Where did Yzerman go wrong with the rebuild?

[wingsfannn919191]

The 2nd traded for Walman was pick #53 which was Leo Sahlin Wallenius. Lukas Fischer went #56 to the Blues, The Wings acquired that 2nd pick used in the Walman trade from the Gibson trade where they also got Kiiskinen. Wings still had their own 2nd and selected Max Plante #47.

They still could've gotten him if they wanted to, they didn't.

Just because wallenius was the pick doesn't mean he was going to be ours. Fischer was available and I'd picked him

I hate when fans complain oh we traded the pick that was bergeron or whatever player. Doesn't mean he would have been your pick... anyways

Yes they could have picked him up at 47 if they wanted to no sh*t. Doesn't mean he wouldnt have been the next guy on the list we'll never know. Point is that pick we traded away should have been in play. Itll never make sense we dealt a 2nd to move walman

 

[Oddbob]

Just because wallenius was the pick doesn't mean he was going to be ours. Fischer was available and I'd picked him

I hate when fans complain oh we traded the pick that was bergeron or whatever player. Doesn't mean he would have been your pick... anyways

Yes they could have picked him up at 47 if they wanted to no sh*t. Doesn't mean he wouldnt have been the next guy on the list we'll never know. Point is that pick we traded away should have been in play. Itll never make sense we dealt a 2nd to move walman

I think that at the end of the day, the 2nd lost won't be a major loss overall to the Wings rebuild.

I doubt in 2-4 seasons we will even remember it.

Just kidding, we will talk about it forever just like Mursak and Hossa/Franzen!!!

 

[wingsfannn919191]

I think that at the end of the day, the 2nd lost won't be a major loss overall to the Wings rebuild.

I doubt in 2-4 seasons we will even remember it.

Just kidding, we will talk about it forever just like Mursak and Hossa/Franzen!!!

And dick axelson and johan ryno

Point is the 2nd is ours and I'll only forget it if lukas Fischer is a bust and doesn't have a nice career like his dad would had before his career ended

 

[JediOrderPizza]

Just because wallenius was the pick doesn't mean he was going to be ours. Fischer was available and I'd picked him

I hate when fans complain oh we traded the pick that was bergeron or whatever player. Doesn't mean he would have been your pick... anyways

Yes they could have picked him up at 47 if they wanted to no sh*t. Doesn't mean he wouldnt have been the next guy on the list we'll never know. Point is that pick we traded away should have been in play. Itll never make sense we dealt a 2nd to move walman

I was just pointing out who they picked, of course I know that doesn't mean the Wings would have went the same way.

 

[jkutswings]

Either you want to make the playoffs and ice the best roster, or you’re icing some mid tier players to just waste time until you feel that the prospects are fully developed. Either way they need to commit to 1 fully and not half ass either of them.

Regardless of how I feel about the approach, I don't see how you can watch this team and not think Yzerman has fully committed to that second option. Nearly the entire roster is made of two categories of players:
1) Long term investment / prospect.
* Berggren
* Debrincat
* Edvinsson
* Johansson
* Kasper
* Larkin
* Raymond
* Seider

2) Band-aid.
* Chiarot
* Copp
* Compher
* Fischer
* Gustafsson
* Holl
* Kane
* Lyon
* Maatta
* Motte
* Petry
* Talbot
* Tarasenko

Other than debating Debrincat, the only guys that could be in a grey area are Rasmussen and Veleno. (Personally I view Veleno as 100 percent band-aid, but I could see the debate based on age.)

Is it frustrating to see such a long list of placeholders? Sure. But how is that not committing to slow playing the kids?

 

[Sadekuuro]

The comedy of it all is how most on the main board who are critical of Yzerman overlook our crappy lottery luck.

We’re not Edmonton, Buffalo, Ottawa, or Chicago where sucking granted us top picks, or Philly , or NYR where we drop down into 1st, or 2nd overall.

I like how it's treated as some tiny minor point. Like sure, you guys have only had one pick in the top five in decades, but geez, why aren't you contending yet? Where's your mega-elite 22 year old center?? You're doing it wrong!!!

 

[wingsfannn919191]

Albert Johansson's played 3 games ... can we just trade maata already so he can play games. Get hes a rookie but he shouldn't sit for 50 games

 

[Geezer WC]

Albert Johansson's played 3 games ... can we just trade maata already so he can play games. Get hes a rookie but he shouldn't sit for 50 games

Problem is Yzerman maybe painted himself into a corner by throwing in a 2nd rd. pick with Walman. Maybe other GM's will want that now to take Matta. I don't understand that Walman trade.

 

[Mr Nimbus]

Problem is Yzerman maybe painted himself into a corner by throwing in a 2nd rd. pick with Walman. Maybe other GM's will want that now to take Matta. I don't understand that Walman trade.

Our offseason made zero sense to me. Having 4 no.7 defensemen is not a recipe for improvement on that end.

 

[FMichael]

Problem is Yzerman maybe painted himself into a corner by throwing in a 2nd rd. pick with Walman. Maybe other GM's will want that now to take Matta. I don't understand that Walman trade.

It's been heavily rumored that Walman became a locker room nuisance and after sitting out due to injury he was a healthy scratch for a few games afterwards (mind you late in the season as the Wings pushed for a playoff spot).

People may forget Trouba was about to become a Red Wing until he nixed the trade - Yzerman needed to free up cap space pronto for the move to have worked...The extra 2nd was likely a sweetener to git'r dunn.

 

[Geezer WC]

It's been heavily rumored that Walman became a locker room nuisance and after sitting out due to injury he was a healthy scratch for a few games afterwards (mind you late in the season as the Wings pushed for a playoff spot).

People may forget Trouba was about to become a Red Wing until he nixed the trade - Yzerman needed to free up cap space pronto for the move to have worked...The extra 2nd was likely a sweetener to git'r dunn.

I get all that. I do. Could we have not got a 2nd for the guy instead of giving up one? That trade is underwhelming.

 

[FMichael]

I get all that. I do. Could we have not got a 2nd for the guy instead of giving up one? That trade is underwhelming.

Right...But once again - the move was made in a hastily fashion in order to bring in Trouba and his salary (although I seem to recall the NYR were going to retain $2.5 million) - only for Trouba to nix the move.

Things all went down fast and not in our favor.

 

[wingsfannn919191]

Problem is Yzerman maybe painted himself into a corner by throwing in a 2nd rd. pick with Walman. Maybe other GM's will want that now to take Matta. I don't understand that Walman trade.

Giving up a 2nd made zero sense . That being said walman had 2 years and maata is a pending ufa. Those are easier to move

 

[jkutswings]

Right...But once again - the move was made in a hastily fashion in order to bring in Trouba and his salary (although I seem to recall the NYR were going to retain $2.5 million) - only for Trouba to nix the move.

Things all went down fast and not in our favor.

I'll agree that things went down fast. But I think it ended up being closer to Detroit dodging a bullet - Trouba would be the most expensive disaster yet on the blue line here.

If David Perron nearly doubled his salary, took even dumber penalties, and stopped contributing along the boards, that's how I picture Trouba in Detroit. Hopefully he either stays in New York or somebody else takes him off the Rangers' hands, because I want no part of him here.

 

[wingsfannn919191]

Right...But once again - the move was made in a hastily fashion in order to bring in Trouba and his salary (although I seem to recall the NYR were going to retain $2.5 million) - only for Trouba to nix the move.

Things all went down fast and not in our favor.

That trouba excuse is weak. You don't make that walman move then unless you 100% know hes coming

You tell san Jose christmas came early and were giving you a 2nd when the trouba deal comes through and is confirmed.

 

[The Zermanator]

I get all that. I do. Could we have not got a 2nd for the guy instead of giving up one? That trade is underwhelming.

Yzerman reading this like:

But seriously, do people around here seriously believe he just approached teams and started throwing around high draft picks willy nilly? Or is the suggestion that he just offered SJ a 2nd without approaching any other team to see if anyone would pay something?

It's pretty clear what happened. Cap space is at a premium around the league, he shopped Walman around but no team was wanting to take his contract for what he brings to the table. Other teams saw his performance last season too, and they're experienced enough to look beyond a few flashy goals. Rather than lose an asset, Yzerman orchestrated a scenario where he could shed Walman's contract without a net loss. Kiiskinen is at worst a prospect of equal value to Gibson, and yet we got a 2nd round pick on top of him. The only "loss" in the Walman trade is entirely and specifically offset by the gain in the Kiiskinen trade, because they're the exact same thing. Therefore, no net loss.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that some people around here need to make peace with the idea that they may have been wrong about Walman's trade value.

 

[Geezer WC]

Yzerman reading this like:

But seriously, do people around here seriously believe he just approached teams and started throwing around high draft picks willy nilly? Or is the suggestion that he just offered SJ a 2nd without approaching any other team to see if anyone would pay something?

It's pretty clear what happened. Cap space is at a premium around the league, he shopped Walman around but no team was wanting to take his contract for what he brings to the table. Other teams saw his performance last season too, and they're experienced enough to look beyond a few flashy goals. Rather than lose an asset, Yzerman orchestrated a scenario where he could shed Walman's contract without a net loss. Kiiskinen is at worst a prospect of equal value to Gibson, and yet we got a 2nd round pick on top of him. The only "loss" in the Walman trade is entirely and specifically offset by the gain in the Kiiskinen trade, because they're the exact same thing. Therefore, no net loss.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that some people around here need to make peace with the idea that they may have been wrong about Walman's trade value.

Or not and it was a bad trade.

 

[ricky0034]

Or not and it was a bad trade.

nah man you don't get it paying a 2nd to get rid of Walman was actually a good trade because Yzerman got another 2nd from an entirely different team

....too bad it was actually a bad trade because the Wings traded Adam Oates

 

[HisNoodliness]

Yzerman reading this like:

But seriously, do people around here seriously believe he just approached teams and started throwing around high draft picks willy nilly? Or is the suggestion that he just offered SJ a 2nd without approaching any other team to see if anyone would pay something?

It's pretty clear what happened. Cap space is at a premium around the league, he shopped Walman around but no team was wanting to take his contract for what he brings to the table. Other teams saw his performance last season too, and they're experienced enough to look beyond a few flashy goals. Rather than lose an asset, Yzerman orchestrated a scenario where he could shed Walman's contract without a net loss. Kiiskinen is at worst a prospect of equal value to Gibson, and yet we got a 2nd round pick on top of him. The only "loss" in the Walman trade is entirely and specifically offset by the gain in the Kiiskinen trade, because they're the exact same thing. Therefore, no net loss.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that some people around here need to make peace with the idea that they may have been wrong about Walman's trade value.

Honestly the Kiiskinen trade was a good one, a good enough trade to offset the impact of the bad Walman trade, that is true. But we could have made that good trade and then just stopped there. No need to cancel a good trade with a bad one. Or we could have made a second good trade. What a revelation that would have been.

If Yzerman didn't call everyone in the league to gauge prices, then that would be negligence. I doubt he was negligent. I think he was just plain stupid on this one. I'm sure he called around, and if that was the price, fine, don't make the trade.

"You offering a second for Walman? We sort of need him but let me think... Oh you WANT a second, dude that's crazy... Well I guess there's no trade then."

If you can't find a good trade, don't make a bad one. We didn't need to trade Walman. We ended up signing a decidedly worse Gustafsson this off-season. We were trying to add an aging and arguably worse Trouba in another trade. We already have worse defenseman in Chiarot, Petry and Holl on the team. There's bad defenseman everywhere to be seen and we got rid of one of the okay guys. We paid to do it.

If we had 6 good NHL defenseman and we needed to make room for Edvinsson and AlJo, great, I'm fine moving a second to trade Walman. If we had signed Matt Roy and traded for Sergachev, by all means, get rid of Walman. But why trade him if you're going to be giving minutes to Justin Holl, Jeff Petry, Ben Chiarot and Eric Gustafsson? None of those guys should have been a priority over Walman. I'd happily sit, send down to GR or bury any/all of them.

Perhaps what hurts most is the opportunity cost. We paid a decent pick to get rid of a defenseman and we have so many defenseman that I want to be rid of. It just was one of two guys I was okay with sticking around. " We're not competitive anyway so we can just wait out these bad players" is fine if you're not trading picks to get rid of better ones

 

[Retire91]

Regardless of how I feel about the approach, I don't see how you can watch this team and not think Yzerman has fully committed to that second option. Nearly the entire roster is made of two categories of players:
1) Long term investment / prospect.
* Berggren
* Debrincat
* Edvinsson
* Johansson
* Kasper
* Larkin
* Raymond
* Seider

2) Band-aid.
* Chiarot
* Copp
* Compher
* Fischer
* Gustafsson
* Holl
* Kane
* Lyon
* Maatta
* Motte
* Petry
* Talbot
* Tarasenko

Other than debating Debrincat, the only guys that could be in a grey area are Rasmussen and Veleno. (Personally I view Veleno as 100 percent band-aid, but I could see the debate based on age.)

Is it frustrating to see such a long list of placeholders? Sure. But how is that not committing to slow playing the kids?

I mean to me it feels like you answered your own criticism. From the absolute beginning of Yzerman coming aboard he said this is going to be a slow role. Several of Yzerman's top picks are not even on the roster yet. It's not a mystery that these are the types of players filling out the roster because this is among the seasons Yzerman did not target at being competitive. Despite that there is still a wildcard chance.

 

[Frk It]

Honestly the Kiiskinen trade was a good one, a good enough trade to offset the impact of the bad Walman trade, that is true. But we could have made that good trade and then just stopped there. No need to cancel a good trade with a bad one. Or we could have made a second good trade. What a revelation that would have been.

This.

I also will continue to say that I very much doubt that packaging Walman with a 2nd is THE ONLY MOVE WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY MADE to shed cap. I just am going to have a hard time buying that.

It also doesn't help we have seen Yzerman light a 2nd round pick on fire before (drafting Cleveland... sorry, not sorry).

 

[jaster]

I've found that, this fall season, the best kindling for your backyard woodland fires are 2nd round picks. Enjoy some hot cider and s'mores while singing such campfire classics as "Let's Go Red Wings" while you stay toasty warm around a blazing fire fueled by "Smoldering Seconds," as we're marketing them. For a limited time, we are offering buy one, get one. Don't worry about any more pesky walmans ever again!

 

[Henkka]

Time to get over it.

One damn Walman or 2nd round pick does not change the big picture.

 

[jaster]

Time to get over it.

One damn Walman or 2nd round pick does not change the big picture.

Can you define how large the sample size would have to be to matter? Asking for a friend.

 

[FMichael]

Honestly the Kiiskinen trade was a good one, a good enough trade to offset the impact of the bad Walman trade, that is true. But we could have made that good trade and then just stopped there. No need to cancel a good trade with a bad one. Or we could have made a second good trade. What a revelation that would have been.

If Yzerman didn't call everyone in the league to gauge prices, then that would be negligence. I doubt he was negligent. I think he was just plain stupid on this one. I'm sure he called around, and if that was the price, fine, don't make the trade.

"You offering a second for Walman? We sort of need him but let me think... Oh you WANT a second, dude that's crazy... Well I guess there's no trade then."

If you can't find a good trade, don't make a bad one. We didn't need to trade Walman. We ended up signing a decidedly worse Gustafsson this off-season. We were trying to add an aging and arguably worse Trouba in another trade. We already have worse defenseman in Chiarot, Petry and Holl on the team. There's bad defenseman everywhere to be seen and we got rid of one of the okay guys. We paid to do it.

If we had 6 good NHL defenseman and we needed to make room for Edvinsson and AlJo, great, I'm fine moving a second to trade Walman. If we had signed Matt Roy and traded for Sergachev, by all means, get rid of Walman. But why trade him if you're going to be giving minutes to Justin Holl, Jeff Petry, Ben Chiarot and Eric Gustafsson? None of those guys should have been a priority over Walman. I'd happily sit, send down to GR or bury any/all of them.

Perhaps what hurts most is the opportunity cost. We paid a decent pick to get rid of a defenseman and we have so many defenseman that I want to be rid of. It just was one of two guys I was okay with sticking around. " We're not competitive anyway so we can just wait out these bad players" is fine if you're not trading picks to get rid of better ones

I keep beating a dead horse here...

Walman was said to have been a locker room problem child - got worse when Larkin went out with an injury (Walman's behavior got worse that is - bad enough our best player was out) - Walman spent time as a healthy scratch...He needed to GO!

THAT

PLUS

Yzerman wanted Trouba - that fell apart AFTER being desperate and moving Walman and a 2nd to SJ as a dump job.

Can you define how large the sample size would have to be to matter? Asking for a friend.

1 Dman gone
We still got 7 pieces of pie - err 7 Dmen left