News Article: Inside Ken Holland's challenge of rebuilding the Red Wings on the fly

[izlez]

Did either the Sharks or Preds win the cup? The Wings need elite talent and the only way to get that is by bottoming out, plain and simple.

It sure is fun that all the teams that prove the "tanking is the only way to do it" wrong, are written off for the sole fact that the argument starts with "tanking is the only way to do it, so if they didn't tank they are a fluke and failure"

 

[jkutswings]

Man, I just agree with Holland so much.

See: San Jose Sharks and Nashville Predators.
Both teams were bubblish teams for years and years and then made it to the stanley cup. Sure, they had some slightly better assets here and there. But it's not like Ryan Johansen MADE their team or a Ryan Johansen level player is impossible to find.
And then of course look at all the teams that have tanked for years and years and still are at the bottom of the standings.
...

You referenced two teams that had blockbuster trades not only pan out, but become cornerstones of their rosters (Joe Thornton, Brent Burns, PK Subban).

Sure, if Holland suddenly goes from making the fewest trades in the league by a wide margin, to pulling off a major move or two, and one or more of those acquired players turn into the next All Star center and/or defenseman... Yeah, I guess there's another way to skin the cat. But forgive my lack of optimism at such a series of events unfolding for this franchise at this point in time.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

Pls explain and reference

a) what a roster annihilation for us would mean,
b) who, when and where was that ever suggested

To much lying on this discussion board

 

[Pavels Dog]

Pls explain and reference

a) what a roster annihilation for us would mean,
b) who, when and where was that ever suggested

To much lying on this discussion board

If we want to get worse, it's probably smart to get rid of some of our best players. Or are the people advocating for an approach of bottoming out for top picks thinking we can do it by dumping Ericsson and Abdelkader?

 

[Flowah]

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

Of course it does.

You're guaranteed a top4 pick if you're last. You've got a 50/50 shot at a top3. Meanwhile the Wings 21% at a top3.

The gap between top5 picks and everyone else in the first round is enormous.

The first round is obviously the most valuable from a prospect standpoint, but what’s really interesting from a tank vs. on-the-fly scenario is the intra-round success variation. The top third of the first round yielded NHL players around 85 percent of the time. Outside of the first ten selections, the yield fell to about 50 percent.

The lottery does little to make tanking a bad idea.

If we want to get worse, it's probably smart to get rid of some of our best players. Or are the people advocating for an approach of bottoming out for top picks thinking we can do it by dumping Ericsson and Abdelkader?

I know I'm not alone in suggesting we tank and that most of the tanking be done by playing kids more and trading away older assets for picks. Most people say don't trade Zetterberg. Most people think Kronwall can't even be traded. But you could find a buyer for Abby and Helm maybe if you retained salary. That would likely move us to the bottom.

Not sure how trading couple of players qualifies as "roster annihilation" but who knows.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

If we want to get worse, it's probably smart to get rid of some of our best players. Or are the people advocating for an approach of bottoming out for top picks thinking we can do it by dumping Ericsson and Abdelkader?

It's best not to put words into people's mouths

You said fans who want a full rebuild advocate for roster annihilation

Pls explain what specifically that means to our roster and which posters have advocated for those specifics

 

[Pavels Dog]

Of course it does.

You're guaranteed a top4 pick if you're last. You've got a 50/50 shot at a top3. Meanwhile the Wings 21% at a top3.

The gap between top5 picks and everyone else in the first round is enormous.

The lottery does little to make tanking a bad idea.

I know I'm not alone in suggesting we tank and that most of the tanking be done by playing kids more and trading away older assets for picks. Most people say don't trade Zetterberg. Most people think Kronwall can't even be traded. But you could find a buyer for Abby and Helm maybe if you retained salary. That would likely move us to the bottom.

Not sure how trading couple of players qualifies as "roster annihilation" but who knows.

I personally don't like those odds at all. Difference between #4 and #9 isn't big enough in my mind to warrant a deliberate approach of trying to be as bad as possible.

And I guess I underestimated Abby and Helm. Always saw them as decent supporting players, not guys that drastically change our position in the standings. I'd get rid of Mrazek, Green and Mantha if we're tanking next year.

 

[jkutswings]

If we want to get worse, it's probably smart to get rid of some of our best players. Or are the people advocating for an approach of bottoming out for top picks thinking we can do it by dumping Ericsson and Abdelkader?

Last year, their best players were:
* Zetterberg (One year older; not likely to repeat his best season in 5 years)
* Vanek (traded away)
* Mantha (should improve, but unknown dynamic, between good potential and ongoing mind games with the coach)
* Howard (injured, with a track record of lousy play after returning from injuries)
* Green (likely to be traded, either this summer, or at the deadline)


And now with Mrazek up for grabs (which would remove the chance for him to rebound from last year's awful performance, giving the team a tangible reason to expect improvement), I'm not sure Detroit has to do anything new or different, in order to entrench themselves as being just as bad, if not worse, than last year.

 

[Ezekial]

I agree with Holland about his failing on the fly still roughly resembles a conscience tank in that they have the ability to get some great picks either way, but it doesn't take any additional "crippling" signings he could make into account.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Stats, stats, stats. Dubas' business is stats. Its the reason he's relevant. I don't want to be the first team to give this guy the reigns to an NHL roster. We have yet to see stats carry the day in the NHL like we do in the MLB. I'd much rather go with a guy who appreciates stats than a guy who owes his paycheck to them. Its as dangerous as Holland's commitment to veteran talent or Burke's commitment to "truculence." I think anyone who owes their livelihood or success to one preferred outlook for the entirety of their career is a scary choice.

I agree. Dogmatic thinking is the last thing I want to see from a GM.

 

[Frk It]

The lottery does little to make tanking a bad idea.

I think that, objectively speaking, the re-structuring of the lottery made tanking quite a bit less viable than it was. I don't think Holland was wrong when he said that at the beginning of last season.

However, I can't sign off on hoping for the playoffs and thinking you will be ok when you miss. I think that's going to put us squarely in purgatory. And while a good player can be had in the 7-15 range... hitting on that range consistently in a big way without missing over a 3-5 year window... it's simply not likely.

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

Unless he just kind of fails, instead of falls on his face fails. Again, in which case, purgatory ensues.

 

[Henkka]

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

It was the best comment on whole article.

We just have to draft now a new DEEP prospect pool, which Jim Nill and Joe McDonell did drive quite dry during their megalomanic 18 years of drafting. All good they did was being lucky with HÃ¥kan Andersson's smart picks. When Andersson lost his edge, the real truth about these two bums came out. Holland's biggest mistake was to trust too long for this dynanic duo. I could be any happier than having those bums ruining Dallas now down, and not us. any. single. weak. draft. pick. more.

Results of Tyler Wright -era is too early to predict yet. Something on his work just tells for me, that we are on a right path.

Level of drafting is everything for the future.

 

[Frk It]

Stats, stats, stats. Dubas' business is stats. Its the reason he's relevant. I don't want to be the first team to give this guy the reigns to an NHL roster. We have yet to see stats carry the day in the NHL like we do in the MLB. I'd much rather go with a guy who appreciates stats than a guy who owes his paycheck to them. Its as dangerous as Holland's commitment to veteran talent or Burke's commitment to "truculence." I think anyone who owes their livelihood or success to one preferred outlook for the entirety of their career is a scary choice.

I think that's a (big time) over-generalizaiton, and I think he brings much more to the table than that, and will prove that at his next stop.

That was what people said about Chayka too, and I like every move he has made so far.

I agree. Dogmatic thinking is the last thing I want to see from a GM.

If you have listened to him speak at all, it doesn't dictate what he does like you are suggesting.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I'm not sure Detroit has to do anything new or different, in order to entrench themselves as being just as bad, if not worse, than last year.

Agreed. Let's just be patient and let the chips fall where they may. Wings aren't set up for a playoff appearance next year unless the kids take major steps.

 

[Shaman464]

Holland is pretty bang on with his assessment that if his plan fails, we'll bottom out and get those top picks. This lottery system does not do much to favor an approach of total roster annihilation.

Yeah, because finishing 17th in the league is how you get great picks!

 

[Run the Jewels]

Stats, stats, stats. Dubas' business is stats. Its the reason he's relevant. I don't want to be the first team to give this guy the reigns to an NHL roster. We have yet to see stats carry the day in the NHL like we do in the MLB. I'd much rather go with a guy who appreciates stats than a guy who owes his paycheck to them. Its as dangerous as Holland's commitment to veteran talent or Burke's commitment to "truculence." I think anyone who owes their livelihood or success to one preferred outlook for the entirety of their career is a scary choice.

Well the interesting thing is the Red Wings ushered in the puck possession era while most other successful franchises were playing clutch and grab. The stats era blossomed during the final stages of our being a highly successful puck possession team. The fancy stats also try to measure how successful a team is at possessing the puck. Datsyuk was - if he's no longer - the top guy in the fancy stats era. Then there's also the fact the organization has zero interest in acquiring elite talent the way every other team in the league has successfully done so - by drafting very high in the first round.

So with all that being the case I think it would make sense to give a fancy stats guy a shot. The most important thing is to have an understanding of whether he believes puck possession is still the most important factor and how he would go about identifying those guys with the aid of his fancy stats, particularly when your organization has no interest in drafting elite talent at the top of the draft.

One final point: an elite front office guy probably isn't going to want to come Detroit because of all the things mentioned above: we are one of the worst teams in the league, we are too proud to rebuild, and we have a very rigid culture that must be obeyed, which makes it even more difficult to swing a trade to improve your team. Who in their right mind wants to put up with all of those arbitrary hurdles?

Just Kenny and probably his hand picked replacement. And that's why we'll go at least 20 years between Finals appearances and probably much longer.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

It sure is fun that all the teams that prove the "tanking is the only way to do it" wrong, are written off for the sole fact that the argument starts with "tanking is the only way to do it, so if they didn't tank they are a fluke and failure"

So what exactly is your plan for acquiring multiple, elite talents while continuing the rebuild-on-the-fly-experiment? More specifically, how do we do it in a time frame that still captures the best, most productive years of Larkin, Mantha and AA and without executing any trades?

 

[dragonballgtz]

I still think Holland doesn't understand which players need to be paid the big bucks and long term contracts. Those 3rd and 4th liners, along with bottom pair defenceman, that are UFA at 27-30 need to be replaced with ELC players.



And for Athletic being behind a pay wall, I really don't care. If the content is good then they shall get my money

 

[Flowah]

I personally don't like those odds at all. Difference between #4 and #9 isn't big enough in my mind to warrant a deliberate approach of trying to be as bad as possible.

And I guess I underestimated Abby and Helm. Always saw them as decent supporting players, not guys that drastically change our position in the standings. I'd get rid of Mrazek, Green and Mantha if we're tanking next year.

The gap between #4 and #9 is big.

The top5 picks at forward from 2005-2013 produce at a .747 PPG. The #9 pick at .523 PPG. The average top5 pick plays 427 games. The #9 plays 354. There's a bit of small sample sizing going on here but the fact is that the top5 and especially the top3 picks are still substantially better than picks below them in terms of likelihood of becoming an NHL player and in production.

You didn't underestimate Abby and Helm. You overestimated the team. There's no on in GR right now who is projected to come in and be an impact player. Getting rid of two seasoned veterans who are actually decent players will take this team from being near the bottom to the bottom.

It's not like we have to drop 10 spots. We were already garbage last season. Getting even slightly worse helps a great deal there. If he'd have earned just 2 fewer points we would have dropped 2 spots in the standings.

I think that, objectively speaking, the re-structuring of the lottery made tanking quite a bit less viable than it was. I don't think Holland was wrong when he said that at the beginning of last season.

Sure, it's not as good as it used to be. It's still really damn good and a far sight better than trying to hang-on and ending up with a middle 1st round pick.

 

[Henkka]

I think it would make sense to give a fancy stats guy a shot.

Where do I sign?

 

[Frk It]

. Sure, it's not as good as it used to be. It's still really damn good and a far sight better than trying to hang-on and ending up with a middle 1st round pick.

How would you go about building a roster oriented towards tanking or top 5 picks? What would you do if they outperformed your expectations?

 

[StargateSG1]

How would you go about building a roster oriented towards tanking or top 5 picks? What would you do if they outperformed your expectations?

Bottoming out is the ONLY option.
The retool on the fly is ONLY possible when you have the core drafted already (hate to say it, Crosby, Malkin).
Any other way is just a ridiculous pandering to the gullible.

 

[waltdetroit]

First let me say that the draft is the best way to get elite talent. Get as many high picks as you can. The pendulum has swung and there is little available in the free agent market. The change in the draft using a weighted lottery really changes the odds on tanking. Just look at this year's draft order. The Pens & BHawks were assured of 1OA picks and succeeded after yrs of missing the PO's. During this time the Oilers (and to a degree others) tanked with nothing to show in the win column. The lottery is going to require luck (see TML) in order to get the top picks but the odds are not terribly in your favor.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

First let me say that the draft is the best way to get elite talent. Get as many high picks as you can. The pendulum has swung and there is little available in the free agent market. The change in the draft using a weighted lottery really changes the odds on tanking. Just look at this year's draft order. The Pens & BHawks were assured of 1OA picks and succeeded after yrs of missing the PO's. During this time the Oilers (and to a degree others) tanked with nothing to show in the win column. The lottery is going to require luck (see TML) in order to get the top picks but the odds are not terribly in your favor.

The odds are worse now than they were for teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh and even Edmonton, but it is still the best and most efficient method in rebuilding a team with zero core players.

Any other strategy requires far more luck than the tried and true method of bottoming out.

If you have a roster with zero elite players and a prospect system with zero potential elite players, there really is only one realistic path towards relevancy. Scorched Earth and pray.

Any alternative approach is how you end up going 20-30 years between cup appearances.

Anyone with half a brain could have told you five years ago what the Wings would look like if they kept on doing the same thing every year. You end up with the 2016-2017 Detroit Red Wings.