Master Mind

If the Horvat trade never happens, then it's likely we let him walk for nothing, which is a huge waste. But they made the trade, one where they got a good return. They then poorly used those assets by overpaying for Hronek. So it undoes some of the good work they did with the Bo trade. I don't buy into this window of opportunity. There are no signs that point to us being a cup contender with this group in the near future. I have no interest in emulating the Minnesota Wild and being a perennial 1st round exit team. I'd rather they keep their picks, accumulate more picks, and draft some quality defense.

Not sure why cap it at 2015, but yes our draft record on defense is atrocious. Ideally we can turn that around one day. It doesn't need to be 1st rounders, the Slavins and Pesces of the world can be found in later rounds. But we need to keep our picks to land them.

I wouldn't say he's on a quality team. We have a lot to prove before we can say that. Leapfrogging 2-3 years also means draft picks will be lower, and we'll be more likely to continue trading them. I don't see this as a winning formula.

Drafting a player like Hronek is far more valuable than trading for him. Having a cost controlled player, especially in a tight cap world, is key.

The same can be asked of the current method. How many years of failed shortcuts would they withstand? The fans will withstand anything. As evidenced by them defending every poor decision.

I've stated much more than that, but go ahead and try to simplify any criticism to suit your needs. The fragility is quite something. Right, they don't magically appear. That's why you draft them. Imagine if we didn't throw away so many draft picks over the years and actually used them to draft a quality defense...

Based on years of following him, I don't think he can be a top pair D on a quality team. The return from Bo could have went towards drafting and developing players. Flipping the pick is just trying to take yet another shortcut. The window with Hronek added isn't one where we're a contender. So I'd rather us not try to force a window and continue handcuffing ourselves.

Maybe if we were a top 4 D away from becoming a contender, then the cost could be justified. Considering we were 3 top 4 D away, I'd rather we not mortgage more of the future just so that we can be mediocre.

Not saying he was on a contender. If we ever hope to be one though, we shouldn't be paying a premium, in assets and in an extension, for a player to play a role beyond his capabilities. But we'll be hard pressed to get any top pair D when the best method of getting those is through the draft, and we keep trading our draft picks away.

Thanks for wasting my time with a useless reply.

I've watched him plenty. I follow every team/player in the NHL quite closely. His role in DET does not reflect what his role would be on a contender. As I've stated, I think he's best as a #4 on a contender, not a #2 (or #1 as some have suggested ).

I mostly agree with your definition of a 1D. When I think 1D I think Hedman, Makar, etc. I don't consider Quinn a true 1D either. If you haven't watched him play, then I will say it's likely best to temper expectations. He is certainly no Rafalski or Campbell. Hronek is many levels below. If he were on a contender, he should be considered a #4. Which is fine if he were to be a #4, but we paid too high of a price, and will give him too high of a salary on his extension for him to be a #4 playing in a #2 role. Shades of OEL again, except at least he's younger.

Yes, DET fans know they sold high on him.

You don't trade a core piece to help the tank. Hronek was considered expendable. No team would consider a 25 yr old 1D expendable. Hence why it's easy to deduce from that alone that he isn't that good. Then watching him play for years in Detroit, it's apparent he is not a 1D. Maybe he can be better with us than with DET, but still not a 1D. I think he's much closer to a #4D. I was meaning that Hronek could be kept and they can still tank. I've listened to Button's thoughts on this, and I don't agree. EP and QH wouldn't want out because we chose not to overpay for Hronek at the deadline in a lost season. We paid too high of a price, at the worst time.

If Hronek is as good as some here want to believe, he wouldn't have been traded. Detroit can effectively be bad with him on the roster -- that's been the case during his entire time there.

The same statements were said about OEL when we traded for him. Neither were 1D's when acquired.

I'll trust Yzerman's assessment over Button's.

Legitimate 1D? There are very few of those in the NHL, and Hronek is definitely not one of them.

Yes I've been in favour of a tear down, while keeping EP and QH. If they want a trade, then so be it. I think star players are more likely to stick through painful years if they expect those years to be bad and there's a clear plan, rather than taking shortcuts in hopes of making the playoffs and missing year after year. I know that's not happening though.

4 games is nothing, I'm basing my opinion on him from his time with Detroit.

People were saying that OEL was a top pairing D and look how that turned out

Instead of 4 more years of pain, we get 8 more years of lesser pain. I understand why they did it, but it just prolongs the mediocrity. It's not the worst decision. I prefer this over the Hronek trade and ensuing albatross contract he'll get, which will likely be bought out down the road and keep the cycle going.

If we had management that was focused on the long term, we wouldn't be making short sighted trades and signings every year. It's all the short term thinking that resulted in a buyout being (presumably) the best option to clear cap.

That's typically how it is. Which is why there's always people fine with throwing away draft picks and prospects because that player would be at least 5 years away. Pretty sure we'll have a team in 5 years, and now we're suffering from this mindset of short term trades from 5 or so years ago. Hard to build a long term competitive team when the long term isn't considered.