and when it went south, made the best out of a bad situation.

 

[Sparty]

I can't imagine wtf the deal is with this guy, is he forcing his personal beliefs on others and is just a pain in the ass to be around?

 

[better Red than Dead]

Help me understand why GMs have to be totally disclose and divulge their plans and thoughts on players before trading them. Other than injuries, why do GMs have to discuss with other GMs why they’re trading players or their locker room fits or issues? Isn’t that what scouts are for? Couldn’t that open up GMs to being accused of “blackballing “ players?

 

[Sparty]

Help me understand why GMs have to be totally disclose and divulge their plans and thoughts on players before trading them. Other than injuries, why do GMs have to discuss with other GMs why they’re trading players or their locker room fits or issues? Isn’t that what scouts are for? Couldn’t that open up GMs to being accused of “blackballing “ players?

I think it's because if you don't, there's going to be some hard feelings about that, and then good luck trying to make any trades in the future when your reputation is in the shitter.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I’m honestly over it, but I don’t know what you mean “lateral move rather than taking a step back”. How is losing a 2nd round pick lateral?

We don’t know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but he could have shopped him saying “he just doesn’t fit our vision. Want him for a 3rd? Ok fine we’ll settle for a 5th”. The guy may have some warts, but they weren’t very public and we didn’t have to let the whole world know he was a bad cancer before getting rid of hi

And what should he have answered when the other GM asked "Ive seen your defensive corps. What do you mean he doesn't 'fit your vision?'"

It's a tightknit GM community. It's not going to bode well in future negotiations if a GM isn't relatively honest about a player they're trading.

There aren't many secrets to hide anymore. Think about all of the players, coaches, managers, team personnel, agents, advisors, etc. that have come in contact with this kid since he was 18. I would agree that some have more tolerance for certain behavior than others or believe that a player has the ability to change in a different environment. Those, however, are situations where known risk is being assumed. My money says the book was out on Walman, It was just a question of whether someone else was going to put up with what Detroit would not.

For the record I think the exact same thing was true of Vrana and that the Wings knew what they were getting into when they took him back.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I can't imagine wtf the deal is with this guy, is he forcing his personal beliefs on others and is just a pain in the ass to be around?

It's a bummer because I like Walman. I tend to believe it's nothing that nefarious but probably what people insinuated about a lack or professionalism. Somewhere I read an article referring to him wanting to establish a brand outside of hockey so maybe he just doesn't have his head in the game.

Looking back at the St. Louis trade maybe there was a reason it looked like such a good deal for Yzerman. He was getting Sundqvist and taking a minor risk on a player with some maturity issues.

Once Walman got that 3-year deal it seems like something in his behavior must have changed. Which is unfortunate because he has the tools to be a very good NHL defenseman. And when Yzerman hands out a contract I'm guessing expectations are clear and if you don't meet them you get Mantha-ed.

A question-mark of a player with two years at $3.4 million left on his deal, I see why Grier wanted a 2nd.