Red Wings between now and New Years.

[Redder Winger]

if we are miraculously in a playoff spot at the TDL we need to move on from Green regardless. I would say look at what Shattenkirk and Yandle hauled in.

- The Rangers acquired defenseman Keith Yandle, defenseman Chris Summers and a fourth-round pick in 2016 in exchange for defenseman John Moore, top prospect Anthony Duclair, a lottery-protected first-round draft pick in 2016 and a second-round pick in 2015. The Coyotes also are retaining 50 percent of Yandle's salary in the deal.

- The Blues get forward Zach Sanford, a 2017 first-round draft pick, and a conditional future second-round pick for Kevin Shattenkirk

So we're looking at a first, second,+ here

I doubt we'll get a first, second and more.
A first would be good enough for me.

 

[Dotter]

Wings didn't tank for Zetterberg and Datsyuk. I felt a sense of pride when Wings won without taking in a salary cap world.

Fast forward to now, the NHL has rigged the game so everyone gets a chance at being competitive. It is only natural for Wings to have to take their lumps for being so good for so long. I get that and understand that comes with the territory.

Purposely tanking ins't proven and feels dirty.

But I appreciate your opinion. We are a group on different sides of the fence. I am just glad ownership/brass are on my side of the fence.

 

[TheMule93]

Wings didn't tank for Zetterberg and Datsyuk. I felt a sense of pride when Wings won without taking in a salary cap world.

Fast forward to now, the NHL has rigged the game so everyone gets a chance at being competitive. It is only natural for Wings to have to take their lumps for being so good for so long. I get that and understand that comes with the territory.

Purposely tanking ins't proven and feels dirty.

But I appreciate your opinion. We are a group on different sides of the fence. I am just glad ownership/brass are on my side of the fence.

Yeah, because they got ridiculously lucky. Why do you want the team to bank on getting ridiculously lucky? That's not a repeatable or sustainable way to build a team.

 

[Dotter]

Pens didn't get lucky they got a generational center and superstar center all within a couple of years? Almost like hockey is a major game of luck.

 

[TheMule93]

So when a team drafts a superstar with a top draft pick its luck, but when we draft a superstar in the 6th and 7th round its just good scouting eh

 

[Dotter]

I didn't realize generational superstar talent comes around 2 or 3 times in each draft. I must have misunderstood the word "generational".

I would think it is luck to be the one team that has the right timing and wins lottery to draft that one and only generational talent that won't come around again for maybe 10+ years. Silly me.

 

[Redder Winger]

Wings didn't tank for Zetterberg and Datsyuk. I felt a sense of pride when Wings won without taking in a salary cap world.

Fast forward to now, the NHL has rigged the game so everyone gets a chance at being competitive. It is only natural for Wings to have to take their lumps for being so good for so long. I get that and understand that comes with the territory.

Purposely tanking ins't proven and feels dirty.

But I appreciate your opinion. We are a group on different sides of the fence. I am just glad ownership/brass are on my side of the fence.

Ownership just wants to keep pretending this is Hockeytown until they can find some other way to fill the seats.
With the Wings and Pistons in there, it hardly matters anymore. They're making big bucks.
If it f***s up the ice (like the other night) and ruins the entertainment value, who cares?
Corporate season ticketholders write off this shit anyway.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Nothing is a certainty. But some approaches have better mathematical odds. That horse has been beaten to death up and down these forums, so I'm not sure why people continue to refute it.

What are those odds? Everyone acts like they are certain that tanking has a significantly better probability. But how much evidence do you have? How many Cup wins have there been since the salary cap? How many since the new lottery rules? The sample size is nothing. And there are way too many variables to take into account. We have Edmonton as evidence that tanking doesn't work. We have Pittsburgh as evidence that tanking does work. We have Detroit as evidence that not tanking works. But none of these really means anything because the sample size is nothing.

If you think tanking is the best strategy, that's fine. I just dislike how people are so CERTAIN of that. And I prefer not tanking, because of Dotter's reasoning for one, and because I'm just not convinced that the probability is SO much better as you guys all make it out. Maybe it's a tiny bit better, at the expense of playing dishonorably. Or maybe it's just a crapshoot and complete waste.

In a 30 team parity league, it's possible to have a 5 year stretch where NO strategy would have got you a win, just because of the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Syckle78]

One of five different teams have been in the finals the last 10 years out of a league of thirty teams. With 3 teams combining for 7 of the last ten cups. The NHLs parity is a joke,a parody if you will.

 

[TheMule93]

One of five different teams have been in the finals the last 10 years out of a league of thirty teams. With 3 teams combining for 7 of the last ten cups. The NHLs parity is a joke,a parody if you will.

small sample size

 

[Winger98]

What are those odds? Everyone acts like they are certain that tanking has a significantly better probability. But how much evidence do you have? How many Cup wins have there been since the salary cap? How many since the new lottery rules? The sample size is nothing. And there are way too many variables to take into account. We have Edmonton as evidence that tanking doesn't work. We have Pittsburgh as evidence that tanking does work. We have Detroit as evidence that not tanking works. But none of these really means anything because the sample size is nothing.

If you think tanking is the best strategy, that's fine. I just dislike how people are so CERTAIN of that. And I prefer not tanking, because of Dotter's reasoning for one, and because I'm just not convinced that the probability is SO much better as you guys all make it out. Maybe it's a tiny bit better, at the expense of playing dishonorably. Or maybe it's just a crapshoot and complete waste.

In a 30 team parity league, it's possible to have a 5 year stretch where NO strategy would have got you a win, just because of the way the cookie crumbles.

Frk It has posted various odds for what can be expected up and down the draft numerous times. IIRC, just the fall in expected production from the first pick to the fifth pick is notable, and it doesn't get a whole lot better after that. By the time we reach where the Wings normally pick then getting a Tatar or Nyquist is a run away success. You can go to hockeydb and just eyeball it from calling up the various drafts from the past 15 years or so.

I'm not sure the line being drawn between drafting and success necessary leads to the cup, though. My take on that side of the argument is that we need more high end talent, and high end talent is typically what at least gets you in the conversation for competing for a Cup. The high end talent in every draft is clustered around those first ten picks - and more realistically the top5. So, if we want that high end talent that we need, the best way to do it is to just suck hard enough to lose our way to it. It doesn't guarantee us a Cup, but outside of either an out and out brutal draft year or brutal drafting it does essentially guarantee us better talent.

I'd have more hope for Holland's middle of the road approach if Holland could be a bit more ruthless with his roster management. If we're not going to be bad enough to draft high, we need to draft more often. Dealing guys like Gator and Helm would have given us those needed extra picks, while not hurting the team that much.

There isn't a guarantee in anything, but that's not an excuse to not try to make the odds as favorable as possible.

 

[Syckle78]

small sample size

Lol what? It's a freaking decade. Nothing has changed post and pre cap. Artificial parity in the regular season has certainly changed nothing when it comes to actual contenders once the playoffs roll around. You either have elite talent at the right positions or you don't.

 

[FlashyG]

So when a team drafts a superstar with a top draft pick its luck, but when we draft a superstar in the 6th and 7th round its just good scouting eh

Yes, exactly.

A can't miss generational talent drafted with a pick that you received thanks to an unweighted lottery is luck.

An elite forward drafted that late in the the draft is good scouting.

 

[Dotter]

"you have to be good to be that lucky" - True words spoken by Mickey Redmond.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I'm not sure the line being drawn between drafting and success necessary leads to the cup, though.

This is exactly the point I'm making. You can get Crosby or you can get RNH, but there are a ton more variables you have to take into account for a Cup run.

I'd have more hope for Holland's middle of the road approach if Holland could be a bit more ruthless with his roster management. If we're not going to be bad enough to draft high, we need to draft more often. Dealing guys like Gator and Helm would have given us those needed extra picks, while not hurting the team that much.

This is always a weird thing to hear from the other side. You see "rebuild on the fly doesn't work at all, end of story" and in the same breath "Holland made all these bad moves."

Just consider for a moment, maybe if Holland had made better moves, rebuild on the fly COULD have worked. Every move Holland has made or not made is another variable to consider. If he does them poorly, it ruins your evidence about whether or not the overarching strategy would have worked.

Lol what? It's a freaking decade. Nothing has changed post and pre cap. Artificial parity in the regular season has certainly changed nothing when it comes to actual contenders once the playoffs roll around. You either have elite talent at the right positions or you don't.

You say "decade" like it's a big deal. That's 10 Cup winners. That's nothing. It would take 10 times that to even THINK about drawing conclusions, and by then more rules will have changed.

 

[TatarTangle]

You say "decade" like it's a big deal. That's 10 Cup winners. That's nothing. It would take 10 times that to even THINK about drawing conclusions, and by then more rules will have changed.

Then the Red Wings 25 year playoff streak is also nothing.

 

[RedWingzz]

From now until New Years we will play roughly .500 hockey. We will get passed by a couple teams in the division pushing us out of a playoff spot, but will still be ahead of the basement dwellers. This should set us up for a pick at around 12 overall, which is basically worst case scenario right now for this team.

I either want to make the playoffs and try to have some cinderella magic run or tank and draft in the top 5. It has to be one or the other, we will continue to be in this territory where we aren't good, but aren't terrible if we continue to draft players like Cholo and Rasmussen and Svechnikov in the first round. I like all 3 of these guys, but we need a future superstar, and none of these 3 are going to be superstars, let alone stars.

 

[TheMule93]

Then the Red Wings 25 year playoff streak is also nothing.

Its really not anything special IMO. The only impressive parts are the cup wins. Is anyone impressed with the Blue's 25 year streak? Not really. Are their fans and management super proud of it? No.

 

[Flowah]

small sample size

It only makes sense to start with the cap era. There's only been so many years.

We have Edmonton as evidence that tanking doesn't work. We have Pittsburgh as evidence that tanking does work. We have Detroit as evidence that not tanking works. But none of these really means anything because the sample size is nothing.

Edmonton isn't evidence that tanking doesn't work. It's evidence that tanking alone is not sufficient. Role players are still important. Coaching is still important. Luck is still important. Health is often a huge part of who moves on. Detroit is not evidence that not tanking works. Detroit's winning core came from before the lockout and was built off the backs of two elite players that even Detroit's management has acknowledged as "lucky" for having drafted them. It's not a sustainable model. That much should be evident by the absolute dearth of anything approaching elite talent since Zetterberg was drafted. Kronwall is the closest we had and that should speak volumes. And that core hadn't been truly competitive since 2010, 2012 at the latest. Not tanking has not "worked" for us for at least 5+ years. As soon as Lidstrom retired we saw our team nosedive. As soon as Pavel retired we missed the playoffs for the first time in 25 seasons.

The impact of an elite player is enormous, even ones as old as Lidstrom and Pavel were. And we can't find elite players in the 5th round. We haven't in over a decade. Most teams don't find them there either. They find them in the top3-5 picks.

Ultimately you're all just thinking about this the wrong way.

You think tanking produces a terrible product not worth watching for potentially no return. I would tell you we already have a terrible product not worth watching. I would gladly take a slightly worse product in exchange for better odds at an elite player. I trust our scouting staff to find the supporting cast throughout the draft. They've been pretty good at that.

 

[Winger98]

This is exactly the point I'm making. You can get Crosby or you can get RNH, but there are a ton more variables you have to take into account for a Cup run.

This is always a weird thing to hear from the other side. You see "rebuild on the fly doesn't work at all, end of story" and in the same breath "Holland made all these bad moves."

Just consider for a moment, maybe if Holland had made better moves, rebuild on the fly COULD have worked. Every move Holland has made or not made is another variable to consider. If he does them poorly, it ruins your evidence about whether or not the overarching strategy would have worked

I was never fully against the rebuild on the fly thing. I was totally against re-upping Gator and Helm, and a few other signings, because I thought (and still think) those type of guys should be moved in their UFA years for picks to help that rebuild idea. If we're not picking high, I think we have to find another way to better our odds at the draft. And the only way to do that is picking more. Holland's conservative nature seems to work hard against what's needed for a on-the-fly rebuild to have a good chance at working, and that's why I've drifted far closer to the "just start sucking so we can draft high enough to get the talent we need" camp. The path Holland ended up charting has relied on blind luck far more than it should have.

Even now, though, if we get lucky and (for example) Hronek and Cholo become top pairing D, Holland could walk away from this mess looking pretty darn good. And Hakan Andersson's legacy would get a shot in the arm as well.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Then the Red Wings 25 year playoff streak is also nothing.

Sure let's compare apples and bicycles

 

[TheOtherOne]

Edmonton isn't evidence that tanking doesn't work. It's evidence that tanking alone is not sufficient. Role players are still important. Coaching is still important. Luck is still important. Health is often a huge part of who moves on. Detroit is not evidence that not tanking works. Detroit's winning core came from before the lockout and was built off the backs of two elite players that even Detroit's management has acknowledged as "lucky" for having drafted them.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for reiterating my point. Also, "Pittsburgh is not evidence that tanking works. Crosby only exists once in a million years." Just to finish the thought.

To clarify, we have at best like 10 Cup winners as data for what strategies work and don't work, but every single one of them has a bunch of caveats attached, so we really have a sample size of like zero and can't conclude jack shit.

 

[TatarTangle]

Sure let's compare apples and bicycles

You're using a decade as a measurement, you don't get to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't relative to the decade.

If we use a decade as "nothing" we can't say the Red Wings have been a succesful franchise the past 25 years. Well, realistically 22ish years

In any event I'm with Syckle on this one. Have a good one.

 

[njx9]

If Holland keeps him and we’re a first round exit or don’t make it after the deadline, and Green walks, Holland has his resignation letter signed for him. Can’t validate losing your “best defenseman” (quotations emphasized) after being a playoff non-factor 2 years in a row when your defense is already a candidate for bottom 5 as it is.

I don't believe Green would walk. He'll get offered the Abbie/Nielsen special, and it'll absolutely blow away any other offer he might get. He can look for/ask for a trade to a contender a la Timonen, whenever he's ready to retire.

 

[Flowah]

Yes, exactly. Thank you for reiterating my point. Also, "Pittsburgh is not evidence that tanking works. Crosby only exists once in a million years." Just to finish the thought.

To clarify, we have at best like 10 Cup winners as data for what strategies work and don't work, but every single one of them has a bunch of caveats attached, so we really have a sample size of like zero and can't conclude jack ****.

You're deluding yourself if you think your point was supported there.

Pittsburgh is evidence that tanking works. If accompanied by other elements. Crosby only exists once in a million years, but Toews exists, Kopitar exists, Doughty exists, Kane exists. There have been plenty of elite players picked through the years that have a cup other than Crosby. There are also plenty of other elite players who could win a cup but haven't yet. Stamkos exists.

You're again, looking at it all wrong.

The data shows that having an elite player is almost a necessity for winning the cup. Every single cup winner has had one since the lockout. They don't need to be Crosby level, but they need to be at least Bergeron/Zetterberg/Doughty level. Now, historically, where does the data show those players being picked? In terms of probability, it's many times higher in the first 5 picks of each draft.

That's all you really need to know.

Now, since I'm tired of people somehow construing this as "tanking is all you need to win!!!" I'll be totally explicit about this. You still need the rest of the team. You're not going to tank your way to a solid middle pairing or top9. But you can find those pieces way easier later in the draft than you can an elite player. Tanking exists only because it's *that goddamn hard* to find an elite player outside the top5.