Strange verbiage from Bob McKenzie on TSN

[jkutswings]

I think you are over analyzing it. McKenzie is giving his opinion on what the Wings want, and Bob assumes the Wings want to rebuild. I don't think his comment is meant to make you think that his opinion is based on something he heard from within the DRW organization.

I re-read my original post, and now I can see how it comes across that way. Really I was just questioning the phrasing, but if anything, I would wonder about the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Holland has been so public with his aversion to bottoming out, that I assumed it was common knowledge, even in national media circles (at least for a guy like McKenzie, who I thought was very well connected). But it looks like Bob wasn't aware.

Really, it doesn't matter who was or wasn't aware of anything...as long as it's all about rebuilding going forward.

 

[MikeyDee]

I re-read my original post, and now I can see how it comes across that way. Really I was just questioning the phrasing, but if anything, I would wonder about the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Holland has been so public with his aversion to bottoming out, that I assumed it was common knowledge, even in national media circles (at least for a guy like McKenzie, who I thought was very well connected). But it looks like Bob wasn't aware.

Really, it doesn't matter who was or wasn't aware of anything...as long as it's all about rebuilding going forward.

I'd like to comment to the word REBUILDING. I'm finding it hard has a Red Wings fan to listen to others talk about tanking. I think tanking is a dreadful word that separates the true fan from the band-wagon fan or maybe just naïve about how the cap/lottery-era NHL works. Historically, look at what has happened to teams like the Edmonton Oilers and the Buffalo Sabres. These teams have many times had the chance to draft high and still come out in the pits. Tanking just to get a better draft pick doesn't solve anything. There's much more to winning and continued success than drafting high. At least Holland and the organization is trying to keep a winning attitude. I'm not trying to defend Holland here...just making the point that tanking isn't the way to go.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

I'd like to comment to the word REBUILDING. I'm finding it hard has a Red Wings fan to listen to others talk about tanking. I think tanking is a dreadful word that separates the true fan from the band-wagon fan or maybe just naïve about how the cap/lottery-era NHL works. Historically, look at what has happened to teams like the Edmonton Oilers and the Buffalo Sabres. These teams have many times had the chance to draft high and still come out in the pits. Tanking just to get a better draft pick doesn't solve anything. There's much more to winning and continued success than drafting high. At least Holland and the organization is trying to keep a winning attitude. I'm not trying to defend Holland here...just making the point that tanking isn't the way to go.

But there's a difference between tanking and rebuilding, and they're being conflated here. Deciding you don't have a chance to win and trading your big assets for draft picks isn't tanking, it's rebuilding. Draft picks for rebuilding don't just come out of thin air; you get them from trading roster players to better teams. Tanking is only when you actively manipulate your roster and lineup to intentionally create bad teams and get high draft picks.

The trouble is Holland himself gets them mixed up. He seems to think that selling his big assets is tanking, and that's not true at all. He just doesn't really want to rebuild. He wants to rebuild without having to pay for it, which is ridiculous. If you don't trade your good players, you don't get high picks in return. And if you don't have many high picks, you have a worse shot at even rebuilding at all. It's a self-defeating plan.

 

[jkutswings]

But there's a difference between tanking and rebuilding, and they're being conflated here. Deciding you don't have a chance to win and trading your big assets for draft picks isn't tanking, it's rebuilding. Draft picks fore rebuilding don't just come out of thin air; you get them from trading roster players to better teams. Tanking is only when you actively manipulate your roster and lineup to intentionally create bad teams and get high draft picks.

The trouble is Holland himself gets them mixed up. He seems to think that selling his big assets is tanking, and that's not true at all. He just doesn't really want to rebuild. He wants to rebuild without having to pay for it, which is ridiculous.

Agree x 100. For example, dealing Mike Green at the deadline is definitely accepting that you're not making the playoffs this season, but it's far from tanking. Really, it's just smart asset management (assuming you can get a decent return for him as a pending UFA).

For Detroit, tanking would be things like fully believing that Howard gives you a better chance to win games, and riding Mrazek to deliberately attempt the opposite.

 

[Redder Winger]

Tanking and rebuilding aren't the same thing. But sometimes they are.
Toronto tanked, pure and simple.
You can't tell me that Mike Babcock couldn't have put that team in the playoffs if he wanted to.
But it didn't fit the long term plan for the franchise. So they traded Kessell and Phaneuf and rode the kids to the bottom of the league.

Does anyone believe they made the wrong move?
Even if they wouldn't have lucked out in the lottery, I think they'd be a better team today with a better outlook as a result of their strategy.

If they used Ken Holland's strategy, they'd have kept Kessell and Phaneuf and they'd have finished 14th and lost in round 1.

Ken Holland continues blubbering on about the "winning culture" in Detroit. Blashill does too.

It's been gone for years. Nobody can tell me that overpaying Helm and Ericsson and Abdelkader and Nielsen and Daley, etc, is "winning culture."

Winning culture was created by ELITE, world class hockey players who were as diligent defensively as they were offensively.

I'd say that started going away the day they let Hossa walk.
It continued as Rafalski declined, and then Lidstrom retired, and Pavel and Hank declined.

When we stopped playing elite-level hockey, our winning culture disappeared.
Sure, guys like Pavel and Hank continued to show kids how to be professionals.
But honestly, how many years of losing in round 1 can you have and still claim to have "winning culture?"

 

[Redder Winger]

I'd like to comment to the word REBUILDING. I'm finding it hard has a Red Wings fan to listen to others talk about tanking. I think tanking is a dreadful word that separates the true fan from the band-wagon fan or maybe just naïve about how the cap/lottery-era NHL works. Historically, look at what has happened to teams like the Edmonton Oilers and the Buffalo Sabres. These teams have many times had the chance to draft high and still come out in the pits. Tanking just to get a better draft pick doesn't solve anything. There's much more to winning and continued success than drafting high. At least Holland and the organization is trying to keep a winning attitude. I'm not trying to defend Holland here...just making the point that tanking isn't the way to go.

My belief is you go with the kids and the youth.
If they sink, so be it.
If they swim, so be it.

It's a risk that you could plummet, but it's a calculated risk.

Because 1) You're giving your youth the experience they need and saying, "yes, we're going to have a lot of youthful mistakes." As a result, you might get a higher draft pick, and 2) You're trading away older players for future assets (propsects/picks)

It sure looks like a tank if you sink.

 

[Redder Winger]

But there's a difference between tanking and rebuilding, and they're being conflated here. Deciding you don't have a chance to win and trading your big assets for draft picks isn't tanking, it's rebuilding. Draft picks for rebuilding don't just come out of thin air; you get them from trading roster players to better teams. Tanking is only when you actively manipulate your roster and lineup to intentionally create bad teams and get high draft picks.

The trouble is Holland himself gets them mixed up. He seems to think that selling his big assets is tanking, and that's not true at all. He just doesn't really want to rebuild. He wants to rebuild without having to pay for it, which is ridiculous. If you don't trade your good players, you don't get high picks in return. And if you don't have many high picks, you have a worse shot at even rebuilding at all. It's a self-defeating plan.

One of Holland's problems is that he doesn't have many old players with any trade value.

It's a self-created problem, of course. But it's still the truth.

So what do Holland supporters do? They want to trade a 25 year old goalie and 25 year old center (Sheahan).

Meanwhile, guys like Helm, Ericsson, Abdelkader and Nielsen continue to take regular shifts -- in no jeopardy of being traded.

That's how f***ing botched this is.

For two years, Jimmy Howard trashed his trade value. Now that he might finally have trade value again, what's our solution?
Trade Mrazek.

Completely illogical.

Whether or not Mrazek is viewed as an option for this year or next year, Howard should be on the next flight out of Detroit. Two years ago, if someone said you could get a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Howard, Wings fans would have been all over it. Now that he's rescued his value, Wings fans want to keep him, even though he's 34 by the end of the season.

 

[Nut Upstrom]

One of Holland's problems is that he doesn't have many old players with any trade value.

It's a self-created problem, of course. But it's still the truth.

So what do Holland supporters do? They want to trade a 25 year old goalie and 25 year old center (Sheahan).

Meanwhile, guys like Helm, Ericsson, Abdelkader and Nielsen continue to take regular shifts -- in no jeopardy of being traded.

That's how ****ing botched this is.

For two years, Jimmy Howard trashed his trade value. Now that he might finally have trade value again, what's our solution?
Trade Mrazek.

Completely illogical.

Whether or not Mrazek is viewed as an option for this year or next year, Howard should be on the next flight out of Detroit. Two years ago, if someone said you could get a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Howard, Wings fans would have been all over it. Now that he's rescued his value, Wings fans want to keep him, even though he's 34 by the end of the season.

Not sure why I bother commenting as you're never ever wrong or out of line, but here goes...

It's convenient to take things out of perspective to make "Holland supporters" seem like morons. But with just a hint of perspective they look less moronic.
First, it is likely that we lose Mrazek after this season for nothing, hence some people have a desire to trade him. Saying the first while leaving out the other makes them look the fool, but once you mention the other part one can understand their line of thinking, even if I personally disagree. I am on record for suggesting we keep him, I think he still has starter level talent and we will regret it if we let him go, but I can understand the perspective of others who fear losing him for nothing.
I agree with you: keep Mrazek. Trade Howard. But there is some logic behind the notion of trading Mrazek even if you're not willing to accept that.

Secondly, come on, open your eyes man. Riley Sheahan has proven he has some value by his play since he was traded and I'm happy for him, but his play prior to being traded indicated he had pretty much given up on this team, this coach and this situation. A very simple case of a player needing a change of scenery: it's a story as old as the NHL - as old as any professional sport even. Because some people saw that and wanted him traded does not mean they are morons - it means they didn't conveniently rip perspective out of the picture to try to make others seem foolish. I mean if you say, "Hey, this player is making over 2M per year and only scored 2 goals in 82 games." Then it suddenly seems like not trading him is the illogical argument. Funny how easy it is to be right when you only present a fraction of the picture.
I was neutral on the Sheahan front; held out hope he'd turn things around, but as month after month passed it was becoming hard to believe that was going to happen for Riles here in Detroit. As miserable as he must have been here it's unlikely he would have re-signed when his current contract expires anyways. Again, hardly illogical even if some may disagree with it.

And yea, there is pretty much a unanimous consensus on the terrible contracts of Helm, Abdelkader, Ericsson and Nielsen; you score no points for repeatedly using them as support. The stink of those moves are going to cling to Holland for years.

 

[Redder Winger]

Not sure why I bother commenting as you're never ever wrong or out of line, but here goes...

It's convenient to take things out of perspective to make "Holland supporters" seem like morons. But with just a hint of perspective they look less moronic.
First, it is likely that we lose Mrazek after this season for nothing, hence some people have a desire to trade him. Saying the first while leaving out the other makes them look the fool, but once you mention the other part one can understand their line of thinking, even if I personally disagree. I am on record for suggesting we keep him, I think he still has starter level talent and we will regret it if we let him go, but I can understand the perspective of others who fear losing him for nothing.
I agree with you: keep Mrazek. Trade Howard. But there is some logic behind the notion of trading Mrazek even if you're not willing to accept that.

If we trade Howard right now we have 5 weeks to let Mrazek win the job or trade him too.
If we traded Howard right now, even if we weren't sure about our long term plans with Mrazek, we could qualify him without worrying about our salary cap.

If we trade the guy with value today, there's no impetus to move Mrazek while his value is at its lowest. And if Howard is traded, there's no reason we wouldn't keep Mrazek in the offseason - if we wanted him.
All we'd have to do is qualify him.
Maybe for 1 year even.

Secondly, come on, open your eyes man. Riley Sheahan has proven he has some value by his play since he was traded and I'm happy for him, but his play prior to being traded indicated he had pretty much given up on this team, this coach and this situation. A very simple case of a player needing a change of scenery: it's a story as old as the NHL - as old as any professional sport even. Because some people saw that and wanted him traded does not mean they are morons - it means they didn't conveniently rip perspective out of the picture to try to make others seem foolish. I mean if you say, "Hey, this player is making over 2M per year and only scored 2 goals in 82 games." Then it suddenly seems like not trading him is the illogical argument. Funny how easy it is to be right when you only present a fraction of the picture.
I was neutral on the Sheahan front; held out hope he'd turn things around, but as month after month passed it was becoming hard to believe that was going to happen for Riles here in Detroit. As miserable as he must have been here it's unlikely he would have re-signed when his current contract expires anyways. Again, hardly illogical even if some may disagree with it.

I'm not some huge Sheahan fan.
But what I saw was a defensively responsible center who could skate, win draws and who'd previously shown SOME offensive potential.
Somehow, it went down the toilet under coach Blashill. -- But you can say that about a lot of guys.

Here's the problem.
The Red Wings are the OLDEST and MOST EXPENSIVE team in the league - a team that most people predicted would miss the playoffs for a second team in a row.
Despite this, the Red Wings didn't have enough cap room to sign Athanasiou -- a guy who badly lost his contract stalemate.

How does a bottomfeeder team get put into a situation where it must choose between a $1.3M 23-year-old and a $2M $25-year-old.

That is not the choice that a rebuilding team makes.
That's terrible asset management/cap management.

I agree with you that Sheahan needed a change of scenery - scenery being code for "head coach."
WHich is exactly what Detroit needs.

Lo and behold, Riley Sheahan ranks fifth in points/60 on the Penguins - ahead of Sheary, Rust, Crosby, Guentzel and Hornqvist.

But here's the crime.
Holland traded Sheahan when his value was lowest. He was FORCED, thanks to his own roster, to trade the guy. And that weakened his hand.

When do we acknowledge the obvious: Trading guys at their lowest value is poor practice.

Two years ago, Ken Holland was desperately trying to trade Howard but couldn't find a taker.
Now that Howard's value is high, what's his solution?
Keep Howard and trade the low value goalie that nobody really wants.

Well, Gee Kenny, good thinking.

And yea, there is pretty much a unanimous consensus on the terrible contracts of Helm, Abdelkader, Ericsson and Nielsen; you score no points for repeatedly using them as support. The stink of those moves are going to cling to Holland for years.

You can't separate the Helm /Abby/Nielsen/Ericsson contracts from the Sheahan trade.
It's all part of the same body of work by a GM with confused priorities.

Custance has touched on this before.
Kyle at WIIM has touched on this before.

Ken Holland doesn't seem to have a vision. He's not quite rebuilding. He's not really trying to content
He's just clinging to some old bullshit about the "culture of winning," while going through the motions and maxing out his cap space.

I don't see why this isn't more plain to people.

 

[Dotter]

Just came back from a 10 day Caribbean cruise. Interesting to see the same-olds--same-olds around here are still clinging to the same-old regurgitated talking points. Around and around we-gooooooo......

Just watched 4 games to catch up on the Wings, and i am sure glad they have bested CHI. Mrazek with the SO should [hopefully] help his trade value.

And Rebuilding vs Tanking. I 100xagree with:

I'd like to comment to the word REBUILDING. I'm finding it hard has a Red Wings fan to listen to others talk about tanking. I think tanking is a dreadful word that separates the true fan from the band-wagon fan or maybe just naïve about how the cap/lottery-era NHL works. Historically, look at what has happened to teams like the Edmonton Oilers and the Buffalo Sabres. These teams have many times had the chance to draft high and still come out in the pits. Tanking just to get a better draft pick doesn't solve anything. There's much more to winning and continued success than drafting high. At least Holland and the organization is trying to keep a winning attitude. I'm not trying to defend Holland here...just making the point that tanking isn't the way to go.

And would like to add, which has already been discussed to death, Ken Holland is rebuilding. He's just not "rebuilding" the way the people who aren't qualified enough to have jobs in NHL want him to.

Yes, Mike Green will be traded for futures. Because that's what rebuilding teams do.

 

[Dotter]

But there's a difference between tanking and rebuilding, and they're being conflated here. Deciding you don't have a chance to win and trading your big assets for draft picks isn't tanking, it's rebuilding. Draft picks for rebuilding don't just come out of thin air; you get them from trading roster players to better teams. Tanking is only when you actively manipulate your roster and lineup to intentionally create bad teams and get high draft picks.

The trouble is Holland himself gets them mixed up. He seems to think that selling his big assets is tanking, and that's not true at all. He just doesn't really want to rebuild. He wants to rebuild without having to pay for it, which is ridiculous. If you don't trade your good players, you don't get high picks in return. And if you don't have many high picks, you have a worse shot at even rebuilding at all. It's a self-defeating plan.

This makes NO sense AT ALL! Do you really want to piss off the vets to the point they want to retire early and causes Detroit to eat huge recapture penalties til the year 2021?

Brilliant idea, Sparky!

 

[Pavels Dog]

My belief is you go with the kids and the youth.
If they sink, so be it.
If they swim, so be it.

It's a risk that you could plummet, but it's a calculated risk.

Because 1) You're giving your youth the experience they need and saying, "yes, we're going to have a lot of youthful mistakes." As a result, you might get a higher draft pick, and 2) You're trading away older players for future assets (propsects/picks)

It sure looks like a tank if you sink.

That’s a strategy that can lead to a lot of ”lost” seasons, where you might have a core group that’s good enough but too many inexperienced/bad kids to do anything. The ”sink or swim” strategy is honestly pretty bad and should be more of a last resort. You’ve won a couple cups and your core gets shiny new 10M dollar contracts? Sure, fill out depth with youngsters cheaply. But if you’re trying to establish a new young core, supporting them with young depth and having an entire roster full of ”sink or swim” types is a recipe for failure. I’m all for a more active approach to getting youth onto the roster in our current situation, but still want to keep from just throwing kids in if they haven’t proven they deserve it. If a kid is struggling in the AHL, putting him into the NHL is not a ’sink or swim’ approach, it’s a ”you’re going to drown” approach. Too often people complain about youngsters not getting chances, when those youngsters can’t even make an impact in the AHL.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

This makes NO sense AT ALL! Do you really want to piss off the vets to the point they want to retire early and causes Detroit to eat huge recapture penalties til the year 2021?

Brilliant idea, Sparky!

So we shouldn't rebuild because we might have huge recapture penalties, which will keep us from fielding a good team? I have news. If we don't rebuild, we won't have anything worth spending that recapture money on.

and only 3 years of recapture? Do we really need to max out the cap if we're rebuilding?

 

[MikeyDee]

Do we really need to max out the cap if we're rebuilding?

No, actually we really should be trying to be at the bottom, leaving room for the rebuild process.

 

[Pavels Dog]

No, actually we really should be trying to be at the bottom, leaving room for the rebuild process.

Optimal situation is being relatively close to the cap with plenty of depth, then adding 1 or 2 or 3 league minimum rookies that immediately turn into stars. Instant playoff team and possible contender. If the timing is right, depth players contracts run out as those young players get a bigger paycheck.

 

[Dotter]

So we shouldn't rebuild because we might have huge recapture penalties, which will keep us from fielding a good team? I have news. If we don't rebuild, we won't have anything worth spending that recapture money on.

and only 3 years of recapture? Do we really need to max out the cap if we're rebuilding?

The Wings are rebuilding; they are not tanking. Seems you confuse the two.

 

[njx9]

This makes NO sense AT ALL! Do you really want to piss off the vets to the point they want to retire early and causes Detroit to eat huge recapture penalties til the year 2021?

Brilliant idea, Sparky!

Define "huge recapture penalties". Do you mean the $3m (for 1 year) for Kronwall, if he retired this summer, rather than holding his $4.75m contract for a guy who could be replaced just fine by a guy on an entry level contract? Maybe you mean the "huge" $5m recap (for two years) for Z, that's still $1m less than his actual salary for another guy that, in an actual rebuild, could be replaced by an entry level player or a bargain basement vet? It's not like Franzen would cost under $3m for the next two years, if he randomly decided that moves made by a team he will never again play for were so egregious that he desperately wanted to punish them, but, I guess if we're living in some fantasy land where these equate to HUGE penalties that last till 2021, then maybe you're banking on it?

Maybe you just thought the Red Wings were responsible for Shea Weber's deal, for some reason.

 

[Dotter]

Define "huge recapture penalties". Do you mean the $3m (for 1 year) for Kronwall, if he retired this summer, rather than holding his $4.75m contract for a guy who could be replaced just fine by a guy on an entry level contract? Maybe you mean the "huge" $5m recap (for two years) for Z, that's still $1m less than his actual salary for another guy that, in an actual rebuild, could be replaced by an entry level player or a bargain basement vet? It's not like Franzen would cost under $3m for the next two years, if he randomly decided that moves made by a team he will never again play for were so egregious that he desperately wanted to punish them, but, I guess if we're living in some fantasy land where these equate to HUGE penalties that last till 2021, then maybe you're banking on it?

Maybe you just thought the Red Wings were responsible for Shea Weber's deal, for some reason.

Here's a chart for you if you haven't already seen it. The Cap Recapture Formula

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

The Wings are rebuilding; they are not tanking. Seems you confuse the two.

I guess it's fitting that if you don't understand it yourself, you think everybody else has got it wrong.

Bad team trading away assets to acquire draft picks? Rebuilding. This is the thing that bad teams have done to become good since, like, ever. Ever since the draft has come into existence.

Bad team trading away everything not bolted down to ice the worst team possible to maximize the automatic/lottery draft pick they get from the league? Tanking. This is a relatively new occurrence, excepting for the rumors about the Mario Lemieux draft.

Good team refusing to rebuild and drafting stars in the late rounds? "Rebuilding on the fly." This isn't even a category of strategy; this is Detroit clinging onto one thing they did one time. They got lucky one time, and now they're convinced they can get lucky forever. From a statistically impoverished standpoint, having great success when N=1 could convince you that you're destined for success over and over. But that's a mistake.

 

[njx9]

Here's a chart for you if you haven't already seen it. The Cap Recapture Formula

I literally quoted the values from it in my post. Why are you afraid to directly answer the question? I know your MO is distract and dissemble, but come on. Have a little integrity here.

 

[Redder Winger]

That’s a strategy that can lead to a lot of ”lost” seasons, where you might have a core group that’s good enough but too many inexperienced/bad kids to do anything.

So how would you describe the last two seasons?
Or the last 5 seasons?

The ”sink or swim” strategy is honestly pretty bad and should be more of a last resort. You’ve won a couple cups and your core gets shiny new 10M dollar contracts? Sure, fill out depth with youngsters cheaply. But if you’re trying to establish a new young core, supporting them with young depth and having an entire roster full of ”sink or swim” types is a recipe for failure.

Yeah, I think it depends on a lot of things
Depends on the kids you have.
Depends on the vets you keep.
Depends on the coach you have.
Depends on whether you have an owner willing to invest once you get good.
Depend on whether you have a GM able to identify and attain the players you need to complement your team.

Sink or Swim comes around in every player's career.
I like having Z and Kronwall around, but who are the other veterans who are so f***ing useful to keeping our kids focused?

And when Z and Kronwall are gone, the kids ARE the core.
Abdelkader? Helm? Glendening? THey're not the core.

So one way or the other - the kids ARE the core.

If you think that it makes a huge difference to have Nielsen and Abdelkader on line 3, I don't see it.
You can replace Abby in UFA fairly easily with a much cheaper guy. Nielsen isn't doing anything in Detroit that the much younger and cheaper Sheahan isn't doing in Pittsburgh.

I’m all for a more active approach to getting youth onto the roster in our current situation, but still want to keep from just throwing kids in if they haven’t proven they deserve it. If a kid is struggling in the AHL, putting him into the NHL is not a ’sink or swim’ approach, it’s a ”you’re going to drown” approach. Too often people complain about youngsters not getting chances, when those youngsters can’t even make an impact in the AHL.

Nobody is talking about putting undeserving kids in the lineup and keeping them there.

You're exaggerating my point and then arguing against it.

In my view I could run the following for the rest of the year.
Say we traded Zetterberg, Green, Howard and Helm.

We'd still have:

Nyquist Larkin Abdelkader
Bertuzzi Athanasiou Mantha
Frk Nielsen Tatar
Glendening Turgeon Booth
(Witkowski)

Dekeyser Daley
Kronwall Ericsson
Ouellet Jensen

Mrazek
Coreau

That's still a fairly old lineup.
And it's not much worse than we're currently icing.

You'd get returns on your trades.
You'd get good experience for Larkin, Athanasiou, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Frk and Turgeon ---
5 guys who've earned it, I think.

I'd even consider moving Kronwall to make room for Hronek.
And then next year, have Hronek and Cholo compete for a job.

That's what rebuilding looks.

Is this:
Dekeyser Daley
Kronwall Ericsson
Ouellet Jensen

Much better than this:
Dekeyser Daley
Ericsson Jensen
Ouellet Hronek

?

 

[Pavels Dog]

So how would you describe the last two seasons?
Or the last 5 seasons?

Last 2 seasons were largely "lost" in my eyes. Before that, no. 100 point season, playoff appearances where you're decently competitive, exciting hockey for most of the season, star players worth watching (Dats, Z, prime Kronner, 40-goal pace Nyquist etc.)... nah those are not lost seasons. We were close to maxing out of the potential of the roster, some bad luck with injuries stopped what could have been a playoff run or two.

In my view I could run the following for the rest of the year.
Say we traded Zetterberg, Green, Howard and Helm.

We'd still have:

Nyquist Larkin Abdelkader
Bertuzzi Athanasiou Mantha
Frk Nielsen Tatar
Glendening Turgeon Booth
(Witkowski)

Dekeyser Daley
Kronwall Ericsson
Ouellet Jensen

Mrazek
Coreau

That's still a fairly old lineup.
And it's not much worse than we're currently icing.

You'd get returns on your trades.
You'd get good experience for Larkin, Athanasiou, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Frk and Turgeon ---
5 guys who've earned it, I think.

I'd even consider moving Kronwall to make room for Hronek.
And then next year, have Hronek and Cholo compete for a job.

That's what rebuilding looks.

Is this:
Dekeyser Daley
Kronwall Ericsson
Ouellet Jensen

Much better than this:
Dekeyser Daley
Ericsson Jensen
Ouellet Hronek

?

I mean, most of that is happening or will happen either way. You're more aggressive, you remove Howard which is a clear tanking move, and you trade Z which will never happen. But otherwise, Green is likely to be traded and instead of Helm maybe Booth and Witkowski. Kronwall could easily go on LTIR. Hronek and Cholo will have chances to compete for jobs. XO and Jensen are not untouchable. All the kids you mention are getting good experience already, except MAYBE Turgeon who also is easily the one who has earned it the least. I could see Rasmussen making the team out of camp next year, maybe (hopefully) Svech can make a run for a job too. It's all happening, without need for horrible moves like trading Z.

 

[Dotter]

I guess it's fitting that if you don't understand it yourself, you think everybody else has got it wrong.

Bad team trading away assets to acquire draft picks? Rebuilding. This is the thing that bad teams have done to become good since, like, ever. Ever since the draft has come into existence.

Bad team trading away everything not bolted down to ice the worst team possible to maximize the automatic/lottery draft pick they get from the league? Tanking. This is a relatively new occurrence, excepting for the rumors about the Mario Lemieux draft.

Good team refusing to rebuild and drafting stars in the late rounds? "Rebuilding on the fly." This isn't even a category of strategy; this is Detroit clinging onto one thing they did one time. They got lucky one time, and now they're convinced they can get lucky forever. From a statistically impoverished standpoint, having great success when N=1 could convince you that you're destined for success over and over. But that's a mistake.

ding!-ding!-ding! That is EXACTLY what Ken Holland is doing, hence REBUILDING!

Red Wings have/will have more draft picks than possibly any other team the past 2 or 3 years after 2018. Wings had more draft selections last draft than they had the past 20+ years! And I think were tied for most draft selections than any other team in the NHL from trading assets in 2017.

To quote you again....

"Bad team trading away assets to acquire draft picks? Rebuilding"

Wings selected 11 players last season when other teams drafted..... 7. No doubt 2018 will be 11+ picks (or more) from trading assests. REBUILDING! (using your description).

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

ding!-ding!-ding! That is EXACTLY what Ken Holland is doing, hence REBUILDING!

Red Wings have/will have more draft picks than possibly any other team the past 2 or 3 years after 2018. Wings had more draft selections last draft than they had the past 20+ years! And I think were tied for most draft selections than any other team in the NHL from trading assets in 2017.

To quote you again....

"Bad team trading away assets to acquire draft picks? Rebuilding"

Wings selected 11 players last season when other teams drafted..... 7. No doubt 2018 will be 11+ picks (or more) from trading assests. REBUILDING! (using your description).

Are you trying to judge a draft based on the raw number of picks? By that logic, accumulating a ton of 7th round picks would be a good strategy.

My point was that you aren't rebuilding if you don't sell. Rebuilding on the fly is not a strategy, it's a fluke. Until Holland sells, he's not taking rebuilding seriously.

 

[Henkka]

Here's a chart for you if you haven't already seen it. The Cap Recapture Formula

So?

Rasmussen will start his ELC and Zetterberg retires after current season.

Rasmussen's ELC = 925k + Zetterberg recapture 5.1M = combined 6.0M ~current Zetterberg caphit.

Recapture goes away after 2021, when Rasmussen ELC ends and guy will need a raise. Ending recapture creates the cap room.

***

Franzen will be LTIRed until the end, nothing to see in here.

I think Kronwall could try to play in the end, or be LTIRed too for the final season. Some cap floor team could buy one or both of these contracts for better finances. Nothing to see in here either.