Line Combos: Odd men out for Thursday?

[Actual Thought*]

I am calling that one a league wide draw..

Just checkin

 

[RayMoonDoh]

Explain how he wasn't?

Cleary.

 

[Actual Thought*]

to be honest I think the kings made HUGE additions to complement their existing core, with those additions being huge long term assets

I look at quick, doughty and kopitar being like our lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg in our 2008 cup. now the kings also added carter, williams, stoll and richards and its those moves that i think make lombardi great over the last 5 years. For holland to be great in those years(2006-2009) he would have to make simmilar sized moves(in my opinion) for guys who dont just have short term benefits but and more important long term benefits to the success of your club. I just dont see holland making moves like that during that time period to warrant calling him "great" at that time

Wait, didn't we sign Hossa to like a really below market deal during those years? Why are blockbuster deals the definition of great? The Wings were stacked during that time period. Why were blockbuster deals necessary? He went to back to back finals in that time frame.

 

[Invictus12]

Cleary.

You'll find me addressing this in my earlier posts...

 

[Invictus12]

to be honest I think the kings made HUGE additions to complement their existing core, with those additions being huge long term assets

I look at quick, doughty and kopitar being like our lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg in our 2008 cup. now the kings also added carter, williams, stoll and richards and its those moves that i think make lombardi great over the last 5 years. For holland to be great in those years(2006-2009) he would have to make simmilar sized moves(in my opinion) for guys who dont just have short term benefits but and more important long term benefits to the success of your club. I just dont see holland making moves like that during that time period to warrant calling him "great" at that time

From name point of view I agree. I was talking about removing significant pieces in order to bring back significant pieces. Rafalski, Stuart, White. (Not all necessarily tipped us to a cup win but, they were strong additions) Hossa was a good addition but we suffered huge set-backs in 09... Him not making huger noise, I would think comes from the fact that in his previous years, he had already set the team on the right path. He just had to address smaller issues at the time to get the team over the top.

His work specifically led to what happened in those years. Now we face our 'down-time' so the question becomes whether he's doing a good job steering the ship in the right path. I think he is. By all means I agree that he had a great team to work with in those years but it was him that had a lot to do with it. He didn't need to fix anything that wasn't broken. Like most things in business, impacts are rarely seen at the point when action is taken.

 

[YostisHome]

Who would take Weiss after his last two years and at 4.9m a year?

Kenneth.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Wait, didn't we sign Hossa to like a really below market deal during those years? Why are blockbuster deals the definition of great? The Wings were stacked during that time period. Why were blockbuster deals necessary? He went to back to back finals in that time frame.

I think the ability to add long term core elements to a team is the definition of the job of a GM and the more such players you can add the better you're or the more likely you're to earn the title "great"

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

From name point of view I agree. I was talking about removing significant pieces in order to bring back significant pieces. Rafalski, Stuart, White. (Not all necessarily tipped us to a cup win but, they were strong additions) Hossa was a good addition but we suffered huge set-backs in 09... Him not making huger noise, I would think comes from the fact that in his previous years, he had already set the team on the right path. He just had to address smaller issues at the time to get the team over the top.

His work specifically led to what happened in those years. Now we face our 'down-time' so the question becomes whether he's doing a good job steering the ship in the right path. I think he is. By all means I agree that he had a great team to work with in those years but it was him that had a lot to do with it. He didn't need to fix anything that wasn't broken. Like most things in business, impacts are rarely seen at the point when action is taken.

I agree he has done a better job drafting over the last five years, would even go so far as to say he ahs done a great job

outside his drafts of the last five years i wouldnt consider his body of work to be worthy of the term "great."

thats all

now lets go wings tonight....

 

[Invictus12]

I think the ability to add long term core elements to a team is the definition of the job of a GM and the more such players you can add the better you're or the more likely you're to earn the title "great"

Imagine yourself at the point where our team is successful. We don't get to be ahead of the line for draft picks because we're at the top of the charts. In order to get great futures, (Futures tend to be big 'IFS' no matter how good they look) you have to give up talent. How do you propose Holland should have balance that out?

You see the soultions but you're not flexible on understanding the obstacles. What do you give up at that time to set your team to be still top-notch in a few years ahead? This is the question that all these complaints don't seem to even try to address. You have to give something to get. You also have to convince other GMs to give up what they have... These are huge hurdles.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Imagine yourself at the point where our team is successful. We don't get to be ahead of the line for draft picks because we're at the top of the charts. In order to get great futures, (Futures tend to be big 'IFS' no matter how good they look) you have to give up talent. How do you propose Holland should have balance that out?

You see the soultions but you're not flexible on understanding the obstacles. What do you give up at that time to set your team to be still top-notch in a few years ahead? This is the question that all these complaints don't seem to even try to address. You have to give something to get. You also have to convince other GMs to give up what they have... These are huge hurdles.

I am pretty flexible

a GM has three equal abilities to improve his team
1. the draft
2. through trade
3. through free agency

all three avenues must be explored and exhausted

i think its a red wing fan phenoma only where people believe nobody wants to trade with us or they demand more from us than anyone else.

its his job and its the ability to navigate those avenues with success that defines greatness

 

[Invictus12]

I am pretty flexible

a GM has three equal abilities to improve his team
1. the draft
2. through trade
3. through free agency

all three avenues must be explored and exhausted

i think its a red wing fan phenoma only where people believe nobody wants to trade with us or they demand more from us than anyone else.

its his job and its the ability to navigate those avenues with success that defines greatness

You're dodging what I asked. How would you have balanced those three categories to have our team in the position to win the cup in 06-09 and addressed the future in a way that we're still competing in the years after? What trades would you have made? Who would you have signed and how would you have convinced them to come play in Detroit? How much would you be willing to pay and how would you have planned to keep it all under the cap? What draft picks would you have been unwilling to move at that time, and evaluate how that works for or against our chances to win the cup now and five years from now? Who would you have traded for? Who would you give up in a trade? What would you do if and when another GM doesn't like your proposal?

If you don't see the complications of balancing the future and present, and you don't see them, I don't know think there's anything to add to the debate. I will leave you with this. Detroit is the most accomplished team for the entire time that Holland has been here. Debate that as you want.

 

[Crymson]

I challenge any of those defending Holland to explain away the Dan Cleary saga, most immediately his current presence on the NHL roster.

 

[Invictus12]

I challenge any of those defending Holland to explain away the Dan Cleary saga, most immediately his current presence on the NHL roster.

See post #640. I challenge you to refute it. Furthermore, I challenge you to provide a compelling argument that Holland should be taken off as the GM just based on your assertion of how the team should have handled that situation. Provide how that negates the enormous success the team has and is seeing...

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I challenge any of those defending Holland to explain away the Dan Cleary saga, most immediately his current presence on the NHL roster.

Yeah, Dan Cleary is bad, I get it.

I was merely arguing against the idea Holland was always overrated because he had a huge payroll to work with, as if he didn't win a cup after the lockout and with players who were acquired and started to play for Detroit after the lockout.

 

[Fugu]

Looks like it's game time Thursday!

 

[Winger98]

I think you have to consider where their clubs are in that 5 years vs where the Wings are. The Wings 5 years ago were at the tail end of an era. They didn't just load up with lottery picks and climb out of the cellar. Very different situations.

IMO what Holland has tried to do is maintain some stability while rebuilding. He has managed to replace almost half the roster with kids and not miss the playoffs. I think he likes to keep vets around because they add stability, consistency, and provide an example for the kids of how to be an every day NHL player. This is his second go around at retooling on the fly and this time the holes were much bigger with the loss of Lidstrom in particular. I know it isn't popular here but I think we are a team on the rise.

Definitely way different circumstances, but despite their circumstances, I like their moves with their respective clubs more than I like Holland's. We've wasted a ton of cap and roster space on guys who did very little (or nothing) for us over the past five years. I respect Holland for rebuilding on the fly and making the prospect pool what it is, but we also had around $10m sitting either in the pressbox or in GR last year.

While it's not my money, and I shouldn't complain about it, that's a poor allocation of resources. And it's not like those signings were loved in the first place (and I did defend them for a bit, though with some caveats). This second rebuild could have been quite a bit smoother, and the kids worked in a lot easier, if Holland wasn't so panicked over keeping his depth. While we've had some injury concerns, those depth vets either ended up in the pressbox anyway, or they were the ones injured.

So you're basically saying that it doesn't matter if Quincey is the better player now. Nor does it matter whether it stays that way or not. You have a hunch that our youngster will become better and therefore Quincey should be off the team. This is what I'm getting from you. I don't necessarily disagree. However, with that, do you not see the logic of not relying on this idea from Holland? Believing that our kids need more time in AHL and have Quincey take up the spot for a couple years before we figure out whether they make it or not? I don't follow the business aspects of the game much but, if one or more of our kids play extremely well, do we have the option of putting Quincey in the press box to play one of them instead? If so, I really don't see a problem at all. (I understand that he would be quite an expensive seat-warmer if that becomes the case)

I understand what your saying. I think Holland has a different mentality that I don't think is wrong either. His mentality is more of a 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst.'

With Quincey specifically, I don't think it matters because he's not that good. Even if he is better than XO right now, I don't see it as a gap that's going to matter over the course of the season. For me, Quincey is a replacement level D - a guy we can plop in and get league average play from.

So, yeah, regardless of whether he's better than a prospect right now, or is better than them at the end of the year, the difference just isn't big enough to matter to me.

This isn't just about making sure a prospect is on the team at all costs, though. It's about providing the opportunity for them to make it. If I thought it at all possible that a kid come to camp, outplay a vet, and take his spot, I'd be fine having any of Quincey, Kindl, whoever signed. But I don't think that's likely to happen, and for evidence of that I point to what's happening right now where Babcock has made it fairly clear that he sees XO as being a guy who should be playing with us right now...and instead we sent him down to keep Kindl, Lashoff, and our depth intact.

If we're not willing to just waive one of those bottom pair guys after they were outplayed, I don't think there's a chance that we bench Quincey. Once we gave him a contract, our top7 D were locked into place and the prospects were going to GR. Outside of injuries, that wasn't going to change.

I think Holland's bunker mentality was fine when the guys in GR were legitimately our 8th, 9th, and 10th best guys ...but they're not any more. We're keeping those guys on our roster, while sending our 5th, 6th, or 7th best guys to the minors. We should be keeping those better guys in the lineup, and backfilling those depth spots.