Crunching the Numbers: Why Re-Building is Harder than Ever

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

And if he keeps deteriorating, he's going to have no value by then either.

Any players play would deteriorate when you're playing with Helm and Glendening for the entire season.

 

[HIFE]

...I think the mindset changed last year around the trade deadline. Don't get me wrong, the Wings clearly seem to be anti-tank and want to stay competetive, but I think to say they are not re-building now is just the result of bitterness.

Yes there is bitterness within the fanbase. The majority are at least somewhat frustrated with Holland and the team. There's also a segment that are more trusting of Holland and content with the process we're going through. Each unto their own. We have different reactions which shape our outlook; there is no right or wrong here. Some might be satisfied with direction of the supposed rebuild while others remain unimpressed.

Since the lottery changes successful rebuilds may be harder to pull off but it doesn't alter the general course they should take. IMO the Wings have barely put the ride into gear. I'd be happier if Holland was using every option to shake up his team a bit more with an eye on the future. Really not excited to watch the same losing, mediocre crew next season.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

How did the mindset change last trade deadline? Holland first tried to extend Brendan Smith to a multi year deal before trading him. That doesn't strike me as a change in mindset when it comes to team building. The Wings are loaded with some of the worst contracts in the NHL and Holland tried to add another one.

Lottery system has changed? Sure has. Now it's even more imperative that you try to put your team in the best position possible to secure a top three pick. What does Kenny do? Tries to spend his way out of a top three pick. That's the problem though. You can definitely spend your way out of a top three pick, but you can't spend enough that it gets you a good team. That's called purgatory.

 

[Dotter]

Maybe on forward, not on D. Most of the top D-men are actually taken out of the top 10.

A year or two ago, I took a look at the top 20 D-men (based on points) and took a look at where they were drafted. As you can see, most of them were not taken in the top 10.

1/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
3/20 drafted between 11-15
1/20 drafted between 16-30
13/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

1) Erik Karlsson -15th overall
2) Brent Burns – 20th overall
3) Kris Letang – 62nd overall
4) John Klingberg – 131st overall
5) Roman Josi – 38th overall
6) P.K. Subban 43rd overall
7) Oliver Ekman-Larsson – 6th overall
8) Mark Giordano – undrafted
9) Tyson Barrie – 64th overall
10) Ryan Suter – 7th overall
11) Shea Weber – 49th overall
12) Drew Doughty 2nd overall
13) Dustin Byfuglien - 245th overall
14) Brent Seabrook – 14th overall
15) Duncan Keith – 54th overall
16) T.J. Brodie – 114th overall
17) Andrei Markov – 162nd overall
18) Keith Yandle – 105th overall
19) Shayne Gostisbehere – 78th overall
20) Kevin Shattenkirk – 14th overall

This EXACTLY what I was talking about for a few weeks now. Not many of the top dmen in the league were top picks. You have some in Doughty, Hedman and etc... but more rare.

I have been suggesting if Wings are drafting #3, to trade down to 12th or 14th spot. And take a Bode Wilde or McIsaac and use the free draft to pick someone who will most likely fall like Jett Woo or Alexander Alexeyev. Two give you better odds unless you get #1, then you take Dahlin.

 

[Dotter]

How did the mindset change last trade deadline? Holland first tried to extend Brendan Smith to a multi year deal before trading him. That doesn't strike me as a change in mindset when it comes to team building. The Wings are loaded with some of the worst contracts in the NHL and Holland tried to add another one.

Lottery system has changed? Sure has. Now it's even more imperative that you try to put your team in the best position possible to secure a top three pick. What does Kenny do? Tries to spend his way out of a top three pick. That's the problem though. You can definitely spend your way out of a top three pick, but you can't spend enough that it gets you a good team. That's called purgatory.

It has never changed.

It's obvious you and I will never agree on anything. When I read your posts I ask myself if you're talking out of bitterness, exaggerating/hyperbole or if you really are this clueless about what's truly unfolding? Or maybe you're just a very unhappy person and you live your daily life like this and suck everyone around you down? I hope you're just clueless. I'd hate to see you have the ability to draw negative/black aura about yourself that brings everyone else near you down and causes them to have a miserable day.

Kenny did offer Smith to come back if it was for an "offer Holland couldn't refuse" #cheap. Smith was going to be our scab dman instead of Trevor Daley since Detroit Red Wings have no young players READY or capable to log those minutes... YET.

It's mind boggling this has to be pointed out to you.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Delete. I just don't care anymore.

 

[Redder Winger]

This EXACTLY what I was talking about for a few weeks now. Not many of the top dmen in the league were top picks. You have some in Doughty, Hedman and etc... but more rare.

I have been suggesting if Wings are drafting #3, to trade down to 12th or 14th spot. And take a Bode Wilde or McIsaac and use the free draft to pick someone who will most likely fall like Jett Woo or Alexander Alexeyev. Two give you better odds unless you get #1, then you take Dahlin.

I ran some numbers from 2000-2005 drafts before I got tired.

There wasn't much difference between a top 5 pick on a D and an 11-20 pick used on a D.
But by the end of round 1, you can see the numbers sliding.
There's also a pretty big drop in round 2, despite Weber and other studs drafted then, and a massive drop to round 3.

Draft -- Games/Pick - Norris finishes/pick
Top 5 -- 635 --- .883
6-10 -- 463 -- 1.88
11-20 - 509 -- .8
20-30 - 417 -- .55
Rd 1 -- 492 -- .89
Rd 2 -- 225 -- .39
Rd 3 -- 100 -- .96

If these numbers were to hold up over another 10 drafts (say five in either direction),
I'd say there's evidence suggesting that it might be wise to trade out of the top 5 into the 6-10 or even 11-20 range, if your goal is drafting a defenseman.

The history of top 5 defensive picks is pretty spotty. Here are 15 drafts, 98 to 12
B Stuart
B Allen
Vishnevsky
Klesla
Bouwmeester
Pitkanen
Whitney
Barker
J Johnson
E Johnson
Hickey
Alzner
Doughty
Pietrangelo
Schenn
Bogosian
Hedman
Gudbranson
Larsson
Murray
Reinhart
Rielly

Of those guys --
Doughty, Hedman and Pietrangelo are legit franchise players.
There are numerous solid players and several busts, too.

If you were looking for reasons to draft D in the top 5, you could say that all three franchise defensemen were drafted more recently, so maybe teams are getting better at scouting.

 

[Dotter]

I have a feeling there's going to be some disappointed people after the 2018 draft. I think it will produce a few gems, then lots of decent [not elite] dmen, which will create an uproar on the forums in a few years with-"we should have picked player_x" hindsight-20/20 threads popping up relentlessly.

I think you can draw names out of a hat to have better luck than deciding who the GEM(s) dmen are in this draft. It's going to be a crapshoot. Aside from Dahlin, there's no "safe bets". I think choosing a forward with your top pick in this draft will almost guarantee a bluechip prospect injected into the system. It's going to be an exciting day. If they are going for D, then they have to trade down and just use a shotgun approach.

 

[Red Stanley]

Hmm interesting. So if we were to get a 1st rounder for Green and trade our spot (if not top 3) for two later spots that would make three 1st rounders we can all use to bolster our defensive prospect pool considerably. Bad or good idea?

P.S. Might require a really complicated 3-team deal to pull off, so kind of unrealistic I guess.

 

[kliq]

How did the mindset change last trade deadline? Holland first tried to extend Brendan Smith to a multi year deal before trading him. That doesn't strike me as a change in mindset when it comes to team building. The Wings are loaded with some of the worst contracts in the NHL and Holland tried to add another one.

Lottery system has changed? Sure has. Now it's even more imperative that you try to put your team in the best position possible to secure a top three pick. What does Kenny do? Tries to spend his way out of a top three pick. That's the problem though. You can definitely spend your way out of a top three pick, but you can't spend enough that it gets you a good team. That's called purgatory.

For the record to make sure you understand what I am saying, I AM NOT saying that at the trade deadline they went into "tank" mode, what I am saying is that I believe the mindset changed last year at the deadline.

Last year was the first year in the last 25+ years that the Wings were sellers at the trade deadline. There have been years that they did nothing, but last year at the deadline they clearly admitted to themselves and the fan base that the streak was over, and that it was time to trade players for draft picks with the trades of Vanek, Smith, and Jurco. They will likely do the same thing this year. The days of trying to bring guys in to give them a lift (ie. Zidlicky/Cole) are over for now.

The Wings are a team that are now in re-build mode, but they are doing it in a way where they still want to maintain respectability (ie. the Daley signing). I'm telling you to like it, I'm just saying the reality of what's going on.

 

[Dotter]

Hmm interesting. So if we were to get a 1st rounder for Green and trade our spot (if not top 3) for two later spots that would make three 1st rounders we can all use to bolster our defensive prospect pool considerably. Bad or good idea?

P.S. Might require a really complicated 3-team deal to pull off, so kind of unrealistic I guess.

One/some could be lottery protected 2019 1st.

 

[Dotter]

For the record to make sure you understand what I am saying, I AM NOT saying that at the trade deadline they went into "tank" mode, what I am saying is that I believe the mindset changed last year at the deadline.

Last year was the first year in the last 25+ years that the Wings were sellers at the trade deadline. There have been years that they did nothing, but last year at the deadline they clearly admitted to themselves and the fan base that the streak was over, and that it was time to trade players for draft picks with the trades of Vanek, Smith, and Jurco. They will likely do the same thing this year. The days of trying to bring guys in to give them a lift (ie. Zidlicky/Cole) are over for now.

The Wings are a team that are now in re-build mode, but they are doing it in a way where they still want to maintain respectability (ie. the Daley signing). I'm telling you to like it, I'm just saying the reality of what's going on.

There's group "A" and group "B" and a shade of group "C".

Group "A" is all about full tank. If you have a contract longer than 1 year for a player older than 20 years old and if the average age of teh team is over 24yrs old, then Ken Holland is "out of touch" and "doesn't know how to rebuild" -- play the kids even if it ruins them. In my opinion, because I am group "C", I think that is very unrealistic and detrimental to a logical rebuild. I believe those kind of rebuilds set you back. Wayyy back. We can see evidence of that from other teams like Sabres and Avalanche among many other young teams.

Group "B" is about good drafting and trading. They don't fully buy into the scorched earth TANK. And see the teams' current age and cap hit isn't a problem going forward, since there's apparent 4 to 5 year plan happening right now.

Group "C" is all about drafting. Rebuild through the draft doesn't mean 5 straight years of 1st overall picks, but shotgun approach at hoping to net that next Shea Weber or Subban or Johnny Gaudreau. Turn non-future players (Sheahan/Jurco) into draft picks. Green this year, Trevor Daley next year. All for picks... Then in 2019/20 sign another type of Trevor Daley or Ott, or Vanek to flip for picks. And repeat until you build your core. The rebuild will take 10 years... possibly 8 if we get Penguins type luck (not likely). Age of team and contracts doesn't matter. These players are not part of the future. They are the backbone of the team now to avoid being the Avs, Sabres, Oilers, Coyotes and etc... who wants to be a basement team every-single-season while drafting generational talent you pay $12.5 (most in the NHL) next season?

Group "A" is a very vocal small bunch that can't understand anything but their "method" as being the only possible right way. Group "B and "C" will never get onboard with Group "A". We are less vocal because we are a "wait-and-see" group, whereas Group "A" want instant change and results now and want the city to burn until it happens (or want ticket sales to plummet, which hurts the city/surrounding business just for instant change to a hockey franchise they want everyone to boycott).

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It is true that the key to revitalizing the city is the LCA selling out the arena at least 41 times a year. Don't worry about infrastructure or developing more than just multi billion dollar enterprises. Just get the Red Wings to sell out as much as possible.

 

[Dotter]

It is true that the key to revitalizing the city is the LCA selling out the arena at least 41 times a year. Don't worry about infrastructure or developing more than just multi billion dollar enterprises. Just get the Red Wings to sell out as much as possible.

That logic also means having Amazon HQ2 come there to help stimulate job growth also doesn't help the city what-so-ever. "Amazon doesn't fix a pot holes! They sell books!"

 

[kliq]

There's group "A" and group "B" and a shade of group "C".

Group "A" is all about full tank. If you have a contract longer than 1 year for a player older than 20 years old and if the average age of teh team is over 24yrs old, then Ken Holland is "out of touch" and "doesn't know how to rebuild" -- play the kids even if it ruins them. In my opinion, because I am group "C", I think that is very unrealistic and detrimental to a logical rebuild. I believe those kind of rebuilds set you back. Wayyy back. We can see evidence of that from other teams like Sabres and Avalanche among many other young teams.

Group "B" is about good drafting and trading. They don't fully buy into the scorched earth TANK. And see the teams' current age and cap hit isn't a problem going forward, since there's apparent 4 to 5 year plan happening right now.

Group "C" is all about drafting. Rebuild through the draft doesn't mean 5 straight years of 1st overall picks, but shotgun approach at hoping to net that next Shea Weber or Subban or Johnny Gaudreau. Turn non-future players (Sheahan/Jurco) into draft picks. Green this year, Trevor Daley next year. All for picks... Then in 2019/20 sign another type of Trevor Daley or Ott, or Vanek to flip for picks. And repeat until you build your core. The rebuild will take 10 years... possibly 8 if we get Penguins type luck (not likely). Age of team and contracts doesn't matter. These players are not part of the future. They are the backbone of the team now to avoid being the Avs, Sabres, Oilers, Coyotes and etc... who wants to be a basement team every-single-season while drafting generational talent you pay $12.5 (most in the NHL) next season?

Group "A" is a very vocal small bunch that can't understand anything but their "method" as being the only possible right way. Group "B and "C" will never get onboard with Group "A". We are less vocal because we are a "wait-and-see" group, whereas Group "A" want instant change and results now and want the city to burn until it happens (or want ticket sales to plummet, which hurts the city/surrounding business just for instant change to a hockey franchise they want everyone to boycott).

This makes a lot of sense, and you're right Group A is very loud minority but that is because they are likely the angriest fans and anger can cloud judgement very easily. Personally I would say I am group B, but I agree with some of what you said in Group C. Though if we happen to bottom out a couple years and do acquire a top pick, I am all for that. I also want to say I think it depends on the team, every team is different and in a different situation. If we didnt have Mantha, Larkin, AA, Cholowski etc. my perspective would change.

I know many people in Group A will reference that every cup team over the past 10 years has a top pick. The problem with that argument is that when you are running statistics and attempting to determine correlations, anyone that knows stats knows that you need a large sample size. 5 teams is not a large sample size. If you went back and ran stats for say the last 40 years, that would work on paper, but the problem with that is what worked in 1986 doesn't necessarily mean it will work in 2017 because of how the NHL changes.

If you wanted to truly see if a team is capable of winning a cup without a top 3 pick, top 5 pick etc. you would almost need to count teams that make it to the finals, and use at least a 10 year period. That would at least give you over 10 teams (still a small sample size though). Or use final four which would be even better, but then your standards are dropping. My logic with counting the finals being that if you are able to get to the finals, your GM did a good job building that team. I think we would all be happy with Nashville's roster right now. I dont feel like taking the time to run these stats though lol.

The other problem with this "stat", is sometimes a team does have a top 5 pick, but that top 5 pick is not a major reason for the cup (ie. think Seguin/Boston). If the argument is that you need a top 5 pick to acquire a generational talent, then 99% of the time you are right. If the argument is that you can't win a cup without a top 3 pick, I just don't agree. It helps, no doubt, but its not the ONLY way.

 

[jkutswings]

I have a feeling there's going to be some disappointed people after the 2018 draft. I think it will produce a few gems, then lots of decent [not elite] dmen, which will create an uproar on the forums in a few years with-"we should have picked player_x" hindsight-20/20 threads popping up relentlessly.

I think you can draw names out of a hat to have better luck than deciding who the GEM(s) dmen are in this draft. It's going to be a crapshoot. Aside from Dahlin, there's no "safe bets". I think choosing a forward with your top pick in this draft will almost guarantee a bluechip prospect injected into the system. It's going to be an exciting day. If they are going for D, then they have to trade down and just use a shotgun approach.

If drafting good defensemen is essentially all luck, then why hasn't Detroit picked one since Kronwall in 2000? That's 15 years at the very least, with a couple more TBD. A pretty poor record, if it's all luck.

And I guess that Nashville eats and breathes four leaf clovers and horseshoes...

 

[kliq]

If drafting good defensemen is essentially all luck, then why hasn't Detroit picked one since Kronwall in 2000? That's 15 years at the very least, with a couple more TBD. A pretty poor record, if it's all luck.

And I guess that Nashville eats and breathes four leaf clovers and horseshoes...

I don't think its luck, I think its about scouting/quantity/development.

The better your scouting, the higher the probability of finding a diamond in the rough. There is a reason why the Wings found so many guy so late in the draft for years. Its because their scouting oversees was better then most.

Its also about quantity. The more D you draft, the better the chance in landing a great D-man.

The other element is player development. Maybe Nashville drafts good defensman, but their system allows them to become great. Maybe some teams draft D-men with high ceilings, but a bad coach could stunt their development.

 

[Winger98]

It is true that the key to revitalizing the city is the LCA selling out the arena at least 41 times a year. Don't worry about infrastructure or developing more than just multi billion dollar enterprises. Just get the Red Wings to sell out as much as possible.

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a fantastic engine for driving local economies.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That logic also means having Amazon HQ2 come there to help stimulate job growth also doesn't help the city what-so-ever. "Amazon doesn't fix a pot holes! They sell books!"

Not equivalent, also an incredibly narrow view.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a fantastic engine for driving local economies.

I miss this soooo much

 

[Winger98]

Keep posting pics while being wholly unable to refute anything.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Keep posting pics while being wholly unable to refute anything.

Here would be my evidence. The area that the Little Caesars Arena sits on has literally...

Yes literally been abandoned/undeveloped my entire life. That now has a billion dollar investment sitting there. This was primarily funded at the state level to help offset the costs to one of the poorest cities and the important seed of our state that does help drive the regional economy. But lets not kid ourselves people aren't lining up to do these investments in Detroit. The Amazon news is exciting but that came with huge subsidies that are constantly used and crushed by economists in terms of stadiums and even company recruiting. I still find that too exciting. I like when people invest in the city. I like that Cobo can expand and modernize and the riverfront will be easily re-purposed.

I don't think every stadium deal is a great idea. I do look at most of the rust-belt cities that have rebounded better than Detroit and look Indianapolis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh all have these stadium districts that have created positive impacts in their cities. I do think there is a positive momentum starting in Detroit and that hasn't happened in decades and this can help contribute to that.

 

[Redder Winger]

Here would be my evidence. The area that the Little Caesars Arena sits on has literally...

Yes literally been abandoned/undeveloped my entire life. That now has a billion dollar investment sitting there. This was primarily funded at the state level to help offset the costs to one of the poorest cities and the important seed of our state that does help drive the regional economy. But lets not kid ourselves people aren't lining up to do these investments in Detroit. The Amazon news is exciting but that came with huge subsidies that are constantly used and crushed by economists in terms of stadiums and even company recruiting. I still find that too exciting. I like when people invest in the city. I like that Cobo can expand and modernize and the riverfront will be easily re-purposed.

I don't think every stadium deal is a great idea. I do look at most of the rust-belt cities that have rebounded better than Detroit and look Indianapolis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh all have these stadium districts that have created positive impacts in their cities. I do think there is a positive momentum starting in Detroit and that hasn't happened in decades and this can help contribute to that.

where's the evidence that development wouldn't happen without taxpayer subsidies?
At some point, they were collecting all this property for a reason.
Do you think that without corporate welfare they would have sat on the land forever? Buying it and paying taxes for no return?

 

[Winger98]

Here would be my evidence. The area that the Little Caesars Arena sits on has literally...

Yes literally been abandoned/undeveloped my entire life. That now has a billion dollar investment sitting there. This was primarily funded at the state level to help offset the costs to one of the poorest cities and the important seed of our state that does help drive the regional economy. But lets not kid ourselves people aren't lining up to do these investments in Detroit. The Amazon news is exciting but that came with huge subsidies that are constantly used and crushed by economists in terms of stadiums and even company recruiting. I still find that too exciting. I like when people invest in the city. I like that Cobo can expand and modernize and the riverfront will be easily re-purposed.

I don't think every stadium deal is a great idea. I do look at most of the rust-belt cities that have rebounded better than Detroit and look Indianapolis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh all have these stadium districts that have created positive impacts in their cities. I do think there is a positive momentum starting in Detroit and that hasn't happened in decades and this can help contribute to that.

I have lived in/near Cleveland for...7 years now? (Oh god, near Cleveland for seven years... .) The areas around the stadiums aren't quite as bad as the derelict buildings in your first photo, but they aren't way off. Of course, it doesn't help that it's a city that also hasn't met a bad infrastructure plan that it doesn't jump at whole-heartedly. I've only visited Pittsburgh, so I can't say much about them. But Cleveland? The sports teams are entertainment, but I don't see anything special about the neighborhoods those stadiums are in.

I like when people invest in the local city, too. But who owned the land in that picture that allowed it to look like that for ten years? Or twenty years? And it's less an investment when subsidies make it so dirt cheap for them to set up shop that what they are really doing is printing their own money. What's a shame is that local and state governments can't find it in themselves to fund local businesses that, maybe not as big individually, end up doing more for the city/community as a whole, while also not grabbing the crazy subsidies these bigger businesses demand (and get). I would have loved to see Detroit take some of that land back through eminent domain and use it to build up small business, affordable housing, etc. over the past twenty years. People who own tracts of land and allow it to turn to crap deserve to lose it.

We both know we're not going to change the other's opinion on this, though. And we're crazily off topic. Truce?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I have lived in/near Cleveland for...7 years now? (Oh god, near Cleveland for seven years... .) The areas around the stadiums aren't quite as bad as the derelict buildings in your first photo, but they aren't way off. Of course, it doesn't help that it's a city that also hasn't met a bad infrastructure plan that it doesn't jump at whole-heartedly. I've only visited Pittsburgh, so I can't say much about them. But Cleveland? The sports teams are entertainment, but I don't see anything special about the neighborhoods those stadiums are in.

I like when people invest in the local city, too. But who owned the land in that picture that allowed it to look like that for ten years? Or twenty years? And it's less an investment when subsidies make it so dirt cheap for them to set up shop that what they are really doing is printing their own money. What's a shame is that local and state governments can't find it in themselves to fund local businesses that, maybe not as big individually, end up doing more for the city/community as a whole, while also not grabbing the crazy subsidies these bigger businesses demand (and get). I would have loved to see Detroit take some of that land back through eminent domain and use it to build up small business, affordable housing, etc. over the past twenty years. People who own tracts of land and allow it to turn to crap deserve to lose it.

We both know we're not going to change the other's opinion on this, though. And we're crazily off topic. Truce?

Yeah, truce is probably the best option here. I agree with substantial parts of the people that disagree with the project. I just want to believe it will impact Detroit in a really positive way long-term. I understand those that find that foolish and I know the studies on this kind of stuff. But I am not going to pretend it couldn't be a good thing for the city, especially the part that was just redeveloped.

In terms of the topic though this is a rebuilding thread. We have several sports teams all back downtown and rebuilding plus the city in general...