Larkin wants out?

[buddha]

"Earlier today, Helene St. James of the Detroit Free Press shared that Larkin hasn’t expanded his list beyond Florida, Minnesota, and Vegas. Unsurprisingly, St. James indicated that Yzerman was looking for current roster players, and not future assets. The Red Wings are looking to enter another era of competitiveness, and given that all three teams on Larkin’s list are in theirs, it’s unlikely that they’d be willing to give several players from their roster."

what's more troubling: larkin wont expand his list or yzerman wants current roster players?

what a depressing summer for detroit.

[buddha]

those teams have zero cap space too.  so if they take larkin they have to send back $8+ million in salary.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

53 minutes ago, buddha said:

what's more troubling: larkin wont expand his list or yzerman wants current roster players?

I think the fact that Yzerman wants current roster players and refuses to recognize that his rebuild isn't working is more troubling. There is no NHL player right now that is equal to Larkin that you could trade him for that would make this team a playoff team and a Cup contender. Not one. This roster has problems all around. They have a lack of scoring depth on every line but the first and that only gets worse losing Kane. They are too soft and don't have enough good forecheckers, who are also capable of scoring goals. They still have a terrible backend defense on the third line and still have Ben Chiarot likely taking first or second line minutes next year. And iff you don't trade Larkin for a center, your problems only get significantly worse as you're then talking about having Andrew Copp on your top line as your top center.

Yzerman needed to admit that this rebuild failed and either do a soft reset of it or break this team up Florida Marlins style, fire sale, and start over. He did neither and chose the worst option, keeping us in purgatory.

Edited July 7 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Jason_R]

Since Helene is reporting this, I assume it is coming straight from the wings. I suppose it is possible that Larkin has drawn a line in the sand, though that seems very foolish on his part. I could also imagine that his agent has said vaguely that Larkin would accept a trade elsewhere but without naming teams. Maybe Stevie is trying to send the message to Larkin that you don’t get to demand a NTC then demand a trade. 

I’m less worried by Stevie’s hope to get an established player than by the thought that his pride is causing him to drag this out to the start of the season or even the trade deadline. Clearly he is not going to end up with a player of Larkin’s caliber but he needs a credible center and he needs to nail down ADB. He may already have lost Kane, which may turn out to have lost him ADB. This may turn out to mean that by being passive Stevie backed himself into the corner of a second rebuild rather than his desired objective of a rebound. 

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

Since Helene is reporting this, I assume it is coming straight from the wings. I suppose it is possible that Larkin has drawn a line in the sand, though that seems very foolish on his part. I could also imagine that his agent has said vaguely that Larkin would accept a trade elsewhere but without naming teams. Maybe Stevie is trying to send the message to Larkin that you don’t get to demand a NTC then demand a trade. 

I’m less worried by Stevie’s hope to get an established player than by the thought that his pride is causing him to drag this out to the start of the season or even the trade deadline. Clearly he is not going to end up with a player of Larkin’s caliber but he needs a credible center and he needs to nail down ADB. He may already have lost Kane, which may turn out to have lost him ADB. This may turn out to mean that by being passive Stevie backed himself into the corner of a second rebuild rather than his desired objective of a rebound. 

A clear path to a better long term future was open before him and he chose to keep gnawing the ends of his old bones instead. The team is stuck in purgatory. It's getting close to where I can see Dylan not playing this year. 

Edited July 7 by gehringer_2

[Shinzaki]

Larkin gains nothing by sitting.  Stevie gains an excuse for tanking, a better pick in 2027 and a PR win over the snot nosed kid who won't honor his contract

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, Shinzaki said:

Larkin gains nothing by sitting.  Stevie gains an excuse for tanking, a better pick in 2027 and a PR win over the snot nosed kid who won't honor his contract

then why not trade him for futures?

[buddha]

if this is true, expect larkin to be a wing on opening night.

that said, these things tend to be fluid.

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Shinzaki said:

Larkin gains nothing by sitting.  Stevie gains an excuse for tanking, a better pick in 2027 and a PR win over the snot nosed kid who won't honor his contract

Just saying it goes both ways. It's doesn't serve Yzerman's purposes not to get deal done. Ego can play as big with a current player as with an ex-player. And McLelland gets to be in the middle. I imagine he's loving that.

And we don't know the locker room dynamics, which could also go either way.

The whole thing just sucks.

Edited July 7 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Just saying it goes both ways. It's doesn't serve Yzerman's purposes not to get deal done. Ego can play as big with a current player as with an ex-player. And McLelland gets to be in the middle. I imagine he's loving that.

And we don't know the locker room dynamics, which could also go either way.

The whole thing just sucks.

if larkin demands to be traded to only those three teams, then stevie's hands are tied.

do you want him to trade larkin for a salary dump and some low first round picks?

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

if larkin demands to be traded to only those three teams, then stevie's hands are tied.

do you want him to trade larkin for a salary dump and some low first round picks?

What we want doesn't matter much. These two guys seem to be locked into a battle of wills and we are the losers.

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

What we want doesn't matter much. These two guys seem to be locked into a battle of wills and we are the losers.

ok, you say "it doesnt serve yzerman's interest not to get a deal done."  ok, so do you think he should trade larkin to one of the three teams listed for a salary dump and some picks?  

would that serve his interests?

[Jason_R]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Just saying it goes both ways. It's doesn't serve Yzerman's purposes not to get deal done. Ego can play as big with a current player as with an ex-player. And McLelland gets to be in the middle. I imagine he's loving that.

And we don't know the locker room dynamics, which could also go either way.

The whole thing just sucks.

Yes, for all of Stevie’s shortcomings, he still put together a team with a strong pipeline in goal, anda solid and improving foundation on defense. They had not gotten over the playoff pump, but they had been in the race until the final days, and he gave the team support at the trade deadline.

Then Larkin threw a tantrum.

It would have been easy for Larkin to say that he would accept a trade or even that he would like to be traded and then keep his mouth shut. But he has done a tremendous disservice to the franchise. And it is hard as the bad guy in this scenario.

[slothfacekilla]

I'm not surprised that Yzerman prefers current players in a Larkin trade.  I doubt anyone in the building wants to start another full rebuild, especially the Ilitches who I'm sure are dying for playoff income.   They arrived at the cusp of the playoffs and now this happens.

But I don't imagine that Yzerman will only make the trade for that, it is just his preference.  You just have to give him actually interesting or worthwhile future assets and the teams that Larkin wants to join don't have that.

I personally think dumping Larkin to one of his preferred destinations for scraps is a bad idea but maybe it is the spite in me talking.

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

ok, you say "it doesnt serve yzerman's interest not to get a deal done."  ok, so do you think he should trade larkin to one of the three teams listed for a salary dump and some picks?  

would that serve his interests?

if the alternative is to get nothing or end up with a totally dysfunctional locker room  where Mac loses the team is that the worse option? IDK - seriously I have no idea but the possibility is out there staring us in the face. There is sort of an underlying assumption that the team is going to side with management and Larkin will be the black sheep but who really knows? Do we want the wings to be Vancouver for the rest of Larkin's deal?  

You don't want to get caught be a sunk cost fallacy type situation. There may be only poor outcomes possible to choose from.

The problem is the ship on the best deal available for rebuild players has already sailed with the draft and if Yzerman left a better deal on the table than anything he can get now, that's a fail.

Edited July 7 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

if the alternative is to get nothing or end up with a totally dysfunctional locker room  where Mac loses the team is that the worse option? IDK - seriously I have no idea but the possibility is out there staring us in the face. There is sort of an underlying assumption that the team is going to side with management and Larkin will be the black sheep but who really knows? Do we want the wings to be Vancouver for the rest of Larkin's deal?  

You don't want to get caught be a sunk cost fallacy type situation. There may be only poor outcomes possible to choose from.

you dont give away an asset for pieces.  this is not a sunk cost fallacy because larkin is not a sunk cost.  he is a valuable asset at the end of his prime.  he asked to be traded.  ok, but if a trade cant be worked out, then he honors his contract.

[buddha]

i dont like the state of the team and i think its mostly yzerman's fault (and bad lottery luck) but sheesh g2, you find a way to make everything his fault.  as if larkin plays no role in this whatsoever.

[gehringer_2]

Just now, buddha said:

you dont give away an asset for pieces.  this is not a sunk cost fallacy because larkin is not a sunk cost.  he is a valuable asset at the end of his prime.  he asked to be traded.  ok, but if a trade cant be worked out, then he honors his contract.

you can't enforce specific performance for an athlete. Maybe he'll come back and give it all he's got, maybe he'll be EP40. I'd rather not have to find out.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont like the state of the team and i think its mostly yzerman's fault (and bad lottery luck) but sheesh g2, you find a way to make everything his fault.  as if larkin plays no role in this whatsoever.

I think as GM his obligation was to make the best of bad situation and so far he only appears to be making it worse.

It's not a matter of whose fault it is. Of course it was Larkin that precipitated all this, but that doesn't mean the team can just make the cost of it all go away and end up with the status quo ante. That ship sailed when they lost Larkin's loyalty.

Edited July 7 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

Off topic: Should the Wings try an offer sheet with Fantilli, Bedard, or (trickier) Cutter Gauthier (wing, not a center)?

[slothfacekilla]

The Avalanche waiting out the Duchene trade despite him being openly displeased and really wanting out worked out well for them, it can happen. 

Plus Arvidsson's answer to the media about whether he considered the Larkin situation when signing (he did not) gives me hope that players will do what he said and not let it affect them a ton:

"I haven't really put any thought into that or read too much about it," Arvidsson said. "I was focused on myself and what I'm going to bring to the team."

[slothfacekilla]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Off topic: Should the Wings try an offer sheet with Fantilli, Bedard, or (trickier) Cutter Gauthier (wing, not a center)?

Cutter Gauthier is going to be insanely tricky because he isn't eligible for an offer sheet

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont like the state of the team and i think its mostly yzerman's fault (and bad lottery luck) but sheesh g2, you find a way to make everything his fault.  as if larkin plays no role in this whatsoever.

If Larkin comes backs and there are hugs all around and he puts up 80 points between Danielson or MBN and Raymond I'll be as happy as the next guy. But I don't think it's the most likely outcome.

Edited July 7 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

3 minutes ago, slothfacekilla said:

Cutter Gauthier is going to be insanely tricky because he isn't eligible for an offer sheet

Oh damn... I thought he was part of that group...

[slothfacekilla]

7 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Oh damn... I thought he was part of that group...

He hasn't played enough games to be eligible, the trade to Anaheim may have raised that threshold but without looking into the details I do know he can't get an offer sheet this off season.

 

I don't think Yzerman would do it (especially to Verbeek if Gauthier were eligible) but if it were me and I had all this cap space I honestly would offer sheet Fantilli or Bedard.  Being conservative and using traditional methods of acquiring talent hasn't been working too well so there isn't much to lose in my mind.  Chances are any offers get met by the original team but let's try something.

Bedard's shoulder might be cooked anyways!