Should Holland be replaced as GM? (and moved to front office)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
So if they drafted poorly but still had the ability to build a Stanley Cup team with trades... Isn't that remarkable? Because if you can't draft well, then you don't have any big trade chips.

A) That's not true. You always have draft picks.

B) That wasn't your point. Your point was that since Boston traded a lot, they were exploring an avenue that Detroit doesn't simply because Detroit chooses to ignore it.

I was pointing out to you that the reason Boston trades as much as they do is that they suck at drafting. As in, they are really, really bad at it. If they drafted as well as Detroit did, they wouldn't trade as much.

So since Holland can't draft a Cup blueline, he should trade for one like they did? That's what I'm gathering here.

There are three ways to acquire a player. Draft, Trades, FA. There aren't 7, there aren't 1 million, there isn't 1. There are three. If he doesn't find one via the draft (the cheapest way), then assuming the whole point of his roster moves is winning a Cup, he'd look at FA the second cheapest way, and then finally trades.

Snapping back into the real world for a second, where we all should know by now that winning a Cup isn't the point of the current organizational strategy, we can realize that Holland isn't trying to build a Cup winning blueline, just one good enough to get the team into the playoffs. So, different strategies will be employed.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
Spin whatever yarn you like. But if contending for a championship is the discussion

So please, explain just where such an extremely conservative approach is going to land multiple high-end pieces, since their overall track record since the cap began suggests that the odds of pulling it off are even slimmer than the farfetched top picks scenario you keep railing against.

I am continually amazed that people constantly fail to appreciate the actual realities here.

Has literally a single person suggested what Detroit is doing is the best way to win a Cup? No? Then what exactly are you talking about when you ask that question, because I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.

Detroit is not trying to win a Cup. Nobody is saying what they are doing is the best way to win a Cup. What people are saying is that the other methods of winning a Cup are tremendously fraught endeavors and nowhere nearly as certain to be any more effective than just getting lucky at pick 20 instead of getting lucky with pick 5... and oh by the way tanking will cost the team millions of dollars and had they tried it before the building maybe hundreds of millions in free money.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
I think their value drops because they are 22 and still in GR while we sign Miller, Ott, and Helm. Other teams look at it and go, "if he's so good, why is he still in the AHL? What is the problem with him?"

Depends. Are they messageboard posters or are they heads of organizations with decades of experience within the sport?

If I'm someone with actual expertise I would see another team undervaluing a player and see if I can get them for less than I think they are worth.

If I'm someone who allows my evaluation of an individual player to be swayed by how a competitor utilizes the player, then I should be prepping my gif game for my impending free time.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,853
8,578
Has literally a single person suggested what Detroit is doing is the best way to win a Cup? No? Then what exactly are you talking about when you ask that question, because I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.
I'm not saying others have claimed the current approach is the best way to win a Cup.

I'm actually agreeing with you in a sense, because what I am saying is that the current approach CANNOT win a Cup. It CAN make the playoffs, and MIGHT advance a round or two, but CANNOT be sufficient to win 16 games, because it would require multiple other teams to simply not get off the bus in order to be defeated by this pedestrian collection of players. The JV team versus the varsity, so to speak.

In terms of pocketing two home games worth of revenue, it's an exceedingly risk-averse, and fairly successful strategy. But it's fairly worthless for anything above and beyond that.

You seem to be fairly confident that there is little to no interest in anything above and beyond that point. Fair enough. Under that scenario, I would then hold the opinion that the Wings now have ownership that, at best, is EXTREMELY fan-unfriendly, and at worst, is a dried-up and embarrassing husk of its former self.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
Depends. Are they messageboard posters or are they heads of organizations with decades of experience within the sport?

If I'm someone with actual expertise I would see another team undervaluing a player and see if I can get them for less than I think they are worth.

If I'm someone who allows my evaluation of an individual player to be swayed by how a competitor utilizes the player, then I should be prepping my gif game for my impending free time.

It is easier to assess whether a player's game will actually translate to the NHL if you get to watch them against true NHL caliber competition for a meaningful number of games. Most people won't buy a boat unless they see it float or have some guarantee that it will float.

If professional athletics is a true meritocracy, the inability of a minor-league prospect to crack an NHL roster speaks volumes for the ability of that prospect.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
It is easier to assess whether a player's game will actually translate to the NHL if you get to watch them against true NHL caliber competition for a meaningful number of games. Most people won't buy a boat unless they see it float or have some guarantee that it will float.

If professional athletics is a true meritocracy, the inability of a minor-league prospect to crack an NHL roster speaks volumes for the ability of that prospect.

especially a bubble team capped out roster like ours. And while other GMs might think they can get our guy cheap, it also means we can't use him to get back the guy we need.
 

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
It is easier to assess whether a player's game will actually translate to the NHL if you get to watch them against true NHL caliber competition for a meaningful number of games. Most people won't buy a boat unless they see it float or have some guarantee that it will float.

If professional athletics is a true meritocracy, the inability of a minor-league prospect to crack an NHL roster speaks volumes for the ability of that prospect.

Luckily, Detroit is doing what's best for his development, not his trade value.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
So we wait 5 years to see if Saarijarvi and Cholowski are the answers. :help:
This is the nature of building through the draft, the only reliable way to build a winning team.

But more realistically we're talking 2-3 years for those two, and we're also going to see what guys like Hronek, Russo, XO, Sproul etc. are made of in the meantime. Patience.

It is easier to assess whether a player's game will actually translate to the NHL if you get to watch them against true NHL caliber competition for a meaningful number of games. Most people won't buy a boat unless they see it float or have some guarantee that it will float.

If professional athletics is a true meritocracy, the inability of a minor-league prospect to crack an NHL roster speaks volumes for the ability of that prospect.
So you would send a boat out to sea without a sail, with cracks in the hull, with a broken rudder just to "see if it floats"?

The inability of a minor-league prospects to crack an NHL roster may just be because that prospect still needs to develop. Mantha's call-up last season shows that he is getting closer, but he wasn't so good that I blame Holland for not clearing out a top 6 roster spot for him.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
So you would send a boat out to sea without a sail, with cracks in the hull, with a broken rudder just to "see if it floats"?

The inability of a minor-league prospects to crack an NHL roster may just be because that prospect still needs to develop. Mantha's call-up last season shows that he is getting closer, but he wasn't so good that I blame Holland for not clearing out a top 6 roster spot for him.

by the same token, do prospects need to do all of their development in GR? GR is teaching Mantha to be a very good AHLer. I don't think it's a given that it necessarily teaches him to be a very good NHLer. It might help remove some of the valleys from his transition to the NHL, but we also don't know if it flattens some of the peaks. It also ignores if he would be an upgrade to something we currently have, or whose shortcomings would be made up for in other ways (such as more cap space).

Also, I still haven't seen anyone say anything about clearing a top6 spot for any prospect. We could have a spot open for competition among prospects and camp invites but I don't think it's the same thing. But if someone like Callahan came to camp and killed it, he could earn that spot. Just as much as someone like AA or Mantha could. Or an invite like Cleary did.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
by the same token, do prospects need to do all of their development in GR? GR is teaching Mantha to be a very good AHLer. I don't think it's a given that it necessarily teaches him to be a very good NHLer. It might help remove some of the valleys from his transition to the NHL, but we also don't know if it flattens some of the peaks. It also ignores if he would be an upgrade to something we currently have, or whose shortcomings would be made up for in other ways (such as more cap space).

Also, I still haven't seen anyone say anything about clearing a top6 spot for any prospect. We could have a spot open for competition among prospects and camp invites but I don't think it's the same thing. But if someone like Callahan came to camp and killed it, he could earn that spot. Just as much as someone like AA or Mantha could. Or an invite like Cleary did.
The NHL isn't a development league. Mantha/AA/etc don't do ALL of their development in the AHL but they need to get to a certain point where they're not liabilities in the NHL, where they can handle the physicality and speed and the 82 game grind at a certain level.
What many fans ignore in the veteran vs. kid discussions is that it is very difficult to handle an NHL season. A guy like Darren Helm can be counted on to be basically the exact same player in Game 1 of the season as he is in Game 56 or Game 82. Larkin on the other hand was nowhere near the same player in the second half as he was in the first half. The grind wore him down. And he is a special, special kid. Many other prospects don't handle an NHL season nearly as well at that age. You don't want to rush prospects into the 82 game grind if you don't have to. AA got 30+ games last year, he'll probably get more this year. Mantha got 10 last year, he'll probably get more. Becoming an everyday NHLer is like climbing Mount Everest, you can't do it all in one climb. You need to get acclimatized (exceptions being of course the Crosbys of the world).
 

Chance on Chance

Registered User
Jul 15, 2009
2,851
0
Canada
This is the nature of building through the draft, the only reliable way to build a winning team.

But more realistically we're talking 2-3 years for those two, and we're also going to see what guys like Hronek, Russo, XO, Sproul etc. are made of in the meantime. Patience.


Please, it'll be 2-3 years in College for cholowski then a year of AHL then 2 years to probably actually get playing time in detroit.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
I'm not saying others have claimed the current approach is the best way to win a Cup.

You're explicitly asking people to defend a position that they haven't taken when you ask me to defend the idea that doing what Detroit is doing is the best way to get "high end pieces". I still don't know why you think that's a meaningful avenue of discussion.

I'm actually agreeing with you in a sense, because what I am saying is that the current approach CANNOT win a Cup.

That's a bit too strident a position for me, given that we're a whopping 10 or so years into a hard cap and that for every Chicago or LA there are 4-5 teams who were tanking yet who aren't an inch closer to a Cup now than they were the day they started.

You seem to be fairly confident that there is little to no interest in anything above and beyond that point. Fair enough. Under that scenario, I would then hold the opinion that the Wings now have ownership that, at best, is EXTREMELY fan-unfriendly, and at worst, is a dried-up and embarrassing husk of its former self.

And that's another somewhat overblown position.

They're taking a break from a hard Cup push that lasted 25 years. The longtime owner is in serious physical decline and (not to be morbid) is not too terribly long for the world. They're focusing their organizational energy on moving the team, making hundreds of millions from the city and their taxpayers, and trying to stay vaguely relevant throughout.

Can we just call it that and be accurate without having to inject 'Fan Outrage Component X-01' into our necks and thrash about like Bane as we declare the team to be 'an embarrassing husk' or whatnot?
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
especially a bubble team capped out roster like ours. And while other GMs might think they can get our guy cheap, it also means we can't use him to get back the guy we need.

Yes, because we see trades of multiple mediocre prospects for legit difference makers in the NHL all the time.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
Oh malarkey.

Mantha was bad last year. Maybe Mantha being in GR isn't a function of a vast Ken Holland led conspiracy, but him just being, you know, bad? Not ready yet, if he ever will be? Being picked late in the 1st is not an undeniable sign of sure NHL success, right?
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
It is easier to assess whether a player's game will actually translate to the NHL if you get to watch them against true NHL caliber competition for a meaningful number of games.

Easier for who? You, internet poster guy? Absolutely. Them, lifelong NHL scouts who've spent decades watching guys in non-NHL environments who've made careers detecting exactly that? Not really.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,017
11,677
Mantha was bad last year. Maybe Mantha being in GR isn't a function of a vast Ken Holland led conspiracy, but him just being, you know, bad? Not ready yet, if he ever will be? Being picked late in the 1st is not an undeniable sign of sure NHL success, right?

Who said it was a vast Ken Holland led conspiracy?

I'm saying Mantha looked serviceable when called up last year and I say they should consider giving him reps in the NHL to see what he can do. I anticipate that won't happen because Holland likes to over-ripen prospects (which I consider to be a detriment in some cases)

Getting time in the AHL is not the same as getting time in the NHL.

Also, use the multiple quote feature. Please.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Sure thing. Exactly like what happened with Larkin.

Obviously because it's happened one time that means players are all of a sudden now likely to bypass the entire 'overripe' development process.

Larkin is an aberration, we've seen players be good enough to play in the NHL over their lesser veteran counterparts - Holland values organizational depth rather than icing the best team. The only reason Mantha and AA would be sent down to GR is because they have waiver eligibility, it has nothing to do with their abilities.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,078
12,080
Tampere, Finland
I have my scorin chance data which is based on eye-test. Mantha should thrive on my stats as an offensive player. Still waiting that to happen. He did 50% of what AA and Larkin did on their ice-time as an offensive player.

When Larkin "hit a wall", he still played at higher level than Mantha on his call-up. Put more things happening per ice-time.

Larkin played 80 games + playoffs
Athanasiou played 37 games + playoffs
Mantha played 10 games

Pretty much guys were in right pecking order.

I hope Mantha is better at becoming season. At last he didn't deserve any more games than he did, AA and Larkin were in front of him, and earned spots on playoff roster.

No one knows yet how good or bad he will be at becoming season. Maybe Red Wings have made some fitness tests, but his on-ice level is still a question mark.
 
Last edited:

Run the Jewels

Make Detroit Great Again
Jun 22, 2006
13,819
1,751
In the Garage
Please, it'll be 2-3 years in College for cholowski then a year of AHL then 2 years to probably actually get playing time in detroit.

Yeah, the organization no longer seems very bullish on Ouellet who at best will make the roster as the #7 dman. Sproul will likely be waived. They were both 2nd round draft picks who were expected to be contributors by now. Wonder what happened there?

And with our college players who end up becoming pros they almost all go to college for three years. Abby did, Gus did, Jimmy did and Smith did. Not sure what happened to Smith who was a Hobey Baker finalist in college. Wonder what happened there?

Saarijarvi is going to need a long time to put on size. Cholowski is going to get at least 3 years in college and 2 years in the AHL. It's pretty clear this organization has drafted plenty of guys on defense over the years who should be contributors by now and none of them have developed into top 3 players.

It must be really bad luck that none of them wanted to develop into good NHL'ers. No reason at all to wonder about how they were developed in GR. Best to just shrug your shoulders and move on. It's not like drafting and development is our sole method of improving the team. :sarcasm:
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
Obviously because it's happened one time that means players are all of a sudden now likely to bypass the entire 'overripe' development process.

Larkin is an aberration, we've seen players be good enough to play in the NHL over their lesser veteran counterparts - Holland values organizational depth rather than icing the best team. The only reason Mantha and AA would be sent down to GR is because they have waiver eligibility, it has nothing to do with their abilities.
Why did it happen though? Because of a fluke? Or because Larkin was too good to hold back? Who are all the superstars we've been sending to GR for 5 years instead of letting them dominate the NHL? I'm waiting for that list. Cholowski could spend 2-3 years in college and jump right into the NHL, IF HE'S GOOD ENOUGH.

Mantha will be sent down if he's not good enough. If Jeff Blashill doesn't think he makes the team better.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,202
14,684
The NHL isn't a development league. Mantha/AA/etc don't do ALL of their development in the AHL but they need to get to a certain point where they're not liabilities in the NHL, where they can handle the physicality and speed and the 82 game grind at a certain level.
What many fans ignore in the veteran vs. kid discussions is that it is very difficult to handle an NHL season. A guy like Darren Helm can be counted on to be basically the exact same player in Game 1 of the season as he is in Game 56 or Game 82. Larkin on the other hand was nowhere near the same player in the second half as he was in the first half. The grind wore him down. And he is a special, special kid. Many other prospects don't handle an NHL season nearly as well at that age. You don't want to rush prospects into the 82 game grind if you don't have to. AA got 30+ games last year, he'll probably get more this year. Mantha got 10 last year, he'll probably get more. Becoming an everyday NHLer is like climbing Mount Everest, you can't do it all in one climb. You need to get acclimatized (exceptions being of course the Crosbys of the world).

This is just a very, VERY conservative approach to take. And basically verbatim what Holland says his approach is.

But they should be more flexible with when they elect to go with the known quantity over the unknown. They may break down, they may have some inconsistencies. But they may not. They may blow expectations out of the water. But as long as you don't give them opportunities, you will never even know.

Easier for who? You, internet poster guy? Absolutely. Them, lifelong NHL scouts who've spent decades watching guys in non-NHL environments who've made careers detecting exactly that? Not really.

I'm sure they have an idea in how they will fare. A better idea than any of us have, at least I'd hope. But you ultimately just don't know until you are thrown in against the highest level of competition and are tested. There are always going to be surprises.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
This is just a very, VERY conservative approach to take. And basically verbatim what Holland says his approach is.

But they should be more flexible with when they elect to go with the known quantity over the unknown. They may break down, they may have some inconsistencies. But they may not. They may blow expectations out of the water. But as long as you don't give them opportunities, you will never even know.
Didn't they do that with Larkin, Sheahan and Jurco? Plenty of callups for Nyquist and tatar too, those weren't opportunities?They gave XO chances but then Marchenko ended up taking the job. AA's 30+ games wasn't an opportunity or Mantha's 10 games?
What is an opportunity ? Being gifted a full-time roster spot for no reason and staying in the NHL for 82 games regardless of performance?
 

Chance on Chance

Registered User
Jul 15, 2009
2,851
0
Canada
Why did it happen though? Because of a fluke? Or because Larkin was too good to hold back? Who are all the superstars we've been sending to GR for 5 years instead of letting them dominate the NHL? I'm waiting for that list. Cholowski could spend 2-3 years in college and jump right into the NHL, IF HE'S GOOD ENOUGH.

Mantha will be sent down if he's not good enough. If Jeff Blashill doesn't think he makes the team better.

Then why do I keep hearing how great we are at drafting and development? Because we can draft wingers, literary the least important part of building a cup team.

since 2000 we have Filppua, Helm, Andersson, Sheahan and Larkin. So a 2nd line two 3rd line, a 4th line and who knows with Larkin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->