Playoffs

[Red Stanley]

He also has an established track record of having an extended stretch of awful play each time he returns from those injuries. And even if he's found a style that's less taxing on his body, he isn't getting any younger.

We can speculate all we like, but the roster in front of him just finished having a downright horrendous year, so I think Howard will have his hands full this season either way.

Sooo ... you don't disagree with anything I said. It's easy to dig up multiple quotes of me saying the team is bad, so I'm not sure why you decided to throw that in as if it somehow pertains to what I said here.

What number did I give exactly? Jimmys save percentage a year ago? My entire point has been to accept the numbers as they sit without padding extra points for what if scenarios. For every positive what if, you can make a negative.

This team stinks and the numbers bear that out. Jimmy Howard playing incredible all year, which is a leap of faith, doesn't change that. I think the sooner the fans get on board with this the sooner ownership will feel pressured to get serious about icing a winner again.

And you know, not just hope for lucky goalie hot streaks to sneak into the playoffs.

Using what-ifs to discredit someone else's what-ifs is rather hilarious. However, there's nothing funny about this obsession to shoot down any positive from the **** storm that was last season. Oh those delusional fans going to games and buying t-shirts is why Holland hasn't been fired yet? Well, you'll be ecstatic to know I spend 0$ on the team, watch most of the games on free streams and have never even been to Detroit. Fighting the good fight

 

[Red Stanley]

Totally agree, and here are some numbers:

Howard finished with a 10-11-1 record last year. That's 21 points in 22 games. Which is a 78 point pace, even if he played all 82 games.

Compared to the 79 points that Detroit finished with. Oops.

I don't know why so many people keep fighting the simple truth: THIS IS A BAD TEAM, from top to bottom.

Ok let's talk numbers that actually exist, so to speak. 10-11-1 record with that save% and the low goal support. Now take the final goal support of 2.5 and calculate it with the sv%. It suddenly makes a pretty big difference, doesn't it? But your calculation automatically assumes his sv% will plummet as the goals/game more than double. Adding an extra what-if to your what-if doesn't make it less iffy. And, yes, the final truth is that the team is bad and finished second to last in the division. You don't need fake math to prove that, nor to disprove the logical assumption that good goaltending can make a positive difference even on a bad team.

 

[jkutswings]

What I'm ultimately arguing against is what feels like the belief that, if the Wings suddenly had better goaltending, they'd be a shoo-in to make the playoffs, and maybe even make some noise once they get there.

Howard vs Mrazek isn't the deciding factor on Detroit being a playoff team, let alone being more than a token first round exit. Things like a legit 1D, and more punch at C than Hank's swan song and a bunch of scrubs...those things are bigger factors. And those aren't fixed in one or two summers, so any handwaving about who's in net doesn't do anything to avoid another cellar dweller type of season this year.

 

[Red Stanley]

What I'm ultimately arguing against is what feels like the belief that, if the Wings suddenly had better goaltending, they'd be a shoo-in to make the playoffs, and maybe even make some noise once they get there.

Howard vs Mrazek isn't the deciding factor on Detroit being a playoff team, let alone being more than a token first round exit. Things like a legit 1D, and more punch at C than Hank's swan song and a bunch of scrubs...those things are bigger factors. And those aren't fixed in one or two summers, so any handwaving about who's in net doesn't do anything to avoid another cellar dweller type of season this year.

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. They were bad the year before, too, and a mess last season to along with the injuries. There were however some bright spots and I'd rather people not snuff them out for the sake of the overall argument.

 

[Bench]

Using what-ifs to discredit someone else's what-ifs is rather hilarious. However, there's nothing funny about this obsession to shoot down any positive from the **** storm that was last season. Oh those delusional fans going to games and buying t-shirts is why Holland hasn't been fired yet? Well, you'll be ecstatic to know I spend 0$ on the team, watch most of the games on free streams and have never even been to Detroit. Fighting the good fight

I don't think it's hilarious. I think it shows you can conjure realistic what if scenarios that go both directions. And by showing you can do that, it dismantles the what if game at all. Again, I'm not interested in that if. I'm not presenting the negative as truth. I'm a herald for the actual standings the team actually finished. And that's why I think they don't sniff the playoffs this year.

And yes, I think if more fans are vocal about the direction of the team, that will funnel to the media and eventually to management. It's a slow process, though, because I think the Wings isolate themselves pretty well from scrutiny.

HockeyinHD loves to remind us this is a business. And I love to remind the forum it's an entertainment product. If the product isn't entertaining, you let the creators know. They shouldn't take every criticism to heart, God no, but when the majority of your hardcore fan base is turning against you... Maaaaybe they have a point. And maybe if you're interested in keeping interest in your business and entertainment product, their opinions matter.

Ultimately if the team wins, people will flock back. If Holland pulls the rabbit out of his hat in the next few years, we'll all eat crow, apologize, and be happy fun hockey is on the menu, too. But until he finishes the prestige, it's fair to say this team sucks and needs a new direction. And while I don't think positivity is a bad thing, if it's masking core issues with the roster, I think it's fair to say, "Hey, here's why I don't buy that."

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I don't think it's hilarious. I think it shows you can conjure realistic what if scenarios that go both directions. And by showing you can do that, it dismantles the what if game at all. Again, I'm not interested in that if. I'm not presenting the negative as truth. I'm a herald for the actual standings the team actually finished. And that's why I think they don't sniff the playoffs this year.

And yes, I think if more fans are vocal about the direction of the team, that will funnel to the media and eventually to management. It's a slow process, though, because I think the Wings isolate themselves pretty well from scrutiny.

HockeyinHD loves to remind us this is a business. And I love to remind the forum it's an entertainment product. If the product isn't entertaining, you let the creators know. They shouldn't take every criticism to heart, God no, but when the majority of your hardcore fan base is turning against you... Maaaaybe they have a point. And maybe if you're interested in keeping interest in your business and entertainment product, their opinions matter.

Ultimately if the team wins, people will flock back. If Holland pulls the rabbit out of his hat in the next few years, we'll all eat crow, apologize, and be happy fun hockey is on the menu, too. But until he finishes the prestige, it's fair to say this team sucks and needs a new direction. And while I don't think positivity is a bad thing, if it's masking core issues with the roster, I think it's fair to say, "Hey, here's why I don't buy that."

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed!

Ultimately hockey is entertainment. For most people complaining about the team I don't think it's a case of "Cup or bust!" It's more about hope or no hope. Right now there is very little to be hopeful or excited about on this team.

I've been watching the Wings since the Dead Wings era. That team was so fun to watch even though they were still mostly terrible. Yzerman, Gallant, Kocur, Probert, Burr, Oates, Klima.

I think the fans could handle losing, rebuilding, sucking, if it felt like there was some sense of direction for the team. But Holland seems content to keep making tweaks.

 

[Classicnamesup]

I feel like the team is slowly sliding backwards which is really the worst place to be. Get bad to get gud or just get gud. Purgatory ala flames most of the last decade isn't where I want to hang.

 

[Red Stanley]

I don't think it's hilarious. I think it shows you can conjure realistic what if scenarios that go both directions. And by showing you can do that, it dismantles the what if game at all. Again, I'm not interested in that if. I'm not presenting the negative as truth. I'm a herald for the actual standings the team actually finished. And that's why I think they don't sniff the playoffs this year.

And yes, I think if more fans are vocal about the direction of the team, that will funnel to the media and eventually to management. It's a slow process, though, because I think the Wings isolate themselves pretty well from scrutiny.

HockeyinHD loves to remind us this is a business. And I love to remind the forum it's an entertainment product. If the product isn't entertaining, you let the creators know. They shouldn't take every criticism to heart, God no, but when the majority of your hardcore fan base is turning against you... Maaaaybe they have a point. And maybe if you're interested in keeping interest in your business and entertainment product, their opinions matter.

Ultimately if the team wins, people will flock back. If Holland pulls the rabbit out of his hat in the next few years, we'll all eat crow, apologize, and be happy fun hockey is on the menu, too. But until he finishes the prestige, it's fair to say this team sucks and needs a new direction. And while I don't think positivity is a bad thing, if it's masking core issues with the roster, I think it's fair to say, "Hey, here's why I don't buy that."

"The majority of hardcore fans" is as made up a statistic as any. If it were true, then the new arena won't be sold out every night like the Joe was. If it were true, then the Wings would be losing money. But I may be misunderstanding your definition of the word hardcore. I do know the definition of a fair-weather fan and a bandwagon fan, though. They stay away when the team is doing badly and come out of the woodwork when the team is winning. I'm certain it will happen regardless of what the hardcore fans think, because it is the business of entertainment as you said.

I'm also not sure how pointing out the bright spots in a bad season somehow masks the core issues with the roster. How does someone saying Howard had good numbers and his new technique is likely to keep him healthier for longer influence the roster in any way, shape, or form? How is disagreeing with them vehemently on a message board going to make the roster better? It's only fan opinions and I love reading them, because the vast majority of them - positive and negative - have merit. If you want direct influence, get a job within the organization.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed!

Ultimately hockey is entertainment. For most people complaining about the team I don't think it's a case of "Cup or bust!" It's more about hope or no hope. Right now there is very little to be hopeful or excited about on this team.

I've been watching the Wings since the Dead Wings era. That team was so fun to watch even though they were still mostly terrible. Yzerman, Gallant, Kocur, Probert, Burr, Oates, Klima.

I think the fans could handle losing, rebuilding, sucking, if it felt like there was some sense of direction for the team. But Holland seems content to keep making tweaks.

We're adding tons of prospects and the young players are taking over the team step by step. Not Holland's fault if you don't understand the direction. Give us some lottery luck and it speeds things up, otherwise just stay patient. We're going down a road that only leads one way. Picking up Daley and Witkowski along the way isn't the same as changing direction.

 

[jkutswings]

We're adding tons of prospects and the young players are taking over the team step by step. Not Holland's fault if you don't understand the direction. Give us some lottery luck and it speeds things up, otherwise just stay patient. Some Wings fans are like kids in the backseat asking their parents "are we there yet??" constantly. We're going down a road that only leads one way. Picking up Daley and Witkowski along the way isn't the same as changing direction.

And I'm saying that none of the players being added are core pieces, and that they'll effectively have to start over, once Zetterberg is gone, and guys like Larkin and Mantha don't amount to more than being the next Nyquist and Tatar.

It's not just adding youth. It's adding enough young talent in short enough a timeframe to do anything with it. And I don't think their youth is either good enough or being added fast enough to prevent this from being yet another 3-5 wasted years.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

We're adding tons of prospects and the young players are taking over the team step by step. Not Holland's fault if you don't understand the direction. Give us some lottery luck and it speeds things up, otherwise just stay patient. Some Wings fans are like kids in the backseat asking their parents "are we there yet??" constantly. We're going down a road that only leads one way. Picking up Daley and Witkowski along the way isn't the same as changing direction.

I never said the Wings were changing direction. My point was that what little sense of direction there is for the team isn't a good one.

Unless the Wings strike lightning in the draft a couple times, the road they're going down leads to the Calgary Flames.

 

[Heaton]

We're adding tons of prospects and the young players are taking over the team step by step. Not Holland's fault if you don't understand the direction. Give us some lottery luck and it speeds things up, otherwise just stay patient. We're going down a road that only leads one way. Picking up Daley and Witkowski along the way isn't the same as changing direction.

We all understand the direction, we just don't like the route.

 

[Pavels Dog]

And I'm saying that none of the players being added are core pieces, and that they'll effectively have to start over, once Zetterberg is gone, and guys like Larkin and Mantha don't amount to more than being the next Nyquist and Tatar.

It's not just adding youth. It's adding enough young talent in short enough a timeframe to do anything with it. And I don't think their youth is either good enough or being added fast enough to prevent this from being yet another 3-5 wasted years.

When the 11 picks we had this year and long-term projects like Saarijarvi/Cholo/Hronek/Hicketts/etc start hitting the NHL, it's likely we could have picked up 1 or 2 or more top 5 picks. Those picks are NHL ready sooner than late rounders. For example a Dahlin could hit the NHL at the same time Hronek does, or a lil' Svechnikov could arrive when Rasmussen is ready. We're on a path where we don't know what the exact roadmap is because it's so dependant on luck. Do we win the draft lottery, ever? Do any of our late picks develop into stars? Do Larkin/Mantha/AA/Mrazek improve into more than support (you think they won't, I say we don't know)? Do we pick up a new coach that transforms the roster into more than we think it is?

Many seem to think we don't have a direction because we don't know exactly who to build around. But that's what we're in the process of finding. We were one lottery ball away from a top 3 pick this year. If our currently drafted players are non-core guys, we will keep getting high % chances at top 3 picks, beyond that there's nothing left but patience and hoping for a bit of luck. If nothing else, we're drafting enough good support to drastically improve the minute we find a #1D or #1C.

 

[Bench]

"The majority of hardcore fans" is as made up a statistic as any.

I think the fans here are hardcore. When put to a vote on this very forum, around 80% voted for Holland to be removed from GM by either promotion or firing. That's a level of consensus rarely achieved.

If Holland was going to have a favorable rating, I can say with certainty it would not be with the fans dedicated enough to spend their free time talking hockey year round with strangers from around the world.

And no, if it were true, that wouldn't the team would lose money. I don't think you understand the hardcore audience is exactly the type of person that keeps sticking with the team even in the lean years. I found this season a bore to watch but I still sat down to watch about half the games. I still spent money to watch them when they came to my city for an away game. But the Wings did have the 5th largest drop in local TV viewing of any NHL team, a 28% drop. So yes, they are a less attractive viewing option than they've been in years. It's the nuts like me and this forum that aren't having fun as often but still tune in out of loyalty and love of hockey that keep their numbers from completely tanking.

 

[jkutswings]

When the 11 picks we had this year and long-term projects like Saarijarvi/Cholo/Hronek/Hicketts/etc start hitting the NHL, it's likely we could have picked up 1 or 2 or more top 5 picks. Those picks are NHL ready sooner than late rounders. For example a Dahlin could hit the NHL at the same time Hronek does, or a lil' Svechnikov could arrive when Rasmussen is ready. We're on a path where we don't know what the exact roadmap is because it's so dependant on luck. Do we win the draft lottery, ever? Do any of our late picks develop into stars? Do Larkin/Mantha/AA/Mrazek improve into more than support (you think they won't, I say we don't know)? Do we pick up a new coach that transforms the roster into more than we think it is?

Many seem to think we don't have a direction because we don't know exactly who to build around. But that's what we're in the process of finding. We were one lottery ball away from a top 3 pick this year. If our currently drafted players are non-core guys, we will keep getting high % chances at top 3 picks, beyond that there's nothing left but patience and hoping for a bit of luck. If nothing else, we're drafting enough good support to drastically improve the minute we find a #1D or #1C.

From a timing standpoint, I understand what you're saying. I just don't have any faith in this front office to ever get it right again.

 

[Red Stanley]

I think the fans here are hardcore. When put to a vote on this very forum, around 80% voted for Holland to be removed from GM by either promotion or firing. That's a level of consensus rarely achieved.

If Holland was going to have a favorable rating, I can say with certainty it would not be with the fans dedicated enough to spend their free time talking hockey year round with strangers from around the world.

And no, if it were true, that wouldn't the team would lose money. I don't think you understand the hardcore audience is exactly the type of person that keeps sticking with the team even in the lean years. I found this season a bore to watch but I still sat down to watch about half the games. I still spent money to watch them when they came to my city for an away game. But the Wings did have the 5th largest drop in local TV viewing of any NHL team, a 28% drop. So yes, they are a less attractive viewing option than they've been in years. It's the nuts like me and this forum that aren't having fun as often but still tune in out of loyalty and love of hockey that keep their numbers from completely tanking.

Yes, the fair-weather fans leave and the hardcore fans stay. By that reasoning it's the hardcore fans' fault that Holland isn't fired yet. In other words, "most hardcore fans" don't agree with you. Sounds like not even you agree with yourself since nobody is making you spend money or stopping you from leaving.

 

[Bench]

Yes, the fair-weather fans leave and the hardcore fans stay. By that reasoning it's the hardcore fans' fault that Holland isn't fired yet. In other words, "most hardcore fans" don't agree with you. Sounds like not even you agree with yourself since nobody is making you spend money or stopping you from leaving.

I wasn't aware I had to financially boycott the team to create consistency with my opinion that the team stinks.

What I'm suggesting is that if the discourse around the Wings is one of a team beyond it's glory, a franchise wrapped up in doing things the old way and struggling, that might create more pressure on ownership to make changes. Public opinion matters. It matters what the media prints. What the radio hosts say. What the other big names around the league say when bring up the Red Wings brand.

You keep replying trying to trap me into some kind of corner I've painted. But this all started with me saying I thought the Wings stink and it would help if more fans put that same pressure on the team to make the hard decisions. Let the team know we're OK with some lean years, for the sake long-term gain, because we're still going to show up and support the franchise... if you give us a plan to believe in. As Lazlo said, we want decisions that inspire hope.

If the current team does that for you, fantastic. But if you're feeling the vibe changed in the last 5 years, it's a direct result of a team sliding further and further from their peak.

I, and I know many others, want a manger that says, "It was an amazing run, but it's time to retool for the next one. We'll do everything we can to get back to being a Cup contender and that might mean some difficult years. But know every decision is with that singular goal in mind."

Instead what we have is this:
"Nobody wants to see a rebuild," Holland said. "They want to see us in the playoffs. For those people that believe tanking... there are no guarantees."

Nobody wants a rebuild? Heh. Nobody. Nobody? OK. Ooooook. By the way, that quote comes from an article titled: Ken Holland's vision for Detroit Red Wings at odds with fans'

 

[Red Stanley]

I wasn't aware I had to financially boycott the team to create consistency with my opinion that the team stinks.

What I'm suggesting is that if the discourse around the Wings is one of a team beyond it's glory, a franchise wrapped up in doing things the old way and struggling, that might create more pressure on ownership to make changes. Public opinion matters. It matters what the media prints. What the radio hosts say. What the other big names around the league say when bring up the Red Wings brand.

You keep replying trying to trap me into some kind of corner I've painted. But this all started with me saying I thought the Wings stink and it would help if more fans put that same pressure on the team to make the hard decisions. Let the team know we're OK with some lean years, for the sake long-term gain, because we're still going to show up and support the franchise... if you give us a plan to believe in. As Lazlo said, we want decisions that inspire hope.

If the current team does that for you, fantastic. But if you're feeling the vibe changed in the last 5 years, it's a direct result of a team sliding further and further from their peak.

I, and I know many others, want a manger that says, "It was an amazing run, but it's time to retool for the next one. We'll do everything we can to get back to being a Cup contender and that might mean some difficult years. But know every decision is with that singular goal in mind."

Instead what we have is this:
"Nobody wants to see a rebuild," Holland said. "They want to see us in the playoffs. For those people that believe tanking... there are no guarantees."

Nobody wants a rebuild? Heh. Nobody. Nobody? OK. Ooooook. By the way, that quote comes from an article titled: Ken Holland's vision for Detroit Red Wings at odds with fans'

I understand where you're coming from and don't actually begrudge you for it, even though it may sound like it sometimes. What I'm saying is as long as you keep giving them money/ratings they'll assume you're on board with their plan and come to the same conclusions - true or not - I did. They'll psychoanalyze the bottom line from the simplest, most logical angle. Public opinion matters in politics. GMs don't get elected. Holland will continue to assume he's doing the right thing until his boss disagrees with him. Simple as that.

 

[Winger98]

I understand where you're coming from and don't actually begrudge you for it, even though it may sound like it sometimes. What I'm saying is as long as you keep giving them money/ratings they'll assume you're on board with their plan and come to the same conclusions - true or not - I did. They'll psychoanalyze the bottom line from the simplest, most logical angle. Public opinion matters in politics. GMs don't get elected. Holland will continue to assume he's doing the right thing until his boss disagrees with him. Simple as that.

Money definitely talks, but I'm also not sure it's a good way of measuring "hardcoreness" or whatever we want to call it. I can't imagine there are tens of thousands of hardcore fans buying Lions' tickets every year.

By the same token, because those tickets are sold, and the Lions by all appearances make a bunch of money -though also driven by the massive TV deals the NFL enjoys - there isn't a lot of motivation to seriously change the club.

Round about way of saying that I think you're both right. Money, in the end, will likely be the driver for the Wings changing directions in any serious way. At the same time, I think engagement is a better measurement of how "hardcore" a fan or fanbase is. I think the Wings still enjoy a pretty large segment of people who will hand over their money but not care to be overly engaged.

 

[Red Stanley]

Money definitely talks, but I'm also not sure it's a good way of measuring "hardcoreness" or whatever we want to call it. I can't imagine there are tens of thousands of hardcore fans buying Lions' tickets every year.

By the same token, because those tickets are sold, and the Lions by all appearances make a bunch of money -though also driven by the massive TV deals the NFL enjoys - there isn't a lot of motivation to seriously change the club.

Round about way of saying that I think you're both right. Money, in the end, will likely be the driver for the Wings changing directions in any serious way. At the same time, I think engagement is a better measurement of how "hardcore" a fan or fanbase is. I think the Wings still enjoy a pretty large segment of people who will hand over their money but not care to be overly engaged.

Yeah but football audience is both larger and more stable, the same way it is for hockey in Canada compared to the US. Anyway, not blaming anyone for putting the Wings on pause till they get their **** together. I like my team and NHL hockey in general too much to do that and will remain hopeful and excited for the future. Cheers.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I've already stopped spending money on the Wings. Ended up not attending a single game last season. First time in 20ish years. Not even the last year at the Joe was enough to get me to waste my money on the Wings. I was originally going to go to one game, but the thought of seeing that roster in person made me start dry heaving. I still watch the games, but not in the 70-80 game range like i normally did. I just don't see the appeal of watching a team that serves no purpose now or in the future. The product isn't good and there is no potential carrot for watching a simply bad team.

I'm definitely not gonna bother going to a game next year either. Tickets are gonna be more expensive than last year, but the product on the ice is going to be either the same or a little bit worse.

I'll probably actually sit through 40-50 games. Maybe more if management finally accepts that their team building philosophy has failed.

 

[Beltv]

I've already stopped spending money on the Wings. Ended up not attending a single game last season. First time in 20ish years. Not even the last year at the Joe was enough to get me to waste my money on the Wings. I was originally going to go to one game, but the thought of seeing that roster in person made me start dry heaving. I still watch the games, but not in the 70-80 game range like i normally did. I just don't see the appeal of watching a team that serves no purpose now or in the future. The product isn't good and there is no potential carrot for watching a simply bad team.

I'm definitely not gonna bother going to a game next year either. Tickets are gonna be more expensive than last year, but the product on the ice is going to be either the same or a little bit worse.

I'll probably actually sit through 40-50 games. Maybe more if management finally accepts that their team building philosophy has failed.

I bought tickets for one game last year against Tampa when Stamkos got injured. I got free tickets from my aunt's work once. Other than that I was okay with not attending any games. It is a hard product to watch. Heck, I think I only watched 5-7 complete games. Watched a lot of 1st periods and then said, ouch nevermind and went on with whatever I needed to do lol.

There are only about 4000 tickets available for public per game, the rest are all season ticket holders. I don't see anything changing in the next couple years.

 

[TatarTangle]

The same Jimmy Howard who was 10-11-1? Yeah, he was totally the difference maker. If only they could've had like, 1 more point.

He was the difference maker considering the pathetic goal support he had yet was still able to give them a chance to win nearly every game. Mrazek letting in 4-6 goals while they actually were scoring goals isn't exactly a confidence booster.

What was he handed again? Out played Jimmy took the starter role only to have KH show favor to Jimmy. Calls out KH on his **** moves direction of the team and the fact the young players don't get along with the coach. After doing so was left unprotected by KH because his ego can't have people question him. KH built this roster and will not take blame or anyone questioning him. They will not make the playoffs.

He was handed the starting position, he didn't outplay Howard unless you're using the Tampa Bay series from 10 years ago that everyone desperately clings to but is unwilling to see that Mrazek is a train wreck technically speaking.

Furthermore, after having the worst, dead last, statistics out of all starting goalies in the NHL that gives him the right to call out bullpoop? Lol, okay, maybe he should focus on calling out his own bullpoop and start working hard to be what he can be. I hope he does, whether it's here or elsewhere.

 

[TatarTangle]

FWIW I think the NHL is a business and entertainment, I don't think you can just call it one or the other. Franchises are in it to make money, plain and simple

However, it's management's job to realize their business model is not producing a product, entertainment in this case, good enough to succed and that model must be changed if they want to make money. I think we all know what KH believes.

 

[HockeyinHD]

If the current team does that for you, fantastic. But if you're feeling the vibe changed in the last 5 years, it's a direct result of a team sliding further and further from their peak.

I, and I know many others, want a manger that says, "It was an amazing run, but it's time to retool for the next one. We'll do everything we can to get back to being a Cup contender and that might mean some difficult years. But know every decision is with that singular goal in mind."

This is, has always been, and will always continue to be the argument.

The pro-tank people are perfectly willing, on the front end, for the team to suck for x years for the purpose of possibly getting back to an acceptable (to them) level of play at some future time. Their willingness to endure a tank that lasts longer than 3 years is debatable at best, and in the middle of said tank there are absolutely going to be defections, but whatever.

IMO, there's no actual evidence a tank does much beyond marginally improve the chance of a teams ceiling to be higher, and is rather more likely to just add x years of being really bad to a bunch of years of being in the middle of the pack.

In the teams opinion, they have wanted to:

-Make a bunch of money each year by being competitive in the real sense of the word, not the gerrymandered sense of the word used here wherein one must be a contender to be competitive. Check.

-Make around a half billion dollars from the city in free money by remaining good enough to have leverage to extract such from the typically stupid legislators who hand out such largesse while vital services circle their own drains. Check.

-Not take a galactically cynical pile of poo on everyone with half a functioning brain by quitting on anything remotely resembling a winning team .000001 seconds into the aforementioned new arena, doing tremendous damage to their brand. In progress.

It is entirely possible that the team will stink in spite of their best efforts to not stink. It is also entirely possible that the team will stink and their protestations of trying to not stink are abject lies told specifically to gull people, namely the likewise aforementioned stupid legislators who, after being so resoundingly exposed as stupid might try something retributive via legislation, to the teams harm.

For many people, being a fan of a team that is at least trying to win and be competitive in the real sense is enough. Maybe not for most fans here, who seem to believe in a notion perilously near 'Cup or bust', but those hyperexaggerated levels of expectation are not reflected either across the specific fandom of the Wings, or other pro teams in Detroit, or with pro teams generally, or even in ~95% of competitive teams, pro and otherwise.

Instead what we have is this:
"Nobody wants to see a rebuild," Holland said. "They want to see us in the playoffs. For those people that believe tanking... there are no guarantees."

Nobody wants a rebuild? Heh. Nobody. Nobody? OK. Ooooook. By the way, that quote comes from an article titled: Ken Holland's vision for Detroit Red Wings at odds with fans'

Well, obviously.

Look, of course there are people who want to tank. Holland's language is a combination of typical PR speak along with some goofy rhetorical devices, and almost certainly at least a sprinkling of outright lies.

Where "you guys" and "those guys" will constantly fail to find intellectual common ground is that "you guys" are already disheartened and p'd off. To "you guys" there's no real downside to a tank because even if it fails you won't dislike what the team is doing any more than you already do. So, if the Wings fire Holland and hire some other schlomo under whom a tank is attempted and fails to accomplish your goal, an eventuality approaching something near 90+%, you'll just switch out Holland's name for Herr Schlomo and demand he be fired next. Nothing really changes. Your level of 'entertainment' remains constant, and effectively zero. I mean, we saw precisely this with the 'Fire Babcock' nonsense. Blashill arrives, and after a (very) short honeymoon? Fire Blashill. Lather, rinse, repeat.

On the other hand, for "those guys", the ones who actually derive either entertainment or profit from the team by being fans with less exalted expectations or those entrusted with actual financial goals, there are most assuredly downsides to a tank. A tanking team is typically wholly unpalatable to watch, and the impact to profit numbers can be immediate and substantial.

This issue gets chewed over endlessly because "you guys" are a strong majority here and demand "those guys" agree with you, and if they don't they are pro-Holland shills, contrarians, they don't want the team to win, are stinky doo doo heads of the lowest order, et cetera.

Enh. It's stuff to keep the boards going along during a time of limited topics, obviously, but it's largely just an instance of a large group of people talking past a small group of people.