Line Combos: Odd men out for Thursday?

[Invictus12]

1. i think we dont win the cup without datsyuk, zetterberg and lidstrom, i dont think rafalski was the engine that drove that bus no

2. listen i just think it does need to be said(proven) exactly what steps holland made coming out of the lockout that changed the direction of the team and lead to long term success if thats being argued. To me, dropping bottom depth players or getting older goalies to sign cap friendly deals arent that great. To me, great moves that define a GM as great are fantastic trades where they clearly got the best long term player, smart trades at the draft to move up and snag guys who go on to become superstars, signing key/important UFA's who go on to become long term leaders for your franchise, etc

This where I feel the rationale ond the 'remove Babcock and Holland falls completely apart.

One, we have had Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom as our core, we didn't win cups every year with them. So, you need a good supporting cast. That's where Rafalski and others come in. There's 19 players that will be hitting the ice every game and you need a strong combination of that to win the cup. So while these 'lesser move' aren't significant in the vacuum, they do add up.

Once again, it's a 20/20 thing to say 'he hadn't made any great moves'. Lidstrom retired. Even at the old age, there's about five guys at most, that I think can actually replace him. I'm sure I don't have to explain the amount of future and present that we'd have to strip in order to get a defensement like that. We're talking about Weber's Keiths etc... Other teams GMs aren't idiots either and they're not going to give you something just for the sake of it. Furthermore, for example, Ian White was a good signing in my book. Infact, Lidstrom's last year, I felt White played better than him for good chunks of the season. Then next year he completely went south. Who could have predicted that?

You folks are basically asking Holland to know the numbers to mega million jackpot and are ticked off that he's not getting the right on every single attempt.

 

[Flowah]

In other words, We have to wait until March and the trade deadline.

It seems like now the trade deadline is a bad place to pick players up. Very few teams sell and a lot of teams buy since the false parity makes everyone think they can make the playoffs if they make a push.

Once again, it's a 20/20 thing to say 'he hadn't made any great moves'. Lidstrom retired. Even at the old age, there's about five guys at most, that I think can actually replace him.

No one was asking him to replace Lidstrom. But you have to be able to do better than Salei, Huskins, Commodore, Coliacavo, Quincey. Those guys aren't even close. Some of them were barely NHL level players. So many fringe stop gap defensemen. Seems familiar....

And a GM's job is to have foresight. All of us can do this with hindsight. He hasn't really demonstrated that lately. You can say 20/20 all day long but he's paid to be able to see things we can't. If he is, they're mostly ending up as busts.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Nobody is denying that Holland made some good moves but the last 5 years have been a dud. Look Joe Dumars was viewed as one of the best GM's in the league and then after he won the title in 2004, he had one blunder after another until they finally didn't renew his contract. Resigning Dan Cleary last year didn't help his cause but bringing him back this year. That is insulting our intelligence.

 

[Invictus12]

It seems like now the trade deadline is a bad place to pick players up. Very few teams sell and a lot of teams buy since the false parity makes everyone think they can make the playoffs if they make a push.


No one was asking him to replace Lidstrom. But you have to be able to do better than Salei, Huskins, Commodore, Coliacavo, Quincey. Those guys aren't even close. Some of them were barely NHL level players. So many fringe stop gap defensemen. Seems familiar....

And a GM's job is to have foresight. All of us can do this with hindsight. He hasn't really demonstrated that lately. You can say 20/20 all day long but he's paid to be able to see things we can't. If he is, they're mostly ending up as busts.

What moves, whether on the market or not, do you propose he should have done? Should he have been throwing out offer sheets? Propose trades? What would you be willing to give up exactly?
Here's an example that just happened...

Det: Buffalo, we're interested in Myers!
Buf: Sure, you can have him, just give us Mantha! (Probably with a +)

What do you say to that?

This is what an actual trade, negotiation looks like. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure Detroit shouldn't go for it. Myers is relatively young and Mantha, as talented and as big as he is, I don't really see him as a game-breaker... He's more of a guy that would be great as long as you have someone feeding him. That's just me though...

 

[Winger98]

Okay I see where you're coming from and I stilld disagree.

First off, all those FA vets not being signed by a single team so far, could speak volumes on it's own. I don't know what their deal is, maybe they want too much money or perhaps they've fallen off the cliff. I don't know but, I do no that no one has yet to take a flyer on them. Could be varying reasons of course but, it does seem like quite a few teams are looking for upgrades on the backend and those guys are still, just sitting there.

On the issue of FA and Cap... You do realize that we'd be lucky if two of those five defensemen actually bec ome NHL regulars. You're counting your chickens before the eggs hatch. We've seen this movie over and over, not just on this team but, throughout the entire NHL. As good as Sheahan, Tatar and Nyquist looked, it will still take a couple of years to figure out if they really belong in the NHL. Jurco, Pulkkinen, Mantha, Athansiou have yet to prove anyting one way or the other as well. They all have talents, we know that. However, not everyone is cut out for what it takes to be an NHL player and I think people underestimate the amount of dedication it actually takes. Your whole life, has to be devoted to this sport to actually make it. You make it sound like they all have made it and made it big. I don't even have to go far either. Two years ago Kindl was promising, now, most folks can't wait until he's off the roster entirely. So yes, I say wait it out and see what you actually have on your hands before making premature moves. Unless someone offers something too good to be true, for which you should never hope and wait for to begin with, no I don't see a huge need for lots of salary cap. We're not going to be competing for the cup this year, not unless some miracles take place Iagain, not something you should ever put your hopes on) so why do we need cap flexibility to make a big trade?

It's less about giving spots to kids, and more about providing space for competition. Quincey is not going to make or break the club, and he won't be looked at to carry a big load. The roster space, however, could be useful if a kid came to camp and showed he was ready (as XO, by all appearances, did), and has the potential to put us in a better position to make future moves. At the same time, there were numerous vets looking for a place to land that we could have also invited to camp. So leave that spot open, invite a vet or two to camp, let them compete with the kids, and see what happens. After all, it's how Cleary won a job years ago. It's how Lebda got his shot. Actual competition for spots, and giving ourselves space to tool around with the roster, has paid off for us.

I don't think all of these guys are going to be stars, or even necessarily NHLers. But I think we need to provide space for these guys to have a legit shot to play their way onto the team. If I had any faith that the Wings would allow vets to be played off the roster in camp, I'd be fine with having these guys signed and just saying it's a straight up competition. Experience has shown that just doesn't happen, though.

 

[Dotter]

What moves, whether on the market or not, do you propose he should have done? Should he have been throwing out offer sheets? Propose trades? What would you be willing to give up exactly?
Here's an example that just happened...

Det: Buffalo, we're interested in Myers!
Buf: Sure, you can have him, just give us Mantha! (Probably with a +)

What do you say to that?

This is what an actual trade, negotiation looks like. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure Detroit shouldn't go for it. Myers is relatively young and Mantha, as talented and as big as he is, I don't really see him as a game-breaker... He's more of a guy that would be great as long as you have someone feeding him. That's just me though...

I agree. I'm not sure people here understand what it takes to acquire a bonafide defenseman.

We also know Holland tried landing one of Bouwmeester and Edler. The reports around the interweb included Nyquist, Tatar and/or Sheahan (and I think Smith was in the talks) going the other way. All his trade offers were rejected, thank god!

After Erhoff was bought out, there was also rumors circulating that Holland was trying to trade for him as well.

If KH is trading for a top 4 PMD (righty), then expect Mantha to be part of the package.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

And I gave you steps Holland made which changed the direction of the team and lead to "long term" success.

Most GMs get their long term success from acquiring elite players in the draft. I can't think of any GMs who were able to manufacture long term success through their own actions without help from the draft or signing free agents. Chicago? High picks in the draft and landing Hossa. LA? High picks in the draft. Pittsburgh? Same as the previous two.


And honestly, you rarely see fantastic trades that clearly change the definition of the team and equate to long term success. I'm sure you will use Nill as an example, but he has one season under his belt and some of his acquisitions haven't even played in a Stars uniform yet. Yzerman? They have had as much success as Detroit's Red Wings.

I also find it odd that you say "snag guys who go on to become superstars" when Datsyuk and Zetterberg were both part of the Holland era, but are apparently inherited by him because of Andersson. Also in terms of long term leaders, how many years are we talking here? Rafalski was a leader and the Lidstrom-Rafalski pairing was dominant.

I think these are very specific requirements meant to meander around what Holland DID do and give reasons why he was never a good or great GM. I think that's ridiculous. I also think it is ridiculous to assume only three players are the reason behind winning a cup. Does that mean Lombardi's acquisition of Carter and Richards don't really matter because he inherited Kopitar, Quick, and Doughty?

I absolutely think Holland did a great job with the datsyuk and zetterberg drafts, but that wasnt post lockout now was it?

If we're going to argue that Holland was great or amazing post lockout I guess I feel their has to be more to it then signing rafalski and having him here for four years. While I agree it was a good signing, its not a decision I think warrants labelling a GM as "great," as lots of GMs make a good UFA signing every so often.

You're absolutely right most GM's get their rep from the draft and Holland earned that 15-20 years ago. However, it seemed we were talking about a set of years, 2005-2009 to be precise and those draft picks fall outside that range.

while I like Dallas' moves they havent won anything yet so thats why i never mentioned them That said, I do appreciate the moves LA made to bring in Stoll, richards and carter, all of which are long term moves and contributed to long term success

these arent specific requirements meant to meander Holland, these are in fact the job requirements of being an NHL GM.

 

[InjuredChoker]

@DarrenDreger
Red Wings still searching for a quality, right shot D. May have to wait awhile for right player to become available.

tweet from yesterday or from 2011?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I absolutely think Holland did a great job with the datsyuk and zetterberg drafts, but that wasnt post lockout now was it?

If we're going to argue that Holland was great or amazing post lockout I guess I feel their has to be more to it then signing rafalski and having him here for four years. While I agree it was a good signing, its not a decision I think warrants labelling a GM as "great," as lots of GMs make a good UFA signing every so often.

You're absolutely right most GM's get their rep from the draft and Holland earned that 15-20 years ago. However, it seemed we were talking about a set of years, 2005-2009 to be precise and those draft picks fall outside that range.

while I like Dallas' moves they havent won anything yet so thats why i never mentioned them That said, I do appreciate the moves LA made to bring in Stoll, richards and carter, all of which are long term moves and contributed to long term success

these arent specific requirements meant to meander Holland, these are in fact the job requirements of being an NHL GM.

I mentioned post-lockout in regards to Holland having a "bottomless supply of cash" to work with, which apparently kept him from making good moves previously, and ignored the moves he made after having to trim down the salary within the course of an offseason.

You also ignored the other moves I mentioned post-lockout that Holland used to support D Z and Lids. Also if you go a few years prior to the lockout (in which Holland was GM) you get guys who acted as great depth offensively and defensively. Filppula, Franzen, Hudler, and Helm were all drafted and succeeded on that cup-winning team. Then you have signings or acquisitions like Samuelsson, Cleary, Drake, Chelios (even if he wasn't a huge factor and was slowing down in 2008, he was a big staple in Detroit's defense from '99 on). He put himself in a good position for a number of years leading up to 2009, and even when the lockout hit he kept the right pieces in the lineup and developed a cup champion team out of it, all without utilizing a lottery pick player to make it happen.

Holland had a good to great career leading up to 2009. I don't know how you can deny that considering the success he maintained after taking the helm in the 90s.

 

[Flowah]

What moves, whether on the market or not, do you propose he should have done? Should he have been throwing out offer sheets? Propose trades? What would you be willing to give up exactly?

I would have iced the best team possible to make the team more competitive and then maybe we don't strike out on 100% of our UFA targets this past summer. Players and analysts alike have identified the Wings as a team on the decline. That plays a pretty big role in where UFAs decide to sign.

I would have pushed for Smith/Kindl a little earlier and given them a longer leash while Lidstrom was still around to cover for them and mentor them. The patience for Ericsson's game versus Smith and especially Kindl was confusing to watch.

I also find it very hard to believe that the *only* defensemen available for a number of years were guys that were barely even NHL level players. When you're signing guys like Commodore or Huskins, maybe you should just try a kid instead.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I mentioned post-lockout in regards to Holland having a "bottomless supply of cash" to work with, which apparently kept him from making good moves previously, and ignored the moves he made after having to trim down the salary within the course of an offseason.

You also ignored the other moves I mentioned post-lockout that Holland used to support D Z and Lids. Also if you go a few years prior to the lockout (in which Holland was GM) you get guys who acted as great depth offensively and defensively. Filppula, Franzen, Hudler, and Helm were all drafted and succeeded on that cup-winning team. Then you have signings or acquisitions like Samuelsson, Cleary, Drake, Chelios (even if he wasn't a huge factor and was slowing down in 2008, he was a big staple in Detroit's defense from '99 on). He put himself in a good position for a number of years leading up to 2009, and even when the lockout hit he kept the right pieces in the lineup and developed a cup champion team out of it, all without utilizing a lottery pick player to make it happen.

ok fair enough

I look at a guy in his role in 5 year blocks as to me 5 years is a long enough time to make smart moves and see them through. I guess to me, looking specifically at those 5 years post lockout and the moves made specifically during that time(those players drafted between 2005 and 2009, those signings made between 2005-2009 and those trades made between 2005-2009) personally I dont see a great body of work that would lead me to believe he was great.

I wholeheartedly agree about the moves he made in the first five years on the joband understand how thsoe moves paid off in the following decade and some still today(datsyuk and zetterberg).


I am not denying he has had a great career. I am saying in my opinion he was great from 97-2003, after that was simply ok but has certainly turned around his drafting record over the last 5 years to being once again great at drafting

 

[chosen]

Nyquist should be on first line.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I think his scenario is vastly more likely than yours, given that Nyquist is not the type to simply take his foot off the gas when he knows his roster spot is guaranteed.



Holland's rationale was open and simple: of all the players who were on the roster, Nyquist was the single one immune to waivers. That was the entire, idiotic reasoning behind it. He would have been on the starting roster otherwise.

So yep, we absolutely "know" what he was thinking.

Why was he thinking it?

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Nyquist should be on first line.

Yup Nyquist and Abdelkader need to be switched.

 

[Actual Thought*]

ok fair enough

I look at a guy in his role in 5 year blocks as to me 5 years is a long enough time to make smart moves and see them through. I guess to me, looking specifically at those 5 years post lockout and the moves made specifically during that time(those players drafted between 2005 and 2009, those signings made between 2005-2009 and those trades made between 2005-2009) personally I dont see a great body of work that would lead me to believe he was great.

I wholeheartedly agree about the moves he made in the first five years on the joband understand how thsoe moves paid off in the following decade and some still today(datsyuk and zetterberg).


I am not denying he has had a great career. I am saying in my opinion he was great from 97-2003, after that was simply ok but has certainly turned around his drafting record over the last 5 years to being once again great at drafting

The back to back final appearances and 4th Stanley Cup might have given you a tiny hint? No?

 

[Winger98]

ok fair enough

I look at a guy in his role in 5 year blocks as to me 5 years is a long enough time to make smart moves and see them through. I guess to me, looking specifically at those 5 years post lockout and the moves made specifically during that time(those players drafted between 2005 and 2009, those signings made between 2005-2009 and those trades made between 2005-2009) personally I dont see a great body of work that would lead me to believe he was great.

I wholeheartedly agree about the moves he made in the first five years on the joband understand how thsoe moves paid off in the following decade and some still today(datsyuk and zetterberg).


I am not denying he has had a great career. I am saying in my opinion he was great from 97-2003, after that was simply ok but has certainly turned around his drafting record over the last 5 years to being once again great at drafting

I think the transition from the pre-cap era to the post-cap era has been his most impressive feat. He lost a ton of salary, had to cut some guys loose, and find some creative ways to bring in talent. What's ironic (and disheartening) is that Holland didn't seem to learn everything he should have learned from that transition. It was a rough spot, but the turnover eventually reaped some heavy benefits for us. It gave us the 20 goal, playoff warrior Dan Cleary. It gave us Samuelsson. It gave us Lilja. It showed how having a flexible roster and true competition could keep a roster fresh and continually force guys to either become better or lose their spots.

Compare that to the past few seasons where guys have their spots darn near regardless and camp is just a perfunctory warm up for the regular season, and the difference is night and day.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

The back to back final appearances and 4th Stanley Cup might have given you a tiny hint? No?

sorry but had a different GM inherited the team in 2006 with datsyuk, lidstrom, and zetterberg the team would have still won the cup in 08

see what you failed to do was read what i wrote. I said specific moves he made post lockout that had the overwhelming effect of causing us to win not only in 2008 but even still today because thats what makes GMs great and lidstrom, datsyuk, zetterberg, kronwall were all decisions or moves made well before 2006, well before...

example and just an example

take the kings today, quick, doughty and kopitar are like our lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg. now the kings then went out and got stoll, carter, williams and richards who were HUGE parts of their 2012 and 2014 championships but who're also long term key assets to success. so to me its not the first three guys that has made lombardi great the past 5 years but rather those next four guys

now i agree holland made great moves with datsyuk and zetterberg who continue to pay off today(doughty, quick and kopitar) but where are the equivalent of carter, richards, williams and stoll that would define holland has being "great" in recent years(the last 7 or 8)

 

[ArGarBarGar]

sorry but had a different GM inherited the team in 2006 with datsyuk, lidstrom, and zetterberg the team would have still won the cup in 08

Based on what?

Also please make sure that you have the correct number of quote tags in your post before submitting. It is a pain to read through a messed up post where a quote tag is missing.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Based on what?

Also please make sure that you have the correct number of quote tags in your post before submitting. It is a pain to read through a messed up post where a quote tag is missing.

based on what? based on the fact those three guys were the reason why we won for had we taken them out and left the rest of the team intact we would not have won and no other three players would have that same effect(from that team)

 

[Actual Thought*]

sorry but had a different GM inherited the team in 2006 with datsyuk, lidstrom, and zetterberg the team would have still won the cup in 08

see what you failed to do was read what i wrote. I said specific moves he made post lockout that had the overwhelming effect of causing us to win not only in 2008 but even still today because thats what makes GMs great and lidstrom, datsyuk, zetterberg, kronwall were all decisions or moves made well before 2006, well before...

example and just an example

take the kings today, quick, doughty and kopitar are like our lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg. now the kings then went out and got stoll, carter, williams and richards who were HUGE parts of their 2012 and 2014 championships but who're also long term key assets to success. so to me its not the first three guys that has made lombardi great the past 5 years but rather those next four guys

now i agree holland made great moves with datsyuk and zetterberg who continue to pay off today(doughty, quick and kopitar) but where are the equivalent of carter, richards, williams and stoll that would define holland has being "great" in recent years(the last 7 or 8)

If your only measurement of his performance is acquiring Lidstrom/Pav/Z type players then most years you will be disappointed with any GM in the world. If you expect him to draft those types of players while simultaneously winning cups you just aren't being realistic. However we are still icing a playoff team and the cupboards seem to be filling up. How many teams win cups while in a rebuild? How many even make the playoffs?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

based on what? based on the fact those three guys were the reason why we won for had we taken them out and left the rest of the team intact we would not have won and no other three players would have that same effect(from that team)

Apparently that is all it took, which is why they won in 2006, 2007, and 2009.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

If your only measurement of his performance is acquiring Lidstrom/Pav/Z type players then most years you will be disappointed with any GM in the world. If you expect him to draft those types of players while simultaneously winning cups you just aren't being realistic. However we are still icing a playoff team and the cupboards seem to be filling up. How many teams win cups while in a rebuild? How many even make the playoffs?

but again, the premise of this little debate was that holland was great between 2006-2009, not who he drafted in 2010, 2011 or 2014 so their is absolutely no reason to talk about today now is there?

at no time did i say he had to draft zetterberg and datsyuk every year but YES i do believe inorder for a GM to be considered "great" he does have to bring in comparable level talent more than just once in 15 years(one way or another)

now if you want to debate me on whether i think in the last 5 years(2010-2014) he has been great at drafting well that debate will be short because i do think he has been.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Apparently that is all it took, which is why they won in 2006, 2007, and 2009.

no need to be smug but yes, it is overwhelmingly why we won

I do not believe any move made specifically coming out of the lockout is why we won in 2008 and i do not believe any move made specifically post lockout(again our years 2006-2009) is why we are competitive today

 

[ArGarBarGar]

no need to be smug but yes, it is overwhelmingly why we won

I do not believe any move made specifically coming out of the lockout is why we won in 2008 and i do not believe any move made specifically post lockout(again our years 2006-2009) is why we are competitive today

You realize I was using sarcasm considering we didn't win the cup in any of those years, right?

It takes much more than just three guys to win a cup. You are placing too much value on guys like Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg (which I didn't think was possible), and placing little to no value on everyone else on that team.

 

[Actual Thought*]

but again, the premise of this little debate was that holland was great between 2006-2009, not who he drafted in 2010, 2011 or 2014 so their is absolutely no reason to talk about today now is there?

at no time did i say he had to draft zetterberg and datsyuk every year but YES i do believe inorder for a GM to be considered "great" he does have to bring in comparable level talent more than just once in 15 years(one way or another)

now if you want to debate me on whether i think in the last 5 years(2010-2014) he has been great at drafting well that debate will be short because i do think he has been.

My point was that he was picking very low in those years. He had used picks to sustain the run. He managed his assets well as he has always done.