Would the Red Wings Ever Seriously Consider Trading Larkin?

In a recent column in the Detroit Free Press, Carlos Monarrez offered an opinion that drew immediate ire from the entirety of the Red Wings fan base.  In brief, Monarrez argued that should Detroit should trade Dylan Larkin should the Red Wings

Here is the crux of Monarrez's case:

"The answer is simple, albeit hard to swallow for Wings fans: If the Wings miss the playoffs this season and the next, they should trade Larkin to a contender for his age 30 season. Because if the Wings miss the next two playoffs, that should be the end of Steve Yzerman’s tenure as general manager...This isn’t the optimal situation anyone wants, especially Larkin, who would have to leave the only home he’s ever known and waive his no-trade clause. But anyone who has appreciated such an under-appreciated player like Larkin—and certainly Larkin himself–has to ask themselves how much longer is he willing to waste his talent and miss out on being part of the biggest moments on the game’s biggest stage?"

Again, this argument was instant anathema to Red Wings fans, who have no interest in trading their captain and best player, the one thing working for a franchise mired in the extended fallout of its own dynastic run for nearly a decade now.  But is there any way to see the logic behind Monarrez' argument?

The point about Larkin's aging curve is not entirely irrelevant.  It is Larkin's prime that provides a broad end date on Detroit's contention window as presently constructed, and Monarrez isn't off base in his suggestion that players do tail off as they pass the age of 30.  However, the harshness with which Monarrez views two outcomes—missing the postseason this year and Larkin's 30th birthday (still two years away)—is difficult to compute.  Larkin is by all appearances in the throes of his prime right now, and, for the long-term health of the Red Wings, making the playoffs this spring or not isn't all that consequential.

There is a logic to the value of moving on from a star player too early rather than too late.  You improve the return for that star, and frankly, most teams never win titles, so in hindsight, it becomes easy to argue that they should have moved on from star players sooner than they did in hopes of building a newer and stronger core, rather than allowing nostalgia and attachment to a particular player or players to persuade a team to hold onto its guys until the bitter end.

However, one must also consider the costs of such an approach.  There is the obvious cost: Larkin himself, irreplaceable to the Detroit lineup in the short and medium term.  There is the emotional cost of punting on serious contention, which trading your clearcut top player would obviously signal.  To me, it is difficult to see how Yzerman could justify a rebuild within his rebuild and retain his job. 

At this stage in Yzerman's tenure, the Red Wings are building toward contention, moving on from their best player would plainly be a step in the opposite direction, having never seriously contended in the first place.  That sounds an awful lot like hustling backwards to me.

If a few years down the road, Larkin is on the other side of 30 and Detroit is farther from contention than it is now, then there could be a different conversation about allowing him the chance to seriously pursue a championship elsewhere.  But as of this moment, that conversation is misguided, from the Red Wings' perspective and from Larkin's.  Detroit ought to be in the mindset of accruing and developing talent in this moment.  To trade Larkin would be self-defeating.