Ken Holland End of Season Press Conference

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Right. And the difference is that Chicago was good enough where they had to make tough decisions. The Red Wings were mediocre and had no such pressure. So Holland just kept giving out bad contracts like it was Halloween.

The Bickell contract is when it started going south for Chicago. And you knew it the day it was signed.
But Bickell, unless Helm and Abdelkader, got his contract after going toe-to-toe with Zdeno Chara in the Stanley Cup finals and was considered a key reason why Chicago beat Boston.
So you can understand the pressure to keep him.

There was no pressure for Detroit to keep Abby or Helm at all costs.
It was was just lazy, complacent Kenny, thinking that his guys must be worth it, because he drafted them, and they're still here.

Agreed, I never once defended the contracts. I am arguing that Abby's didnt "mortgage our future".
Not hating Holland/not crapping all over him is not the same thing as defending him.

Some people just have so much hate for him that they are blinded and spin everything. When people do that, I will call them out on their BS. At the same time, when Holland does something stupid, I will call it like I see it.

For example, the Helm and Nielsen contracts were bad contracts, no doubt mistakes by Holland. Trading Riley Sheahan for a 3rd, not a bad move because he was going nowhere and was a waste of roster space.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BinCookin

BinCookin

Registered User
Feb 15, 2012
6,160
1,377
London, ON
you guys are assuming that abby didn't have any trade value before he was extended?

this is a key point, no one has commented on.

Abby on a 3 year deal for 3 million, is a highly valuable asset, worth a 1st round pick if we moved him at the deadline.
His deal turns his own asset value into near 0 (or worse).

All the way to the bottom, people denied this team was falling.
And now that we're here, people act like there was no other way.
It's like talking politics with a partisan. You reach a point where you realize there is no rationale or logic. It's just blind faith.

the team was headed to a rebuild no matter what we did. In fact trying to avoid a rebuild is why many fans are so upset with Holland. But where we are now was inevitable, but yes we could always have choosen to get here faster.


Generally speaking. If we had a lot of cap room, we could sign more players.
Someone mentioned Vatanen...

I don't really see how more cap room helps us that much to acquire Vatanen. It was Henrique that bought Vatanen, not cap space.

But iff Abby, Nielsen, Helm are all worth nothing because of their contracts... that is bad management. these are legit NHL players, and should have trade value. Our poor signings are way too long. And make their value 0. It will slow down our rebuild, in that they cannot be flipped for assets.
 

TCNorthstars

Registered User
Jan 5, 2009
4,281
1,796
Lansing area, MI
OK. Sheahan had 10 goals and 19 assists at even strength while winning 54 percent of his faceoffs. $2.1M cap hit. Could still get better.
Zetterberg had 10 goals 28 assists at even strength and won 48 percent of his faceoffs. $6.1M cap hit. Only getting worse.
Nielsen had 10 goals and 13 assists at even strength and won 46 percent of his faceoffs. $5.25M cap hit. Only getting worse.
Glendening had 8 goals and 7 assists and won 58 percent of his faceoffs. $1.8M cap hit. Like at his peak

Sami Vatanan was available via trade this year.
Holland couldn't even ****ing call for him.
NO CAP ROOM.

Sheahan is now a 4th line center on Pens. Time will tell if he gets better, but haven't you been touting peak is like 26-27 for forwards or am I thinking about someone else? Sheahan turns 27 in December.

Vatanen trade - did we have a center better than Henrique to trade to the Ducks along with other assets?
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Budget teams do acquire dumps and try to get something of value out of it. We are not Arizona or Carolina. In theory, yes we missed the chance to do that.

It's not "in theory." It's "in reality." Demonstrably so.

In reality, we will never do those deals and never should.

We never will because we literally can't. Arguing that you were right because of what amounts to tautology is dishonest. I'm sorry your pithy post was wrong, but the fact remains that it was wrong.

Looking through those links, none of those seem similar at all IMO.

1. Sure Vegas took on some salary and got some picks for it, but the intention was for the Islanders and BJ's to protect those that they couldn't protect because of number of slots. Didn't work out too well for the Blue Jackets on that one!
2. Neither of these actually happened. They were just ideas.
3. The Caps didn't package anything with Johansson to get those pics, so it isn't all that similar. Yes, they got rid of him for a bargain but the NJD didn't get anything else for taking on that cap dump. They got a player who is actaully worth the money.

1 - "They did what you said but also did other things" isn't really an argument.
2 - The page noted the Lightning's move of Filp.
3 - They dropped a 60 point player for literal peanuts because they couldn't pay him. By having no cap flexibility, we have no ability to take on a trade like that. Yes, it's literally different, but it's the same exact idea. We have missed out on opportunities, whether we'd have taken them or not, to get value for cap space.

Regardless, I'm not really interested in a nitpicky argument over any conceivable link I add.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
this is a key point, no one has commented on.

Abby on a 3 year deal for 3 million, is a highly valuable asset, worth a 1st round pick if we moved him at the deadline.
His deal turns his own asset value into near 0 (or worse).

the team was headed to a rebuild no matter what we did. In fact trying to avoid a rebuild is why many fans are so upset with Holland. But where we are now was inevitable, but yes we could always have choosen to get here faster.


Generally speaking. If we had a lot of cap room, we could sign more players.
Someone mentioned Vatanen...

I don't really see how more cap room helps us that much to acquire Vatanen. It was Henrique that bought Vatanen, not cap space.

But iff Abby, Nielsen, Helm are all worth nothing because of their contracts... that is bad management. these are legit NHL players, and should have trade value. Our poor signings are way too long. And make their value 0. It will slow down our rebuild, in that they cannot be flipped for assets.

100% agree. I get why people criticize some of the moves Holland has made, but what drives me nuts is when people take an insignificant move and make it sound like it was a difference maker. We were going to be where we are regardless of what we did outside of maybe drafting some hidden gems. Did we delay a re-build? Yes. Did trading Sheahan, Mrazek, and Jankrok screw us, lol no.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
That's a completely different question though. Players can be traded at the TDL AND be re-signed. You want to argue that NOT trading Abby for an asset lost us a potential asset, sure. Had we traded him, maybe we get 3rd rounder.

But the argument here was that the 7 year deal "mortgaged the future" which it did not.

they can but one also takes the risks that the team player is traded to, re-signs him.

but even then, cap space is an asset if used correctly and there are still 5 years left on that contract.

i do think 'mortgaged our future' is too strong phrase/hyperbole. but the way it was handled, certainly wasn't in the best long-term interests of the franchise.

if abby's value was 'maybe a 3rd rounder' how on earth did he have leverage to get a 7yr deal at 4.25M per?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kliq

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
The facts of the matter is... teams get mid range picks for taking on cap dumps. 2nd or 3rd is generally the capper. The Datsyuk trade that people ***** about was us dropping four picks and getting a second also.

Yes, you are leaving assets on the table by not having the cap space to trade for the corpse of Brooks Orpik or similar. But the assets you’re giving up are generally considered “hits” if they are bottom six NHlers.

You are not getting first round picks for taking a bad deal that doesn’t hamstring so so much more than Abby’s deal even does. Want a first from a bad contract deal? Take on Andrew Ladd or Bobby Ryan or someone like that, big dollars, big term which even more guarantees you will suck for every bit of that contract.

Getting a draft pick for taking a bad deal should be an aside. It should be a “we don’t need this cap space in 2018 so we will buy a pick for one year. If you get into the business of using that as your game plan, you are going about it the wrong way.

Holland has made mistakes and probably should have been fired or at least asked to resign after the Boston series or at minimum after the second Tampa series where they handily beat us minus their best players.

However, his mistakes do not include “not having space open to trade for Brooks Orpik/similar to get a draft pick”

The Wings have not had to trade a player to have room for a contract (outside of Sheahan, who was done more to ensure they had cash to keep AA. If he would have signed the 1 yr, 1.35M, the Wings could have even kept Sheahan if they wanted.)

I mean, I’m all for pessimistic outlooks, but holy **** be fair.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
they can but one also takes the risks that the team player is traded to, re-signs him.

but even then, cap space is an asset if used correctly and there are still 5 years left on that contract.

i do think 'mortgaged our future' is too strong phrase/hyperbole. but the way it was handled, certainly wasn't in the best long-term interests of the franchise.

if abby's value was 'maybe a 3rd rounder' how on earth did he have leverage to get a 7yr deal at 4.25M per?

This I won’t argue. Ya, the fact that he got 7 years was bad, no defending that.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Sheahan is now a 4th line center on Pens. Time will tell if he gets better, but haven't you been touting peak is like 26-27 for forwards or am I thinking about someone else? Sheahan turns 27 in December.

Vatanen trade - did we have a center better than Henrique to trade to the Ducks along with other assets?

Excuses, excuses. Detroit doesn't have the caproom to make a trade.
What if AA + a 2nd gets you Vatananen.
They don't have the assets or the room.
Whose fault is that?
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
That’s not fair and it’s not at all conducive to discussion.

The facts of the matter is... teams get mid range picks for taking on cap dumps. 2nd or 3rd is generally the capper. The Datsyuk trade that people ***** about was us dropping four picks and getting a second also.

Yes, you are leaving assets on the table by not having the cap space to trade for the corpse of Brooks Orpik or similar. But the assets you’re giving up are generally considered “hits” if they are bottom six NHlers.

You are not getting first round picks for taking a bad deal that doesn’t hamstring so so much more than Abby’s deal even does. Want a first from a bad contract deal? Take on Andrew Ladd or Bobby Ryan or someone like that, big dollars, big term which even more guarantees you will suck for every bit of that contract.

Getting a draft pick for taking a bad deal should be an aside. It should be a “we don’t need this cap space in 2018 so we will buy a pick for one year. If you get into the business of using that as your game plan, you are going about it the wrong way.

Holland has made mistakes and probably should have been fired or at least asked to resign after the Boston series or at minimum after the second Tampa series where they handily beat us minus their best players.

However, his mistakes do not include “not having space open to trade for Brooks Orpik/similar to get a draft pick”

The Wings have not had to trade a player to have room for a contract (outside of Sheahan, who was done more to ensure they had cash to keep AA. If he would have signed the 1 yr, 1.35M, the Wings could have even kept Sheahan if they wanted.)

I mean, I’m all for pessimistic outlooks, but holy **** be fair.

It's totally fair.
You guys are whitewashing 8 years of brutal, delusional management.
 

Red Stanley

Registered User
Apr 25, 2015
2,414
778
USA
Let's play Labels Are Fun! Extra points if you manage to be both wrong and insulting at the same time.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Getting a draft pick for taking a bad deal should be an aside. It should be a “we don’t need this cap space in 2018 so we will buy a pick for one year. If you get into the business of using that as your game plan, you are going about it the wrong way.

I don't disagree that a team shouldn't live on those kinds of trades, and they're certainly not long term sustainable. I do disagree that those moves weren't there to be made, however.

I also disagree that it's always about getting a mid-range draft pick for taking on a crappy contract - sometimes it's getting a 60 point player for a massive discount.

That said, I don't think it matters to the team as constructed any more. A mistake like Nielsen or Abbie's term matters when you either have a good enough team to need the space, or when you've drafted well enough that the guys coming off ELCs need the space. This team isn't in either predicament, so long as Holland doesn't continue to pass out NTCs or massive term to mediocre players from this point on.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
If we didn't have Abdelkader and Helm and Nielsen, why not?
Why not take a Bickell if it gets you Teravainen?
Last I looked, Teravainen was working on a 20+ goal, 60+ point season.

The difference in Detroit is that we'd be able to afford it when our young assets get good,
The problem with that line of thinking is there’s one Bickell and one Terevainen. Deals like that don’t happen all the time. Call it a lucky break for a budget team. Wanting us to be on a budget for 7 years on the off chance that we’ll get a Terevainen out of it is kinda foolish, especially when it comea at the cost of taking on a DEAD cap hit (for all the hate our contracts get they are actual NHL players).

We are a ”rich” team. Money is an asset for us. We can spend to the ceiling every year. Budget teams is what we use to flush bad contracts to. When/if a contracts becomes an issue for us, budget teams can bail us out and maybe get a pick out of it. What if we don’t have Abby, Helm and Nielsen? Well, we wouldn’t trade Jurco, Sheahan and Tatar. +/- zero on the future asset front at best. We also likely would have spent more picks on forwards instead of focusing so much on D ( which we can do knowing we have long-term guys up front).

This desire for us to be Arizona is something I can not see the upside for.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
The problem with that line of thinking is there’s one Bickell and one Terevainen.

Again, these trades happen frequently. Suggesting that we missed out on the only conceivable trade we ever could've made with extra cap space in 7 entire years is hogwash. Why are you having such a hard time discussing this with any vague modicum of honesty?

When/if a contracts becomes an issue for us, budget teams can bail us out and maybe get a pick out of it.

So now we can't get any assets out of anyone else if we have cap space, but we can sure give up assets to free up our own? What kind of hypocritical nonsense is this?

This desire for us to be Arizona is something I can not see the upside for.

As if anyone suggested that. It is increasingly difficult to believe you have any intention of discussing this in good faith with anyone.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
The problem with that line of thinking is there’s one Bickell and one Terevainen. Deals like that don’t happen all the time. Call it a lucky break for a budget team. Wanting us to be on a budget for 7 years on the off chance that we’ll get a Terevainen out of it is kinda foolish, especially when it comea at the cost of taking on a DEAD cap hit (for all the hate our contracts get they are actual NHL players).

We are a ”rich” team. Money is an asset for us. We can spend to the ceiling every year. Budget teams is what we use to flush bad contracts to. When/if a contracts becomes an issue for us, budget teams can bail us out and maybe get a pick out of it. What if we don’t have Abby, Helm and Nielsen? Well, we wouldn’t trade Jurco, Sheahan and Tatar. +/- zero on the future asset front at best. We also likely would have spent more picks on forwards instead of focusing so much on D ( which we can do knowing we have long-term guys up front).

This desire for us to be Arizona is something I can not see the upside for.

lol.

or we just sign replacement level forwards to 1-2 yr deals that can be found easily in FA, every year.

yeah and we don't need to spend picks on forwards because we have abby, helm and nielsen... like for real.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
A big part of it is that the Bickell trade is a unicorn. It isn’t the only conceivable trade... but it is the upper bounds of what you’d get and it is by far the most profitable of the deals. The far more likely trade response to taking a bad contract is a mid round pick.

Or getting an asset who is mid/prime aged who makes us better as a team, but does not put us among the top 5 teams in the league (which is what “contender” means to people, whether they’ll cop to that or not.). Contender here is being used in place of favorite. And if you think those trades don’t put you in that bracket, by your (global your) definition, you’re extending out the rebuild.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
lol.

or we just sign replacement level forwards to 1-2 yr deals that can be found easily in FA, every year.

yeah and we don't need to spend picks on forwards because we have abby, helm and nielsen... like for real.
Like it or not, Helm/Abby/Nielsen are a lot better than replacement level. There are a reason there are cheap short-term vets available each year in FA... they suck..

And yes, for real, remove 3 legit top 9 forwards (+Tatar) from the roster and there would be a lot more desperation to fill up the pipeline with forwards. This is impossible not to see. Having forwards signed allows us to focus much more heavily on D for a few years without having the forward group completely crumble.
So now we can't get any assets out of anyone else if we have cap space, but we can sure give up assets to free up our own? What kind of hypocritical nonsense is this?
If we have cap space we would use it on actual players instead of dead cap hits. What ”rich” team has taken on cap dumps for future assets in the kind of trade you claim happens all the time?
We get assets by selling what we have. This is a better use of salary cap for teams with money.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
Like it or not, Helm/Abby/Nielsen are a lot better than replacement level. There are a reason there are cheap short-term vets available each year in FA... they suck..

most of them do. not everyone. at least not according to other GMs who trade for those guys every year.

also, 20-30 point forward for 1-2 year deals at 1-2M per >>> 30-40 point forward for 5+ years at 4-5M per.

And yes, for real, remove 3 legit top 9 forwards (+Tatar) from the roster and there would be a lot more desperation to fill up the pipeline with forwards. This is impossible not to see. Having forwards signed allows us to focus much more heavily on D for a few years without having the forward group completely crumble.

abby, nielsen and helm are probably washed up/not on the roster/replacement level forwards when we are ready to compete again. extra assets could be used on forwards instead.

not having a 30+ year old 30-40 point forward should have about zero influence on anyones draft strategy.

If we have cap space we would use it on actual players instead of dead cap hits. What ”rich” team has taken on cap dumps for future assets in the kind of trade you claim happens all the time?
We get assets by selling what we have. This is a better use of salary cap for teams with money.

'16 TDL

leafs acquire: brooks laich, connor carrick, 2nd
capitals acquire: daniel winnik, 5th.

they also used it in the phaneuf trade, acquiring michalek, greening and cowen had combined cap hit of almost 10M and ended up playing less than 50 games for the leafs. combined.
 
Last edited:

Whoshattenkirkshoes

Registered User
Aug 11, 2014
3,819
1,621
Young defensemen in Grand Rapids:
Hronek.
Hicketts.
Russo.
Renouf.
Saarijarvi.

So many defense that you can't even get Saarijarvi in the games.

In 16-17, our Under 25 D played in 143 games.
This year, our Under 25 D played in 50 games.

So all this talk about having an old defense and needing to get younger?

It's empty bull**** until he proves otherwise.

All I see is an organization afraid to make the right move.
All I see is a complacent general manager trying to say the right things, even if his words suggest he might not actually believe them.

An important part of any kind of management position is understanding the trends. If you don't realize you're on the way to the bottom until you get there, you're not very good.
Saarijarvi is not that good its fact. You to earn your ice, no hand outs here..
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,730
2,136
Detroit
Those deals did not cripple the team by any means

At worst they were further examples of Holland being out of touch with the actual state of the team and the farm system.

I like the idea of adding vets to one year deals soley to flip for any old pick at the deadline. May help to prevent total rotening out of the locker room while also giving you one more kick at the can come the draft.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
In that list of D, there is one who warrants special development (Hronek). There is another that has played himself into being a potential dark horse (Hicketts).

Russo, Renouf, and Saarijavi need to make their case in practice, in how they carry themselves, etc that they have earned more time. They have not been anything super special nor have they an amazing ceiling that you’re missing out on.

The Wings want to get younger and better with players who have earned it and know what it takes to keep a spot pinned down, not just lower their average age by running whatever guy happens to be there who was born after 1993.

Larkin got his spot because he was fantastic at hockey and kept it because he was a rink rat that did everything asked of him and sought out ways to get better. Not because he was 19 years old.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Agreed, I never once defended the contracts. I am arguing that Abby's didnt "mortgage our future".
Not hating Holland/not crapping all over him is not the same thing as defending him.

Some people just have so much hate for him that they are blinded and spin everything. When people do that, I will call them out on their BS. At the same time, when Holland does something stupid, I will call it like I see it.

For example, the Helm and Nielsen contracts were bad contracts, no doubt mistakes by Holland. Trading Riley Sheahan for a 3rd, not a bad move because he was going nowhere and was a waste of roster space.

Funny, Kliq. You don't mind calling out posters for their "BS" if they're criticizing Holland.

I don't see you calling out all the rabid pro-Holland and pro-Blashill BS.

Regarding Sheahan, . a third rounder for him is garbage.
It's selling a guy at his lowest.
But he was boxed in by his own moves and took the easy way.

Calling Sheahan a waste of roster space? He's got a regular role in Pittsburgh. He played about 15 minutes the other night on a team that has Malkin, Crosby and Brassard at center.
Yeah, but a 25 year old center who takes a regular shift on the Penguins is a "waste of a roster space on Detroit."

He's only wasted because 1) Holland loaded the roster with shit 2) Blashill overused Zetterberg and Nielsen and 3) Blashill was clueless. You had a 24 year old good defensive center who wins faceoffs and you make him a winger?????
 
Last edited:

Goalie guy

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
3,063
444
Taylor MI
Seams a lot of people here need to sit back drink a beer and chill!! A lot of rude comments and no it all attitudes that get offended when some one has a different view then they do. Why you hef to be mad it's just hockey? Lets just see what happens at the draft.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Seams a lot of people here need to sit back drink a beer and chill!! A lot of rude comments and no it all attitudes that get offended when some one has a different view then they do. Why you hef to be mad it's just hockey? Lets just see what happens at the draft.

God forbid anyone on an internet message board have an opinion or care about their team more than not at all.
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,957
Funny, Kliq. You don't mind calling out posters for their "BS" if they're criticizing Holland.

I don't see you calling out all the rabid pro-Holland and pro-Blashill BS.

Regarding Sheahan, . a third rounder for him is garbage.
It's selling a guy at his lowest.
But he was boxed in by his own moves and took the easy way.

Calling Sheahan a waste of roster space? He's got a regular role in Pittsburgh. He played about 15 minutes the other night on a team that has Malkin, Crosby and Brassard at center.
Yeah, but a 25 year old center who takes a regular shift on the Penguins is a "waste of a roster space on Detroit."

He's only wasted because 1) Holland loaded the roster with **** 2) Blashill overused Zetterberg and Nielsen and 3) Blashill was clueless. You had a 24 year old good defensive center who wins faceoffs and you make him a winger?????

Sheahan got chance after chance and just flat out sucked for like a year and a half with no signs of improvement,they keep him longer and he probably continues to suck and pulls in a late round pick instead of a mid round pick

sometimes it's just time to move on,you could argue that they should have moved him sooner than they did and that they probably would have gotten a better return if they had and i'd agree(and hoped for it at the time) but it is what it is and at least we got something for him before his value withered away to a 5th or something
 
  • Like
Reactions: kliq

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->