Rebuild conversation # 172

[jkutswings]

To all of you "tank" fans, have the examples of Buffalo, Edmonton, and Arizona taught you nothing? How long are you willing to be irrelevant and don't you understand that 1-2 high picks give you absolutely nothing in terms of the overall quality and competitiveness of your team? I guess you do not understand that.

The teams you listed are examples of terrible execution, not necessarily terrible strategy. Toronto seems to be doing just fine after throwing away a season or two (in fairness, largely due to a lot of luck in getting Matthews, but they've made several other good moves). New Jersey and Colorado have made huge strides this year. Not every bottom feeder results in extended irrelevance.

There's no one perfect way to build a team in terms of strategy. But since 2013, I've seen a good draft pick in Dylan Larkin...and hardly anything else worth mentioning at this point. So I want a new front office, who has better execution and creativity, regardless of which strategy they begin with.

 

[pz29]

The teams you listed are examples of terrible execution, not necessarily terrible strategy. Toronto seems to be doing just fine after throwing away a season or two (in fairness, largely due to a lot of luck in getting Matthews, but they've made several other good moves). New Jersey and Colorado have made huge strides this year. Not every bottom feeder results in extended irrelevance.

There's no one perfect way to build a team in terms of strategy. But since 2013, I've seen a good draft pick in Dylan Larkin...and hardly anything else worth mentioning at this point. So I want a new front office, who has better execution and creativity, regardless of which strategy they begin with.

How many seasons did you say Toronto "throw away? A season or two or a decade or two?

 

[TheMule93]

How many seasons did you say Toronto "throw away? A season or two or a decade or two?

How many years they "threw away" depends on how you look at it. You could say they only "threw away" the second half of 14-15 (traded away Phaneuf, Kessel at the deadline), and all of 15-16 when they tanked. Or you could say they threw away the previous decade by not doing a proper rebuild. I tend to say they threw away the entire decade after Sundin got old because they had no realistic shot at acquiring new elite talent to build around and win a cup with. I say we've thrown away the past 5 years after Lidstrom left/Suter took his talents to West Beach of lake superior because again, we had no realistic shot at getting elite talent. No shot at replacing Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

For the past 5 years we've been doing exactly what Toronto tried to do all throughout the 2000s. Try to rebuild without actually rebuilding. Riding their old star into mediocrity. They had zero success until they committed to an actual rebuild halfway through 14-15, got marner, then tanked the next season and got Matthews. They already had some quality support players & prospects (JVR, Kadri, Reilley, Gardiner, Nylander, etc) which we have in Larkin, Mantha, AA, Bertuzzi, and some promising prospects in Cholo, Hronek, Rasmussen.

We're missing our Matthews. Maybe AA and Mantha can be Nylander and Marner. Larkin is already better than Kadri, but he's no Matthews. He's not a superstar that will deserve $10m+. Toronto didn't get their Matthews until they attempted to get a top draft pick. We're probably not going to get a superstar either unless we land a top 3 pick. And in my opinion, not getting a top draft pick is throwing the season away (in the context of our current team). And by Matthews i mean any sort of superstar (center, winger, defenseman) preferably C or D but Larkin should be an adequate C with an elite winger as well.

 

[Frk It]

Well, Larkin might as well be considered a top 5ish pick at this point relative to his draft class. Rasmussen could turn out to be more valuable than his draft rank would indicate, as well. This year's draft is supposed to be deep, so anyone in the top 10 could become a fantastic player. Next year's draft is supposed to be deep too. With some good luck that's 4 potential core pieces by the end of next draft from the first round alone. I'd rather be optimistic that our scouting staff will draft smartly, than watch a multi-year tank job that would depend on a whole lot of lottery luck to be even worth it.

Consistently doing that over a 4-5 year span has proven to be pretty unrealistic, when you look around the league.

 

[ShelbyZ]

How many seasons did you say Toronto "throw away? A season or two or a decade or two?

How many years they "threw away" depends on how you look at it. You could say they only "threw away" the second half of 14-15 (traded away Phaneuf, Kessel at the deadline), and all of 15-16 when they tanked. Or you could say they threw away the previous decade by not doing a proper rebuild. I tend to say they threw away the entire decade after Sundin got old because they had no realistic shot at acquiring new elite talent to build around and win a cup with. I say we've thrown away the past 5 years after Lidstrom left/Suter took his talents to West Beach of lake superior because again, we had no realistic shot at getting elite talent. No shot at replacing Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

For the past 5 years we've been doing exactly what Toronto tried to do all throughout the 2000s. Try to rebuild without actually rebuilding. Riding their old star into mediocrity. They had zero success until they committed to an actual rebuild halfway through 14-15, got marner, then tanked the next season and got Matthews. They already had some quality support players & prospects (JVR, Kadri, Reilley, Gardiner, Nylander, etc) which we have in Larkin, Mantha, AA, Bertuzzi, and some promising prospects in Cholo, Hronek, Rasmussen.

We're missing our Matthews. Maybe AA and Mantha can be Nylander and Marner. Larkin is already better than Kadri, but he's no Matthews. He's not a superstar that will deserve $10m+. Toronto didn't get their Matthews until they attempted to get a top draft pick. We're probably not going to get a superstar either unless we land a top 3 pick. And in my opinion, not getting a top draft pick is throwing the season away (in the context of our current team). And by Matthews i mean any sort of superstar (center, winger, defenseman) preferably C or D but Larkin should be an adequate C with an elite winger as well.

The similarity between the post lockout Leafs and the Wings now is a good one. But Ken Holland has been more conservative since facing a similar downturn. The Leafs mortgaged a lot of future to try to rebuild quick and when it didn't work, Burke came in and doubled it down... Even if Holland is similarly trying to "rebuild without rebuilding", he's at least putting value on the draft, while the Leafs tossed out picks like candy on Halloween for any perceived quick fix.

With JFJ, they had an old but once very competitive (playoffs from 99-04, getting to the second round in all but one, 2x to the ECF) core that they tried for a couple of years to Band-Aid with some UFA veterans. And IIRC, they were also a little thin on prospects since they had made a few big deadline deals before the lockout. Thankfully, Holland has not yet resorted to throwing out futures to try to quickly fill holes like JFJ did with the Raycroft and Toskala trades, and it appears he knows that's not the right path.

It was Burke that really toasted them. The trades, UFA signings and throwing away of futures just got bigger and dumber. The other issue was that Burkes drafting outside of top 10 picks was atrocious. You can look up trades where Burke sent out two picks to move up in the draft, where the Leafs ended up with a player of zero NHL impact and the other team got two players that are now NHL regulars. (For example in 2011 he sent #30 and #39 to the Ducks for #22. Burke took Tyler Biggs.... The Ducks took John Gibson and Rickard Rakell....) and that isn't just one instance, there are others. And in the rare instance that Burke was a deadline seller, the Leafs got assets that dead ended. Everyone remembers Kaberle being on the market and how the price was going to be steep.... Now almost 7 years after the trade, the Leafs have nothing to show for it... Joe Colborne made no impact and was traded for a 4th which was coupled with Gunnarsson to get Roman Polak, who has left as a UFA and deadline rental at least twice now... The 2011 1st rounder from Boston was #30 in the above deal which brought the pick that took Tyler Biggs, who never played an NHL game and is now in the ECHL. The 2012 2nd was quickly sent out for John Michael Liles, who was quickly given a 4yr extension before getting waived and sent to the AHL and then being part of a package to bring in Tim Gleason as a rental.... OUCH.

It was a shame because in hindsight if JFJ calmed down a bit on goalie trades, they may have found their way because he was at least somewhat competent at the draft table.

 

[jkutswings]

How many seasons did you say Toronto "throw away? A season or two or a decade or two?

The current management: 1-2 years, while making smart decisions.

The previous management: much much longer, while making poor decisions. Again, execution, not necessarily strategy.

 

[Leadzedder]

I dont think things are all that complicated.

- We have a 5.6% chance of making the playoffs.

- Due to changing the philosophy of trading high picks we have some young talent to build around;
Larkin, Mantha, Cholowski,Svechnikov, Rasmussen, AA, Bert, etc.

- We desperately need a franchise level player

- It makes sense to hope for a big hit in the next draft or so.

- It’s ideal to get a couple of big pieces in the next couple drafts without turning the red wings culture into that of shit.

- So, the team plays hard, the young guys get big ice time, we don’t trade away future assets to plug holes.

- We sell off assets to help our future

- We keep long term red wings to help us not be the Oilers. Keeping the culture and tradition alive. And we really shouldn’t care about not having cap space to sign ufas. Until Karlsson, Doughty and OEL hit the market (if they do).




So what exactly is hard to understand?


As for not understanding the hoping for a loss mentality... that’s acceptable. But if we end up with a top 3 pick in a throw away year that causes no long term damage, that’s a positive.

 

[Leadzedder]

Anyway. This thread turned into some sort of rebuild conversation. I’ll see if I can rename it.

“Rebuild conversation # 72” or something like that. Have fun with it.

I’ll start another “standings tracker” thread.

 

[TheMule93]

i hope we can win a cup before we get to rebuild conversation #300

 

[obey86]

What about the teams that got high picks and then won Cups within 5 years... like Chicago and Pittsburgh?

There are no guarantees in re-building, just like there are no guarantees in life.

-We know that the worst teams have the best odds of drafting high.
-We know that there is a very strong correlation between drafting high and getting elite players.
-We know that elite players are required for winning Cups.

Yeah, people are going to draw a line there... what do you expect?

How many teams in the league haven't had a top 5 pick at some point in the last 20 seasons? Serious question. None?

 

[Pavels Dog]

Most of those guys were drafted by guys who are no longer here, I'm pretty sure.

We can’t evaluate the last few drafts yet, but obviously there’s some value there.

 

[Dotter]

Outside of Larkin, AA, Mantha, and Bertuzzi, I don't have much faith in where this team is going. As far as I'm concerned, anybody outside those 4 are tradable. Having said that... this team could use more players like Bertuzzi. I've been saying that for years.

And 6 to 10 months ago it was Larkin and Mantha, now you add in AA and Bertuzzi. Curious who adds to that list within the next 12 months. Exciting time to be a Detroit Red Wings fan if you love seeing player development.

 

[HockeyinHD]

The teams you listed are examples of terrible execution, not necessarily terrible strategy. Toronto seems to be doing just fine after throwing away a season or two (in fairness, largely due to a lot of luck in getting Matthews, but they've made several other good moves). New Jersey and Colorado have made huge strides this year. Not every bottom feeder results in extended irrelevance.

The Devils have missed the playoffs for 5 years.
The Avs have missed the playoffs 8 of the past 11, and have won a single playoff round in that timeframe.

This would be similar to Detroit being in their current condition through, say, 2022? I suppose we could play the 'but what does extended irrelevance really mean?' game, but any way one looks at this it's a 5 year window to come out the other side and then be... what? NJ's the #5 and Colorado is the #7. Those are the positions people here lamented Detroit being at all the time in the first place.

There's no one perfect way to build a team in terms of strategy. But since 2013, I've seen a good draft pick in Dylan Larkin...and hardly anything else worth mentioning at this point. So I want a new front office, who has better execution and creativity, regardless of which strategy they begin with.

Enh. That reads to me a lot like the 'I'm tired of Babcock, the team needs a new voice' stuff from a few years back. Then we get Blashill and everyone gets really excited about the new voice. Then the new voice speaks. Sad trombone.

There's no-one in the NHL, anywhere, doing anything particularly amazing on the GM side of things. The most likely scenarios after Holland gets bumped up to a Devellano role is that the team either a) goes for an established GM who is going to do the same general stuff Holland would have anyway or b) goes for an internal hire a la Blashill.

There's not some magical front office maneuver that takes a team in a heavily capped narrow band competition league and does much to change the impact of working within that dynamic. In any scenario Detroit is 90+% likely to be a mid-pack team that goes a round or two deep every 10 years. That's the NHL in all cases except when a team hits the jackpot a couple times in a row like Pittsburgh or Chicago, real 1% type shots.

Detroit is just what the NHL has looked like for 22ish teams for the past 20 years. Maybe we catch a break and land an exciting player or two via the draft/UFA/Martian intervention and things bump up a notch or two, but absent that it's going to be steady as she goes.

 

[Claypool]

For the past 5 years we've been doing exactly what Toronto tried to do all throughout the 2000s. Try to rebuild without actually rebuilding.

False. Detroit never traded away two first round, non-lottery protected picks to acquire a star winger. Toronto's downfall happened when they couldn't draft Seguin and Hamilton.

Detroit is a couple years away still from truly turning over the roster but they haven't moved any important pieces. They've also been stock-piling draft picks and have made good drafting decisions picking up extra players such as Bertuzzi and Hronek from moving back in the draft.

 

[jkutswings]

The Devils have missed the playoffs for 5 years.
The Avs have missed the playoffs 8 of the past 11, and have won a single playoff round in that timeframe.

This would be similar to Detroit being in their current condition through, say, 2022? I suppose we could play the 'but what does extended irrelevance really mean?' game, but any way one looks at this it's a 5 year window to come out the other side and then be... what? NJ's the #5 and Colorado is the #7. Those are the positions people here lamented Detroit being at all the time in the first place.



Enh. That reads to me a lot like the 'I'm tired of Babcock, the team needs a new voice' stuff from a few years back. Then we get Blashill and everyone gets really excited about the new voice. Then the new voice speaks. Sad trombone.

There's no-one in the NHL, anywhere, doing anything particularly amazing on the GM side of things. The most likely scenarios after Holland gets bumped up to a Devellano role is that the team either a) goes for an established GM who is going to do the same general stuff Holland would have anyway or b) goes for an internal hire a la Blashill.

There's not some magical front office maneuver that takes a team in a heavily capped narrow band competition league and does much to change the impact of working within that dynamic. In any scenario Detroit is 90+% likely to be a mid-pack team that goes a round or two deep every 10 years. That's the NHL in all cases except when a team hits the jackpot a couple times in a row like Pittsburgh or Chicago, real 1% type shots.

Detroit is just what the NHL has looked like for 22ish teams for the past 20 years. Maybe we catch a break and land an exciting player or two via the draft/UFA/Martian intervention and things bump up a notch or two, but absent that it's going to be steady as she goes.

So.. you're distilling the entirety of the responsibility of the front office of a professional sports franchise into...luck? Mmkay.

Luck is landing both Malkin and Crosby, yes. But let's not pretend that Pittsburgh hasn't also made several shrewd moves to round out that roster, and continue to keep it a contender for quite awhile. Same deal for Chicago, with the rabbit's foot on Toews and Kane, followed up with several smart moves.

If you want to say, by contrast, that Detroit has had bad luck on some early draft picks, ok. But drafting too few defensemen as a position, when you know you're losing your best one soon, isn't bad luck. Nor is signing role players to ironclad golden parachute contracts. This franchise has shot itself in the foot several times, which has nothing to do with luck.

You need both good execution and good fortune to rise above the giant wave of mediocrity. I just haven't seen a healthy dose of either from this front office for several years now.

 

[Dotter]

So.. you're distilling the entirety of the responsibility of the front office of a professional sports franchise into...luck? Mmkay.

Luck is landing both Malkin and Crosby, yes. But let's not pretend that Pittsburgh hasn't also made several shrewd moves to round out that roster, and continue to keep it a contender for quite awhile. Same deal for Chicago, with the rabbit's foot on Toews and Kane, followed up with several smart moves.

If you want to say, by contrast, that Detroit has had bad luck on some early draft picks, ok. But drafting too few defensemen as a position, when you know you're losing your best one soon, isn't bad luck. Nor is signing role players to ironclad golden parachute contracts. This franchise has shot itself in the foot several times, which has nothing to do with luck.

You need both good execution and good fortune to rise above the giant wave of mediocrity. I just haven't seen a healthy dose of either from this front office for several years now.

Since 2011 Red Wings picked 20 defensemen. In comparison, Predators drafted 18.

 

[izlez]

Toronto is still has yet to win a playoff series, is right in line to have the 6th-8th most points in the conference all while really specializing in 3-on-3 that doesn't exist in the playoffs.

Praise their successful rebuild, but demand we fire our GM for incompetence when we were in the same spot

 

[jkutswings]

Nobody said the Leafs are Cup contenders right now, or that they're finished rebuilding. If Toronto doesn't continue to improve their roster, and never amounts to more than a token playoff appearance caliber of a team, then their front office should be criticized for not finishing the job. But at the moment, they clearly have a lot more talent, and a brighter next few years, than Detroit does, and I don't see anything wrong with citing them as 'off to a good start'.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Since 2011 Red Wings picked 20 defensemen. In comparison, Predators drafted 18.

But how many in the first 2 rounds? Not very many.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

The Devils have missed the playoffs for 5 years.
The Avs have missed the playoffs 8 of the past 11, and have won a single playoff round in that timeframe.

This would be similar to Detroit being in their current condition through, say, 2022? I suppose we could play the 'but what does extended irrelevance really mean?' game, but any way one looks at this it's a 5 year window to come out the other side and then be... what? NJ's the #5 and Colorado is the #7. Those are the positions people here lamented Detroit being at all the time in the first place.

This is simplifying the issues people had with Detroit from 2010-2016. A team in the second wildcard spot or the second divisional spot while anticipating an upward trend is going to be analyzed differently than a team in the same spot but anticipating a downward trend. That shouldn't be a controversial idea. If those teams stagnate or get worse, then their management will have to make changes. Again, shouldn't be a controversial idea.

Enh. That reads to me a lot like the 'I'm tired of Babcock, the team needs a new voice' stuff from a few years back. Then we get Blashill and everyone gets really excited about the new voice. Then the new voice speaks. Sad trombone.

I don't know of anyone who guarantees that a change will fix the problems. We could change GMs and get a bad one. We could do that ten times and get ten bad GMs. But right now people assert that the GM we have is bad, which is a certainty and not a possibility. Hence why people want to make the change. That is why you make changes to coaches and GMs in this league. The prospect of the replacement being better is high enough to take the risk.

There's no-one in the NHL, anywhere, doing anything particularly amazing on the GM side of things. The most likely scenarios after Holland gets bumped up to a Devellano role is that the team either a) goes for an established GM who is going to do the same general stuff Holland would have anyway or b) goes for an internal hire a la Blashill.

And if they just pick a Holland clone that will be a bad thing and will reflect poorly on management. That isn't an argument for Holland. That is an argument for us shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, ownership is rooting against you so might as well not bother."

There's not some magical front office maneuver that takes a team in a heavily capped narrow band competition league and does much to change the impact of working within that dynamic. In any scenario Detroit is 90+% likely to be a mid-pack team that goes a round or two deep every 10 years. That's the NHL in all cases except when a team hits the jackpot a couple times in a row like Pittsburgh or Chicago, real 1% type shots.

Detroit is just what the NHL has looked like for 22ish teams for the past 20 years. Maybe we catch a break and land an exciting player or two via the draft/UFA/Martian intervention and things bump up a notch or two, but absent that it's going to be steady as she goes.

And if you are okay with the team having no ambition, more power to you. I think that is a sad mindset to take as a fan of a team that was as successful as it was for 20 or so seasons.

Toronto is still has yet to win a playoff series, is right in line to have the 6th-8th most points in the conference all while really specializing in 3-on-3 that doesn't exist in the playoffs.

Praise their successful rebuild, but demand we fire our GM for incompetence when we were in the same spot

Toronto is just about to hit their "Detroit of the early to mid 90s" stage where expectations are going to start ramping up for the team. Last season they were able to make the playoffs and make some waves in the first round. That is a good start. If they continue to lose in the first/second rounds while making waves that won't be good enough, and they will need to take a look at why that continues to happen for their roster.

 

[Winger98]

- We keep long term red wings to help us not be the Oilers. Keeping the culture and tradition alive. And we really shouldn’t care about not having cap space to sign ufas. Until Karlsson, Doughty and OEL hit the market (if they do).

Want to not be the Oilers? Get some quality NHLers outside of the second round, don't deal top5 in the league forwards for second pairing D, and don't deal your depth for dice roll prospects. The Oilers weren't total crap for ten years and haven't been able to build a consistent winner around McDavid and Draisaitl because they didn't hang onto Steve Staios and Fernando Pisani long enough.

This isn't just directed at your Leadzedder, but I'm so tired of people holding up clubs like the Oil, Florida, Buffalo, and Arizona as some sort of proof rebuilds don't work without going into why their rebuilds have sucked.

Florida was going well until their owners flipped out at the first sign of success and fired all of the guys who were actually responsible for it (before crawling back and re-instating Tallon). Then apparently put in some sort of internal budget that screwed their depth even more.

Buffalo panicked three years into their rebuild and handed the reigns to Jason Botteril and Phil Housley.

With Arizona, how long ago was it that their owner was trying to ship them to Ontario in the middle of the night? They've finally got more stable ownership and Chayka has been GM there less than two years.

Whether we keep Holland around or not, this club is going to have to pick their direction and stick with it for a good five years. Starting and stopping, switching philosophies, etc., that's the culture I think teams have to avoid. You have to pick your direction and then be willing to take the time to get there. You might get there and find Disney World is closed for the weekend, but you're never going to get there when it's open if you take the right at Albuquerque.

 

[Frk It]

Want to not be the Oilers? Get some quality NHLers outside of the second round, don't deal top5 in the league forwards for second pairing D, and don't deal your depth for dice roll prospects. The Oilers weren't total crap for ten years and haven't been able to build a consistent winner around McDavid and Draisaitl because they didn't hang onto Steve Staios and Fernando Pisani long enough.

This isn't just directed at your Leadzedder, but I'm so tired of people holding up clubs like the Oil, Florida, Buffalo, and Arizona as some sort of proof rebuilds don't work without going into why their rebuilds have sucked.

Thank you. +1000.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

The Wings are just a poorly run franchise just like the Oilers, Buffalo and AZ. The only difference is how they go about being incompetent. At the end of the day, the Wings are locked into a very very long rebuild with no end in sight and its not because that's the way the NHL is designed. If any GM not named Ken Holland assembled a max cap roster for five years and ended up with a grand total of five wins in the playoffs, they would have been fired before year five. And it's not like you can look back at those previous five seasons and argue they were even remotely worth it, when the reward for those five years is now having a bunch of atrocious contracts on the books that don't end for another five years.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Whether we keep Holland around or not, this club is going to have to pick their direction and stick with it for a good five years. Starting and stopping, switching philosophies, etc., that's the culture I think teams have to avoid. You have to pick your direction and then be willing to take the time to get there. You might get there and find Disney World is closed for the weekend, but you're never going to get there when it's open if you take the right at Albuquerque.

Yep this is why I hope we keep Holland. Don’t think there is a more patient GM in the league (world?). Dude will not give up on prospects, won’t go for blockbusters to try and get a flashier talent (aka Turris-Duchene trades), won’t burn a team to the ground because they look bad for 1-2 years.. I fully believe a steady, patient rebuilding approach will pay dividends eventually, but a frustrated owner that says ”I want what Toronto has!” or similar to a new GM could really throw a wrench into things.

 

[HockeyinHD]

So.. you're distilling the entirety of the responsibility of the front office of a professional sports franchise into...luck? Mmkay.

So, you're completely removing the whole aspect of chance from impacting the efficacy of a front office, making it 100%... skill? Mmmkay.

I mean, we can keep doing the 'wildly misrepresent the other guy' thing for a while if you want. I'm just not sure I see the point. Obviously there's skill that goes into this, and obviously there's luck that goes into this. Trying to wrench yourself around to believe I'm only talking about one of those seems like a waste of energy. Detroit drafts really well when we're talking about NHL players. They hit a lot. They struggle with elite players.

[Luck is landing both Malkin and Crosby, yes. But let's not pretend that Pittsburgh hasn't also made several shrewd moves to round out that roster, and continue to keep it a contender for quite awhile.

Awesome. Add Malkin and Crosby to this roster. Where are they in the standings? If Detroit had both guys over the past 5 years, where have they been?

Same deal for Chicago, with the rabbit's foot on Toews and Kane, followed up with several smart moves.

Ditto.

The point, obviously, is that Detroit's done most of the stuff they need to do in order to have a good team. The last and most difficult part is in securing the elite players. They've not done that (at all), so they are where they are. Detroit had a top 10 pick last year, and they had a top 10 pick in 1991. And by "top ten" I mean #9, and then #10. Those were their two, in one quarter decade (Onkar Plut voice).

If you want to say, by contrast, that Detroit has had bad luck on some early draft picks, ok. But drafting too few defensemen as a position, when you know you're losing your best one soon, isn't bad luck.

Yeah, because you can draft a Lidstrom every time you try. I wouldn't be so bemused by your position if you didn't have the entirety of the history of the NHL to help you know better. When you lose elite guys your franchise gets worse. This has always been true. It will always be true. Holland tricked you a bit by adding D and Z to the end of the late 90's run, and Lidstrom playing to 40 papered over things too.

Nor is signing role players to ironclad golden parachute contracts. This franchise has shot itself in the foot several times, which has nothing to do with luck.

Every NHL team has terrible contracts with the possible exception of Vegas, who will have them in 12 months.

You need both good execution and good fortune to rise above the giant wave of mediocrity. I just haven't seen a healthy dose of either from this front office for several years now.

You haven't seen a healthy dose of either from anyone. Even the teams who have gotten a little lucky haven't turned it into a lot.