Post-Game Talk: i don't like this team right now (Mod warning post #93)

[Claypool]

Yeah I don't get what everyone is complaining about either. This is basically what everyone wanted....a really bad team with a high draft pick. Well, they're getting it.

That's what I've been saying. But then those same folks talk about how it wasn't Holland's intent to suck this year so that's why they're upset about the losing. It makes no sense to me either.

 

[Winger98]

Very rarely do you easily find players and people comparable to Abby and Helm in FA signing 1 or 2 year deals. You get the Ott/Miller variety, maybe the occasional Vanek/Semin-reclamation project, maybe a Quincey.

I don't even know what people are complaining about anymore. Kids are playing, team is on track for a top 5 pick, what's wrong? Sproul sitting instead of Lashoff is silly, but hardly a big deal since we're going to get Liljegren or someone if this continues and Sproul isn't going to be the #1D of the future. Might be nice if Mrazek played more but on the other hand Howard's trade value is rebounding nicely. And hardly anyone down in GR is even worth thinking about right now.

Is it just that the kids could play a few more minutes?

What's wrong with reclamation projects? First, are we talking straight up replacements for Helm/Gator in that they would fill the same role and have similar attributes, or just arguably suitable for a top9 roster spot? I mean, look how long Hudler sat on the open market this past summer. If we're looking at a direct replacement, yeah, it gets harder, but if we're willing to be a bit more flexible, I don't think it would be hard to grab a couple of top9 quality vets every summer.

For me, the cap/roster flexibility is only part of it. Another part is the missed opportunity to bring in more long term assets that stand a chance of actually being meaningful when this roster could be rounding into form again. While I think we overvalue some of our pieces in looking to trade for a D, I think we undervalue what we could have gotten back from dealing Helm and Gator heading into their UFA years. They were both on cheap deals, had a good track record, and the sort of experience teams salivate for heading into the playoffs. I think we could have pulled in late 1sts for either of them. Then we turn around and do the same this year with guys like Vanek.

For me there is a feeling that the wings just have unrealistic expectations for the present, and aren't willing to sacrifice any of it to maybe help out the future a bit. And while there are no guarantees, I think it's been obvious that making a hard rebuild through the draft was coming regardless.

 

[Claypool]

What's wrong with reclamation projects? First, are we talking straight up replacements for Helm/Gator in that they would fill the same role and have similar attributes, or just arguably suitable for a top9 roster spot? I mean, look how long Hudler sat on the open market this past summer. If we're looking at a direct replacement, yeah, it gets harder, but if we're willing to be a bit more flexible, I don't think it would be hard to grab a couple of top9 quality vets every summer.

Guys like Hudler, Lecavalier, Ehrhoff, and Vanek don't want to sign with bottom-feeders on short-term deals. They reason they go to Dallas, Philadelphia Pittsburgh, and Detroit is because they want to play for a better team to improve their personal numbers to get another good, long-term contract. It's worth the risk.

Look at the players on this list. Which ones signed with really bad teams this offseason? Because these are the guys you're talking about getting every year on one-year deals. The only one is Vrbata, and he's not even a true reclamation project at this point. He'd be out of the league if Arizona didn't give him a contract.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/n...ris-russell-among-top-10-ufas-still-unsigned/

 

[Pavels Dog]

What's wrong with reclamation projects?

Nothing really, if you're just using them as cheap low-risk/high-reward additions. But remove a couple of guys like Abby/Helm/Nielsen/Kronner/Z, and start playing a ton of rookies and supporting them with yearly Vaneks? You may be giving the young players some bad role models. All due respect to Vanek's skill, but he was cheap because he's had very questionable work ethic and floated an entire season.

Wings haven't just reached the playoffs 25 years in a row as a fluke. It's all about creating an environment on the team where the young players are brought up the right way and given good habits. Red Wings players have always had a reputation as hard-working and good two-way players. Nielsen, Abby and Helm are part of passing that on to the next generation. Whatever else you think about Helm and Abby, their work ethic can not be questioned and they also seem very respected as people.

Even if we pick in the top 5 of the draft the next 5 years I still want our young players to actually be learning something.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

You think NHL players in free agency are going to flock to Detroit on one-year deals? What player would want to ruin their career doing that? You'll get guys like Steve Ott best case scenario. So what you're saying is you're fine with paying Steve $5 million for one season every year until this team is good?

You can get players to get to the salary cap floor on deals shorter than 4.

You don't need to get great players through free agency because the team isn't supposed to be good.

You are simplifying things.

 

[Heaton]

Yeah I don't get what everyone is complaining about either. This is basically what everyone wanted....a really bad team with a high draft pick. Well, they're getting it.

And I know people will point to the bad long term contracts but who cares? If the wings are bad and acquiring top picks for a few years by the time they are really to compete for the playoffs again (4-5 years down the road minimum using the Buffalo Sabres timeline who "did it the right way") the bad contracts won't be as bad or will be gone.

Because I don't trust that Holland won't double down and compound the issue by signing even more bottom 6 players to lifetime contracts clogging up the roster even further.

The contracts are an issue because the GM is an issue. If Holland retires at the end of this year, I'll be on board with you guys. But I do not trust Ken Holland, so I will continue to be sour about how this is all happening.

 

[Shaman464]

I don't see any reason this draft class is likelier to bust than the 5 draft classes before it, even if our first pick wasn't my ideal pick.

Larkin was the flipside of the equation. Seemed like a safe pick. And then he went on to devleop in a huge way.

It's way too early to say.

The point got lost in the conversation, and this was kinda it: It's too early to tell if Nill or Holland have been better at drafting since his departure.

 

[WFIAA]

So in two seasons they'll have $50 million in committed salary, which assumes Zetterberg and Kronwall are still playing (they won't be). So really they'll have $40 million in cap space. The only long-term contracts are Nielsen, Abdelkader, Helm, DeKeyser, and Glendening. Seems pretty good to me. Where's the problem?

Two points.

1. you will have 13 RFAs by that point, we certainly aren't letting all of them go and a number of them will get significant salaries, so the $50/$40 mil is very low.

2. Do you want to not have any flexibility in moving players and making trades by being wedged against the cap for 2 years, THEN start your rebuild? The volume of long term, high dollar contracts to older vets is going to make the losing last a lot longer than it should.

 

[PuckDynasty]

This is what losing looks like, folks. Hope those wanting a tank are liking what they're seeing because you'll see a lot more of this for years to come. Enjoy.

No, if they were tanking we wouldn't see Kronwall and Ericsson on the ice leaving a guy wide open, Franz Nielsen wouldn't be our #1 center and the Wings wouldn't be at the top of the salary cap. Losing with no hope for change and a GM who is doing nothing and selling off assets for draft picks and prospects is a totally different thing.

 

[PuckDynasty]

Nothing really, if you're just using them as cheap low-risk/high-reward additions. But remove a couple of guys like Abby/Helm/Nielsen/Kronner/Z, and start playing a ton of rookies and supporting them with yearly Vaneks? You may be giving the young players some bad role models. All due respect to Vanek's skill, but he was cheap because he's had very questionable work ethic and floated an entire season.

Wings haven't just reached the playoffs 25 years in a row as a fluke. It's all about creating an environment on the team where the young players are brought up the right way and given good habits. Red Wings players have always had a reputation as hard-working and good two-way players. Nielsen, Abby and Helm are part of passing that on to the next generation. Whatever else you think about Helm and Abby, their work ethic can not be questioned and they also seem very respected as people.

Even if we pick in the top 5 of the draft the next 5 years I still want our young players to actually be learning something.

Awesome, the Wings can't score a goal to save their ****ing lives, but they're good people. That was like Mickey last night raving about how they went to Children's Hospital, so like that makes it okay that they suck and there's more important things in life than hockey.

What made the Wings special and different was that their Hall of Famers bought in to sacrificing goals to be defensively responsible. Like Darren Helm and Luke Glendening gave up those 50 goal seasons to play defense.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Awesome, the Wings can't score a goal to save their ****ing lives, but they're good people. That was like Mickey last night raving about how they went to Children's Hospital, so like that makes it okay that they suck and there's more important things in life than hockey.

What made the Wings special and different was that their Hall of Famers bought in to sacrificing goals to be defensively responsible. Like Darren Helm and Luke Glendening gave up those 50 goal seasons to play defense.

What he is saying is that Helm and Abdelkader are good insulating vets, which they are. Glendening as well. That will help build the foundation of the young players coming in, and IMO it will.

They have to, because nobody is taking those crap nepotism contracts.

 

[Red Stanley]

In today's NHL, the salary cap has forced teams to rebuild quickly, and have a revolving door of prospects available to make the jump to the NHL.

If an organization can't rebuild within 3-4 years, then the organization will be forced to start another rebuild. The Edmonton Oilers are the "perfect" example. By rebuilding i mean, the organization has established a core group of players they want to build around.

You just can't run a team like the Wings have been doing the past 6-7 years and expect to have any long term success. The league is setup to punish teams that try to operate like that.

The Wings kicked the can down the road till they ran out of road, and then they tried to kick it some more.

Keep in mind that the Wings have been operating in the exact same fashion since the beginning of the 09-10 season. That is ridiculous when you compare the 09-10 roster to the 2016-2017 roster. That to me looks like hubris. It looks like the organization thinks they make the players, when in reality, the players make the organization.

Yes, but it became pretty clear the long term wasn't their immediate focus. They probably decided that keeping the streak going and opening the new arena on a "winning" note was the achievable short-term goal. They just did it in a very conservative way and dug themselves into a bit of a hole. To me it looks like playing it safe and milking past success more than anything else. Not in any way defending it, but it's not insanity, ineptitude or simple hubris alone that led to this.

 

[Claypool]

Yes, but it became pretty clear the long term wasn't their immediate focus. They probably decided that keeping the streak going and opening the new arena on a "winning" note was the achievable short-term goal. They just did it in a very conservative way and dug themselves into a bit of a hole. To me it looks like playing it safe and milking past success more than anything else. Not in any way defending it, but it's not insanity, ineptitude or simple hubris alone that led to this.

I don't know why people have a problem with management riding this thing out until the wheels fall off. I get it delays a full rebuild, but I also think you're taking for granted how hard it is to make the playoffs these days. It's not easy, and if you have a team capable of making it of course you try and keep it going.

There have been plenty of young players moved into this lineup over the past three years that have not progressed as expected. That is ultimately what has hurt this team. Those young players they expected and needed to rely on when the older players were ready to move on haven't taken that next step.

It's not like Holland traded any of this team's best prospects or draft picks, either. You might have a point if Larkin and Mantha were shipped out for Myers and Phaneuf a few years ago to make Babcock happy. That would have made things way worse than they are right now.

 

[HockeyinHD]

But the bigger point being, their long term contracts are given to their best players and are typically bridge deals where the organization banks on those players significantly outperforming their contracts in the long run.

You should go back and look at those deals then. Pretty much all of those guys are being paid as much or more than the top paid guys on the Wings right now. Those contracts aren't hometown discounts by any means. Those young players are being paid very well now to be very good now, and if it turns out they are neither those teams are screwed.

Also, two of the four teams you mentioned are 29th and 30th in spending. Arizona would also be very close to the cap floor if it weren't for Pronger and Datsyuk.

Vis a vis the 'Detroit shouldn't have any long term contracts' argument, what does that suggest to you?

 

[HockeyinHD]

What's wrong with reclamation projects?

Project? Nothing. Projects? Lots.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I don't know why people have a problem with management riding this thing out until the wheels fall off.

Most fans have never been a fan of the team when they weren't great, or a single year or a single move away from being great. This existence in competitive purgatory is nails on a chalkboard because most of the past two decades has been them being able to stick it in the face of the whole rest of the league.

They either want to get back to that level right now or they want to stop caring about whether the team wins at all, right now. They abhor being in between.

Unfortunately for their long term emotional safety, the NHL is a hard-capped league. It's all in between for all teams all the time. I mean, shoot... the Blackhawks are the modern gold standard and in the last 7 seasons they've won 3 Cups and lost in the first round 3 times. Over the same time frame the Kings have won 2 Cups, lost in the first round 3 times and missed the playoffs once.

There's not going to be much if any long term playoff excellence anymore. The margins are too narrow. For teams like Detroit that means pretty much the best case scenario is occasional 2-4 year runs of going a round or 2 deep, missing the playoffs one year in 5 or 6, with a lightning strike Cup or Finals appearance every 10-15 years or so.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Vis a vis the 'Detroit shouldn't have any long term contracts' argument, what does that suggest to you?

Was that the argument?

Heaton specified role players.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

I don't know why people have a problem with management riding this thing out until the wheels fall off.

Because the wheels are already falling off, I'd say. How much worse does the on-ice product have to get? Not that I think the Wings have to make a decision to tank. I think they're already going down that path, whether they like it or not.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

The argument that those who wanted to rebuild are getting what they want is ignorant.

This isn't what they wanted at all

This lineup
This salary cap chart

Stop lying in a public forum

What those people wanted was done honesty and the truth

They wanted KH to accept a retool wasn't and wouldn't work and take corrective action before it was forced on us

An active rebuild not a passive one

 

[Winger98]

Guys like Hudler, Lecavalier, Ehrhoff, and Vanek don't want to sign with bottom-feeders on short-term deals. They reason they go to Dallas, Philadelphia Pittsburgh, and Detroit is because they want to play for a better team to improve their personal numbers to get another good, long-term contract. It's worth the risk.

Look at the players on this list. Which ones signed with really bad teams this offseason? Because these are the guys you're talking about getting every year on one-year deals. The only one is Vrbata, and he's not even a true reclamation project at this point. He'd be out of the league if Arizona didn't give him a contract.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/n...ris-russell-among-top-10-ufas-still-unsigned/

I see literally three players on that list I think we never could have signed: Doan, Schultz, and Cullen. And if guys want better numbers to go after another big deal, signing with an already loaded team isn't necessarily in their best interests. What is arguably more helpful to that is what role they have. If they are going somewhere to eat up a bunch of minutes in the top6 and powerplay, they are more likely to put up those number than being the third line depth guy on a cup contender.

The short of it is I think you're underestimating how much cash in hand sways people. Give Hudler or Pirri another million and as long as the team isn't a total disaster, they'll be given strong consideration. And even if the team is a total disaster, another million is another million.

Nothing really, if you're just using them as cheap low-risk/high-reward additions. But remove a couple of guys like Abby/Helm/Nielsen/Kronner/Z, and start playing a ton of rookies and supporting them with yearly Vaneks? You may be giving the young players some bad role models. All due respect to Vanek's skill, but he was cheap because he's had very questionable work ethic and floated an entire season.

Wings haven't just reached the playoffs 25 years in a row as a fluke. It's all about creating an environment on the team where the young players are brought up the right way and given good habits. Red Wings players have always had a reputation as hard-working and good two-way players. Nielsen, Abby and Helm are part of passing that on to the next generation. Whatever else you think about Helm and Abby, their work ethic can not be questioned and they also seem very respected as people.

Even if we pick in the top 5 of the draft the next 5 years I still want our young players to actually be learning something.

we'd still have Kronner, Z, and Ericsson. We could even retain Miller and bring in Ott for some more vet depth. Another thing is that Abby and Helm are not significantly older than Tatar and Nyquist. They are slightly more experienced but I don't think that matters much when you still have the aforementioned vets still around.

I don't disagree about keeping some vets around, but we can keep a good vet presence around without locking up middling talents to disproportionate contracts.

To be honest, I'm not against overpaying guys if we get a deal on the term. Or vice versa. I hate looking at deals where it seems we caved on money and term. I get that maybe it was better just to blow the money because of where we are with LTIR going to Franzen and what not, but I'd still blow that money on short term guys to make use of it rather than long term tie ups.

Project? Nothing. Projects? Lots.

The reclamation project thing gets off on a tangent, but I think it heavily depends on what you think a project is. I don't think Vanek is a reclamation project. He had some down years in Minny, but he was from from a disaster. Same with Hudler. Or a guy like Ribeiro who I'm betting will be a late signing next summer.

Dan Cleary was a reclamation project. Samuelsson was sort of one. Vanek put up over 40 points last year.

 

[Winger98]

Was that the argument?

Heaton specified role players.

yeah, I think everyone is pretty okay with long term deals to younger guys we are looking to build around. Six or seven years to Larkin? Okay. 6 years to Mrazek? I can live with that. Five or six years to Dekeyser. It makes sense. Seven years to Gator, though? Ugh....

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Because the wheels are already falling off, I'd say. How much worse does the on-ice product have to get? Not that I think the Wings have to make a decision to tank. I think they're already going down that path, whether they like it or not.

This is exactly how I feel.

 

[Frk It]

yeah, I think everyone is pretty okay with long term deals to younger guys we are looking to build around. Six or seven years to Larkin? Okay. 6 years to Mrazek? I can live with that. Five or six years to Dekeyser. It makes sense. Seven years to Gator, though? Ugh....

The 6 years to Dekeyser is fine. The 5 million AAV is looking brutal.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

yeah, I think everyone is pretty okay with long term deals to younger guys we are looking to build around. Six or seven years to Larkin? Okay. 6 years to Mrazek? I can live with that. Five or six years to Dekeyser. It makes sense. Seven years to Gator, though? Ugh....

DeKeyser's contract is just as bad as any of the ones we discuss here at length in my opinion. He really is a #4 D-man in terms of talent, so he should be looked at as a role player as well in my opinion.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Most fans have never been a fan of the team when they weren't great, or a single year or a single move away from being great. This existence in competitive purgatory is nails on a chalkboard because most of the past two decades has been them being able to stick it in the face of the whole rest of the league.

They either want to get back to that level right now or they want to stop caring about whether the team wins at all, right now. They abhor being in between.

Unfortunately for their long term emotional safety, the NHL is a hard-capped league. It's all in between for all teams all the time. I mean, shoot... the Blackhawks are the modern gold standard and in the last 7 seasons they've won 3 Cups and lost in the first round 3 times. Over the same time frame the Kings have won 2 Cups, lost in the first round 3 times and missed the playoffs once.

There's not going to be much if any long term playoff excellence anymore. The margins are too narrow. For teams like Detroit that means pretty much the best case scenario is occasional 2-4 year runs of going a round or 2 deep, missing the playoffs one year in 5 or 6, with a lightning strike Cup or Finals appearance every 10-15 years or so.

That's an awful long post generalizing and reading the minds of people here. Must be nice to know what strangers are thinking and feeling all the time.

For me, I've been a fan of the Wings since they were the Dead Things. And I'm still frustrated with the current situation.

I don't think they need to blow it up and tank, but it's not a lot of fun watching a team content with competitive purgatory either. It's not only frustrating in the short term but it means a lot more years spent in that purgatory. By squeezing everything he can out of this current roster to squeak into the playoffs, Holland is leaving the future of the team in an even greater hole with no defense, no franchise players, and no assets.

But I'm guessing his plan is too retire after his contract expires so it'll be someone else's problem.